Meijers in BLOINGBROOK, IL made a big boo boo

Status
Not open for further replies.
yep lets just lock this thread here im kinda tried of the internet warriors i did nothing wrong and you know it i wont say sorry for getting a great deal sorry infact i called meijers and asked if they had to honor a marked price thae said yes. to bad for you that you didnt get any and you enjoy paying retail so mods please lock this thread so i dont have to listen to "honest" people
 
WOW! I bet you guys all think it OK to buy a CD and then burn copy's for all your friends, too. Theft is theft. Getting away with it is one thing, but glorifying it is another. You are justifying this out of envy- the same old socialist weapon used to create class war- somehow, the "big guys" can afford it. So since you think they can, it is OK to steal? And call it what you will, I will call it theft when you KNOW for CERTAIN, that the price is totally wrong and then leverage the mistake to cost another. This is exactly the same sort of reasoning that I have heard thieves espouse "if they didn't want it stolen, they should have protected it better." If you really think what you did was ethical , I suggest you become a politician.
 
Dunno if I'd go so far as to call it "theft", but I will say that I believe it is less than ethical. I would hope that I'd have the strength to not sell out my moral compass for a crate of .22 ammo.

Besides, what could be worse than ammo with bad Karma? :what:
 
gaudio5-

Why should the thread be locked? You posted about what you did and some people have disagreed with your decision to clean the store out.

Your anger at dissenting opinions of your actions is a pretty sorry reason to lock the thread. You started it, you should see it through to whatever conclusion it comes to.

If you owned the store that just gave away thousands of dollars of ammunition would you be here gloating about it? Would you be celebrating the loss of revenue due to a computer glitch?

It apparently was a mistake. Does that make it okay to clean out the entire inventory? Someone paid for that ammo. So there has been a signifigant monetary loss from somewhere.

Your gloating over the fact has gotten people stirred up.

The boasting about getting a $16.00 item for $1.00 and then exploiting that to the point where the employees had to "wraped it on a pallett for me" is really what got to me. Had you gotten your 2 boxes and been on your way I could kind of understand. But no, you had to clean them out when you knew they were priced at 1/16 of what they were supposed to be. And then you come here patting yourself on the back about how you ripped off them off so thoroughly that they had to shrink wrap your purchase and you "now have more boxes of 22lr then anybody....."

That's theft, whether you want to admit or not.
 
Is it wrong to not point out severe mispricing in all circumstances?

What if you see a gun in a case tagged $200 but you know, with little difficulty you could sell it for $1000 elsewhere. What do you do? We hear of smokin' deals on guns all the time on THR, no one seems to mind those.

What if at a flea market for some local do-gooder outfit you see something priced at .25 cents that you know is worth $50,000. What do you do? They need the money but that would be a huge windfall for you as well.

What if there was a closeout sale and stuff was being sold in lots, you dig through one and see that due to the items in the lot, that it is way underpriced? What do you do? Is it your responsibility?

What if you didn't check the lot and when you get home you notice that you have more than you should? Are you morally obligated to take what you think is the excess back?

What if someone you know of wants a certain expensive gemstone? It costs so much because it is so hard to mine, but you find one on the ground. It cost you nothing to aquire it do you still sell it for the market price?
 
Last edited:
Tokugawa: You should pick a better example. Intellectual "property" can be neither legitimately owned nor stolen. It is a wholly artifical abstraction of law.

Exposure: As far as I'm concerned, the thread should probably be locked because it's only going to go downhill from here. But I am fortunate enough to have not been cursed with the power to do so. :D
 
How do you look at your lying selves in the face in the morning. Go ahead, let me hear more of your rationalizing of not doing the right thing. It is just an inspiration to all the dirtballs out there.

I put $1.00 in chip machine the other day, and two bags fell out. I kept both of them.

As others have said, it is a business model. It is cheaper to have an automated machine that gives extra chips sometimes than to pay to have a person handle the transaction, so basically someone lost their job because it was a minor profit gain for the company.

Same thing with large chain stores that pay absolute minimum wage and demand blind obedience to machines, printouts, and policies. These companies have made the descision that a smart counter person that would be able to answer your technical questions as well as spot when the machines, printouts, and policies are in error don't apply for those positions at $5.00 The company knows this, it is their decision.

They are willing to give up profit when a 20 year old wants to buy .357 magnum ammo for his leveraction but the computer says no and to have a thinker costs too much. Because it is cheaper in the long run to pay $5.00 an hour and let the occasional sale not go through or the occasional box get mispriced, many people have lost reasonable paying jobs.

