Bundles

[BBStoreMgr112233]

Originally Posted by BBW[BlockBusterWorker]

Name calling? Really? Is this what it comes down to? What are you 5?

Who cares what Hot Head looks like or what he drives? (except for LP moles and Hot Head himself)

While it IS true that most stores do use deceptive practices to sell their products it is NOT the intention of corporate HOWEVER it is due to the fear DM's, RDO's and Corporate instill upon employees WHICH makes them engage in such practices.

LMAO, so it is ok for Hot Head to tell everyone FU, but I poke a little fun of him and I am now 5? Nothing but a heard of followers in this forum. Too funny!

Let me take a moment to thank each and everyone of you for the daily entertainment. This forum is like the TMZ of Blockbuster. Absolutely hilarious!

[BBStoreMgr112233]

Originally Posted by Hot Head

Suck on this here is the law for deception.

Generally deception is the act of causing one to believe information that is not true or an untruth or not the whole truth. The Federal Trade Commission will find an act or practice deceptive if there is a misrepresentation, omission, or other practice that misleads the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer's detriment.
Example of a State Statute ( Indiana) on Deception
In Indiana, Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 35-43-5-3, makes deception or criminal deception a Class A misdemeanor.
The relevant law as it appears in the statute
Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 35-43-5-3. Deception.
(a) A person who:
(1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent;
(2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity;
(3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted;
(4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either:
(A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or
(B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity;
(5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service;
(6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property;
(7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine;
(8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug;
(9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;
(10) with intent to defraud, misrepresents a person as being a physician licensed under IC 25-22.5; or
(11) knowingly and intentionally defrauds another person furnishing cable TV service by avoiding paying compensation for that service by any scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service;
commits deception, a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) In determining whether an advertisement is false, misleading, or deceptive under subsection (a) (9), there shall be considered, among other things, not only representations contained or suggested in the advertisement, by whatever means, including device or sound, but also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal material facts in the light of the representations.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/deception/

Ok so which one of these were violated?

[Hot Head]

Originally Posted by BBStoreMgr112233

Ok so which one of these were violated?

You decide I could care less you should be bringing this out since you think blockbuster doesn't commit deception. Cmon know it all.

FYI your too old; let go.

[BBStoreMgr112233]

Originally Posted by Hot Head

You decide I could care less you should be bringing this out since you think blockbuster doesn't commit deception. Cmon know it all.

FYI your too old; let go.

So you can't identify the deception? Just following along to add in your flavor of FU's eh? No problem. Continue on.

[Hot Head]

Originally Posted by BBStoreMgr112233

So you can't identify the deception? Just following along to add in your flavor of FU's eh? No problem. Continue on.

You were supposed to teach me Mr. know it all and now your doing what other's on this website do. They change the fucking subject.

Then you would throw this at me since your so fucking brilliant:

Deceit is the intentional act of misleading a person of ordinary prudence by giving false impression. If a person knowingly or recklessly misrepresent a fact to another he is said to deceit the other. Tortuous liability can be imposed on a person who falsely represents a fact with the intention to make another person detrimentally rely and act upon it. The four elements of the tort of deceit are:

False representation of a fact.

Representation made with the knowledge that it is false.

Intention to make the plaintiff to act upon the belief that the fact is true.

Proof of damage sustained by the plaintiff upon acting on the false information.

Deception may involve dissimulation, distraction, camouflage, concealment, propaganda, or sleight of hand.

[Propoxy]

Generally deception is the act of causing one to believe information that is not true or an untruth or not the whole truth.

The deception is that they are saying the prp is 2 for $23 and you get the candy, etc, for free. That is not true.

[BBStoreMgr112233]

Originally Posted by Hot Head

You were supposed to teach me Mr. know it all and now your doing what other's on this website do. They change the fucking subject.

Then you would throw this at me since your so fucking brilliant:

Deceit is the intentional act of misleading a person of ordinary prudence by giving false impression. If a person knowingly or recklessly misrepresent a fact to another he is said to deceit the other. Tortuous liability can be imposed on a person who falsely represents a fact with the intention to make another person detrimentally rely and act upon it. The four elements of the tort of deceit are:

False representation of a fact.

Representation made with the knowledge that it is false.

Intention to make the plaintiff to act upon the belief that the fact is true.

Proof of damage sustained by the plaintiff upon acting on the false information.

Deception may involve dissimulation, distraction, camouflage, concealment, propaganda, or sleight of hand.

You can post all this crap all you want. Again, I ask you where is the deception? The original poster stated the sign was 2 for $23. The customer expected to pay $23 plus tax. Are you saying they were deceived in the fact that they didn't know they were not only going to get their 2 movies but also a coke, candy and popcorn with it too? That isn't deception, that is a bonus. The customer was not charged more than what they thought they were going to pay and they got MORE than what they were getting. There was no deception.

Certainly arguments can be made that this is a bad choice to combine these and certainly you can agrue about bundles in general. But none of this is related to the point that I was simply trying to make and that is that the customer was not charged more than what was advertised and they not only got what they thought they were getting, but got more.

[Hot Head]

Originally Posted by BBStoreMgr112233

You can post all this crap all you want. Again, I ask you where is the deception? The original poster stated the sign was 2 for $23. The customer expected to pay $23 plus tax. Are you saying they were deceived in the fact that they didn't know they were not only going to get their 2 movies but also a coke, candy and popcorn with it too? That isn't deception, that is a bonus. The customer was not charged more than what they thought they were going to pay and they got MORE than what they were getting. There was no deception.

Certainly arguments can be made that this is a bad choice to combine these and certainly you can agrue about bundles in general. But none of this is related to the point that I was simply trying to make and that is that the customer was not charged more than what was advertised and they not only got what they thought they were getting, but got more.

+1 on what propoxy said

the deception is also that these items are not ment to be looked at bundled together; but seperate.

[BBW[BlockBusterWorker]]

Originally Posted by BBStoreMgr112233

LMAO, so it is ok for Hot Head to tell everyone FU, but I poke a little fun of him and I am now 5? Nothing but a heard of followers in this forum. Too funny!

Let me take a moment to thank each and everyone of you for the daily entertainment. This forum is like the TMZ of Blockbuster. Absolutely hilarious!

Saying Fuck You is completely different from saying let me get out some paper and crayons and draw my depiction of you.

Hot Head clearly hates you for how much you defend Blockbuster. Why you do it? I don't know. Just always remember when it comes time for Blockbuster to defend you they WILL draw their swords on you and tear you apart.

[BBStoreMgr112233]

Originally Posted by Propoxy

The deception is that they are saying the prp is 2 for $23 and you get the candy, etc, for free. That is not true.

If the decision of that store manager, DM, or RDO was to make this combined offer and the offer is clearly marked and advertised, then it is not deceptive. The promotion was that for $23, you get 2 PRP movies, 1 drink, 1 candy, and one popcorn.

Should a store ignore the normal seperate bundles and create a new combined bundle outside corporate's direction? I would agree that it should be something company directed and not done individually by a store, district or region. I agree this store is violating company policy and should not be making this offer. However, the offer in itself, properly advertised as it was, was not deceptive to the customer. They paid what was advertised and got what was advertised.