I am not the floor supervisor, the department head, the cheif of tvs, or whatever they called the guy who got $12 rather than $8 let alone the button slave who gets $5

I think it is ethical and right to get an honest days pay for an honest job. When I start being their employee trainer or inventory control officer, they need to pay me, give me benifits, and put me under their worker's comp umbrella.

Once they start paying me to train and/or correct I sure as hell will make sure that the clerk charges per box of 100, not per brick.

Until then, nope.
 
wow, some guys have small hearts here.. getting jealous over a guy making a good score, give me a break. He did better than you, get over it...

So, the the Ethics scholars among us I pose a question:

You're in a public park. You sit down on a bench, and next to you is a shopping bag with a brand new Ipod in it. Someone forgot it. No one is around... What do you do?? Take it?? Hand it in to the city Lost and found, or leave it??

Dont lie, we can tell,lol
 
Deanimator said:
Situational Ethics and a belief in Relativism have brought us to this point.
If you DON'T believe in "situational ethics" then you either:

Believe that ALL violence is WRONG and would rather stand by and watch a Jihadi slaughter people at the mall, rather than shoot him.

or

Believe that ALL violence is RIGHT and would shoot someone to death because he beat you to a parking space at Walmart.

Straw Man Argument!

I'm sorry, but that is a straw man argument. You have fallaciously asserted that if someone believes in absolutes then there are only two possible beliefs anyone can have about violence. This is attributing an either/or belief were none exists. I never made such an assertion about violence. The either/or belongs to you alone. Another fallacious assumption you have made is that anyone who believes in absolutes will view everything in as an either/or situation.

Situational Ethics and Relativism, as taught in the present day American Government education system utterly reject any absolutes (except for the absolute belief that there are no absolutes) ... especially when those absolutes appeal to Higher Moral Authority. My point is that there are some absolutes regarding right and wrong. Relativism directs you to make decisions based on the moment and most assuredly with an eye on personal benefit … it is human nature. Absolutes will direct you to make decisions with an eye on that Higher Moral Authority … regardless of personal benefit (or loss).

As for your violence scenarios … a Jihadi slaughtering people at the mall would definitely be in violation of the absolute belief that all innocent human life is worth defending. I would shoot him. Your parking space scenario does not meet the criteria for justifiable violence therefore no shooting and no violence takes place.

Yes, absolutists make decisions based on “situations” but always with an adherence to that Higher Moral Authority and not to Self.

About this thread ... the OP made a decision that benefited himself without any regard to moral or ethical behavior. It was his choice. I am sure when the dollar loss is noticed; it will be very hard not to blame a "gun owner" based on the product purchased. I'm a "gun owner" so I spoke up.
 
Last edited:
I doubt we will read a post as excited as this one if you were losing the amount of money you just 'saved.' Instead it would be a rant about how 'I got screwed today.'

Re-read that. Note the word 'SCREWED' rather than 'ROBBED'?

I work for a large electronics company. They subcontracted to china to make a storebrand DVD, and then did the same thing for a DVD/VCR. Well, they didn't write the specs very carefully for the DVD/VCR combo, and didnt' specify the inclusion of a tuner. Now we have a DVD/VCR combo that can only record on the channel your TV (or cable or satelitte) is set on when oyu leave. It is incapable of recording a show at 7 PM on channel 11, and then at 8PM on channel 9. We got 'screwed' but it wasnt' criminal. It was because the company made the choice to go for the absolute lowest price manufacturing choice. 9 times out of 10 it is more profitable. That 1 time in 10it is less profitable. If it evens out that the 9 are enough more profitable, we will continue to do it. If that 1 in 10 gets too expensive, then it is time to look somewhere else. That's not ethics, that's business.

Situational Ethics and a belief in Relativism have brought us to this point.

You know what is relative? Price. Nothing has innate monitary value. Everything is negotable. Just because you agreed to pay $1.00 for a garden gnome at a Austin Texas garage sale and some guy who collects them bough the same exact gnome on ebay paid $50 doesn't mean you stole $49.

Same way if a guy sells you an item for $99.00 and later on see it for $79.99 at a different store, the first guy did not steal $20 from you.

Hell, I am doing that right now. Found an item I wanted for 99.00 +15 S&H, did some searches and found the same item for 129.99+20 S&H and as low as 69.99 +18 S&H.
 
People seem concerned that the little counter girl might have lost her job. It's unlikely. It's more likely the person that entered the wrong price got his butt chewed, and deservedly so. Hopefully this will prompt them to also look at revising the procedure they follow when a customer informs them a price is incorrect and is "LOWER" than it should be. This should trigger an immediate call to a manager or front-end supervisor to review it.
 
I went to Walmart once, scanned some stuff at the self checkout, everything beeped. I paid, and left. Later that night I dug the receipt outta my pocket, was looking it over, and realized that my $25 gallon of Mobil 1 didn't register for some reason, even though it DID beep, as it did tell me to put it in the little scale thing on the side.

I wasn't going to go back and argue with some underpaid person, after waiting to talk to them for 30 minutes, just for them to go "Huh?!?" A normal clerk would have caught it and called for a price check.

Ethical? I could argue that they already factored errors like that into the selection of using a self-checkout system. But, it's Walmart, so screw 'em.

One day if I'm a big corporation, and I decide to go for the cheapest route possible, and you are the person who catches a deal, then good for you. I would have already made a ton of profit off of you and others like you, and I'll learn my lesson from it.
 
Interesting thread for THR and sort of ironic as well.

I guess my mother raised me wrong - I don't take advantage of someone elses obvious mistakes. I know that puts me at odds with some here, but for the the life of me I can't figure out why it should.
 
Gaudio5 was the customer his only real obligation is to pick out what he wants and pay for it. Expecting him to know the prices and enforce them if he does know them isn't a sound policy.He pointed out that the price was wrong. The employee said it wasn't. He then bought an entire pallet full of ammo. Surely the manager noticed THIS. If so he should have inquired. If he didn't notice or did notice and didn't do anything he wasn't doing his job. After all the manager is paid to run the store and keep profit up not to flirt with the sales girls or talk to his buddies or even to sit in the office on the phone.
 
The real argument here is over the question of how far one's obligation to interfere in other's affairs extends. The buyer in this instance brought notice of the price discrepancy to the seller. The seller took note, and chose not to take action. At this point, the buyer could have chose to expend an inordinate amount of time and energy to correct the seller's mistake, by bringing in a manager, or taking it up the corporate ladder, but sooner or later one has to ask when it stops being a favor towards a corporation, and becomes unpaid sales consultancy.

As others have pointed out, price is an arbitrarily set standard, and in a free market sellers can ask whatever amount they wish. If the buyer feels that the asking price is fair (or has no choice as to their need), then they'll pay it. It is the seller's responsibility to set a price that reflects their desired profit.
 
Oh how I do relish the opportunity to observe those who would trot about on their high horse, for when they fall, and to be certain fall they eventually will, it provides one of life's great specticles. But, please, do not equate a high horse with THR.
 
Let's reverse the situation. Suppose they advertised $1 a box and when you get there they say the ad was a mistake and it's supposed to be $15? You drove 45 minutes to get there, are you going to demand the $1 a box price?

Also, what would happen if the clerks started ignoring the scanner price and manually typed in what they think the "real" price ought to be? Who's losing their job now? "Uh, Joey, your register is over by $200. Can I see you in my office?"

When you think about it, Meijer's had no choice but to sell the boxes at $0.99 because pricing decisions are not made at that level in their business model.
 
a Jihadi slaughtering people at the mall would definitely be in violation of the absolute belief that all innocent human life is worth defending.
But that's a DIFFERENT absolute than the one I posited, ISN'T it? I didn't posit an absolute belief that all innocent human life is worth defending, DID I? I posited either a belief that VIOLENCE is always WRONG, or always RIGHT. If you have to change the premise of the argument, you conceded the other person's point.
 
Last edited:
>You Men Are Rationalizing Being Theives And Lowlifes.

Hmmm.

Way I see it, the OP had two choices :

1. Insist on paying $15.99 a box for the ammo. As various other posters have pointed out, this is impossible. Can't be done. Their system won't allow it.

2. Pay 99c / box. Which amounts to theft in your opinion.

So... which option do you think he should have gone for? And I don't want to put words in your mouth so you can suggest a third option (for example, "walk away" would have avoided this whole thread but would also have left the OP ammo-less).

Although maybe what you're saying is that buying the original two boxes at 99c each would have been OK, but then clearing the entire stock was theft? That could be fun to justify...
 
FASCINATING discussion--and I mean that, no sarcasm intended. Here's my 2 cents:

Is there such a thing as "Right" and "Wrong"? I think everyone here would agree, absolutely, "yes." But having said that, we ought to also agree that there are degrees of right, and degrees of wrong. It's wrong to insult a stranger for no reason; it's worse to punch him in the face, worse still to attack him with a weapon, even worse to murder him, and worst of all to murder a large number of people without provocation, as has been done--by Jojo Hennard in my hometown of Killeen, Texas, and by Joseph Cho at Virginia Tech. Such people are commonly called "maniacs" (or sometimes "Islamic militants"), but a better word is simply "evil".

Extreme examples, I know, but bear with me.

At the other end of the scale, there are degrees of good: it's good to give a few dollars to a needy person; better to take your own time to help him find work: better still to make a large contribution to a reputable charity, and best of all to "sell all you have and give to the poor," as some famous guy once recommended--and has been done, by Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and others. Such people are commonly called "saints".

Nobody here is either a demented mass murderer or a saint.

What's my point? Just this; we all draw the line at different places. There just aren't any simple, easy answers, even though some seem to think so.

Was it right to call the clerk's attention to the mispricing? I would say, absolutely yes. I think it would be wrong to just buy the mispriced item without at least that attempt at honesty. Was it right to go ahead and buy the item after that? I would say, no--but I would probably have done it anyway. The difference is, I wouldn't be kidding myself that I still qualified for sainthood and everything was just A-OK. It would have been a lapse; a small one, but still a lapse.

Personally, I would not have been able to live with loading up a pallet at that price. That is over MY line, and I think it was wrong. I suspect that the OP thought so too, but decided that the ethical lapse was worth the money.

We've all done it--violated our own standards--to one degree or another; the question is, how far over your own line are you willing to step? And when you do, do you have the right to pretend it was ethical? I say, you can maintain that it wasn't a BIG deal, but you should at least admit that your hands aren't sparkling clean.

There have been a couple of irrelevancies here, IMHO: first, that it's the company's mistake. That doesn't matter; knowingly taking advantage of an error is still unethical. A fair price is a fair price, and if you're not paying it, that's wrong. The question is, as I'm trying to say here, how wrong is it, and is it worth it to you to do that amount of wrong?
If you think it's no big deal, go ahead and do it, but don't pretend it's as right as insisting, at the cost of your time and money, that the store correct the error. That COULD have been done, even if you have to make the store manager get his regional manager on the phone and let you talk to him personally. Would I have done that? Probably not; but it's more likely I'd do that than clean out the store.

Second irrelevancy: that it's a "big corporation". Sorry, but portraying big corporations as fat-cat bad guys is liberal BS, and you guys should know better. Who actually owns big corporations? Who gets the profits? Sure, some of their CEOs get obscenely large salaries and bonuses--but still, the overwhelming majority of those profits go to the stockholders, who are likely to be ordinary people like you and me. In fact, the bigger the company, the more likely that is to be true; huge companies like Exxon and AT&T--and, of course, Wal-Mart--are routinely described as "widows and orphans" stocks, where small investors put their money to keep it safe. Sleazy speculators don't deal in them much; there's no quick profits there, only steady returns. So don't pretend you're "stealing from the rich". You're not.

God gave us free will, and that includes the responsibility of deciding what is right and what is wrong, and in what circumstances--and not casually, but seriously and with our souls, as it were, in our hands. In my opinion, God doesn't expect us all to be Mother Teresas--but He doesn't expect us to just grab what we can when we can, either.

Okay, so it was six cents.
 
This is in no way considered "theft". The OP basically got a spectacular deal that he took advantage of. He made comment about the error to the cashier and they refused to correct it. If he had the funds, then it was his right to buy as many as he wished. Pure capitalism at work. The Meijer store managers will simply be alerted to the mistake, take action to minimize it happening again, and corporate will basically write it off the books. It happens everyday.

Many years ago Best Buy was in a similar situation in selling drastically discounted cell phones to anyone who walked in their stores even if a new contract wasn't signed. Their cellular folks would sell $200 phones for $10 and corporate lost a fortune. Basically it amounted to poor register programming and poor communications among new workers. Best Buy finally put a firm stop to this. They're still in business going strong and I've never heard anyone going to jail for "theft" in buying one :rolleyes:
 
The strong language used has created a false argument.

The original poster did not commit theft. He paid the requested price. That is not theft.

However, to me he was wrong not to tell the clerk that he knew the price was wrong. That's different than asking if the price is correct. He also was wrong to load up. But it's a little wrong, not a big one. Calling it theft makes it harder to label real theft.

As far as the gun marked too low at a garage sale, that's different. If I have superior knowledge and the seller won't take the time to find out what something is worth, that's their tough luck, unless they are disabled or something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top