Free that is not free

Forums › Off topic › Free that is not free

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#1082061 6-Jul-2014 20:52

gnfb: Well I am just glad that we got peace in the middle east and world hunger out of the way so we can work on important issues like this!

That's a pretty poor attitude to have. Just because there is war and famine, certainly doesn't mean that we should dismiss all the small issues simply because they pale in comparison to the big issues. Take that tack, and before long all your small issues have become big issues too, and you're no better off and far worse off.

UncleArthur

197 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 65

#1082099 6-Jul-2014 22:03

I agree with freitasm, it says 'sample', it says 'not for resale', the only way they could be clearer would be to have the stuff ship with it's own personal security guard.

I don't know what the letter of the law is on the subject, however the product is clearly being sold in breach of any terms and conditions as arranged with the distributor.
Further, for the bottles being sold on their own with no packaging, I would be very concerned about a medical product being sold without packaging, as that is normally where all of the appropriate medical safety information is contained.

As for the rest of you who are in the 'nothing wrong here' camp..... if any of you are in the retail trade, or ever go in to the retail trade, please post a forum notice here, so that I know to avoid you.

Homer: "Son, you tried and you failed....the lesson is...never try"

andrewNZ

2487 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1461
Inactive user

#1082141 7-Jul-2014 00:28

If it was bundled together then its one item. If it had a price on it for $24.95 then that is the maximum price they can sell it for. Charging more than the marked/advertised price is illegal. They do however have the option of refusing the sale.

gnfb

2685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 197

ID Verified

#1082202 7-Jul-2014 09:23

Kyanar:
gnfb: Well I am just glad that we got peace in the middle east and world hunger out of the way so we can work on important issues like this!

That's a pretty poor attitude to have. Just because there is war and famine, certainly doesn't mean that we should dismiss all the small issues simply because they pale in comparison to the big issues. Take that tack, and before long all your small issues have become big issues too, and you're no better off and far worse off.

Fair enough! I suppose I was really just saying..... "Chill!"

Is an English Man living in New Zealand. Not a writer, an Observer he says. Graham is a seasoned 'traveler" with his sometimes arrogant, but honest opinion on life. He loves the Internet!.

I have two shops online allshop.nz patchpinflag.nz
Email Me

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1082238 7-Jul-2014 10:22

gnfb:
Kyanar:
gnfb: Well I am just glad that we got peace in the middle east and world hunger out of the way so we can work on important issues like this!

That's a pretty poor attitude to have. Just because there is war and famine, certainly doesn't mean that we should dismiss all the small issues simply because they pale in comparison to the big issues. Take that tack, and before long all your small issues have become big issues too, and you're no better off and far worse off.

Fair enough! I suppose I was really just saying..... "Chill!"

He he, i understood what you were saying.

Reading between the lines , your opinion is that this is not a big issue for you.

kiwiharry

1064 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 476

ID Verified

Subscriber

#1082305 7-Jul-2014 11:30

andrewNZ: If it was bundled together then its one item. If it had a price on it for $24.95 then that is the maximum price they can sell it for. Charging more than the marked/advertised price is illegal. They do however have the option of refusing the sale.

Need some clarity if it was advertised at $24.95 in the shop or if that price was based on the 2 pack price?

Website shows the $32 price. http://www.lifepharmacy.co.nz/p/Opti-Free-PureMoist-Contact-Lens-Solution-Economy-Pack-300-90-60ml-VALUE-PACK?i=13745043

Nonetheless I side with Mauricio. A product marked as "Professional Sample - Not For Resale" shouldn't be charged for.

If you can't laugh at yourself then you probably shouldn't laugh at others.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Satch

1985 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 259

#1082379 7-Jul-2014 13:13

Kyanar:
freitasm: I think you folks are missing the "NOT FOR RESALE" in the packaging. If they are selling it (charging for it) then they are breaching the contract with their supplier, and trying to get money off the consumer at the same time.

Not necessarily. Unless they get a paper contract with it that explicitly states they may not sell it, then there is no contract and first sale doctrine applies (which is to say, once a product has been sold by the manufacturer, it exhausts their right to control what is done with the product).

While this has only actually been tested in the US courts thus far to my knowledge, our bag of laws pertaining to it are similar enough that NZ law would most likely find the same way.

While legally it's almost certainly OK, the supplier is almost certain to be unhappy about it, and it's certainly unethical as all heck IMO.

Explain to us what you believe "NOT FOR RESALE" means then?

nigelj

856 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#1082389 7-Jul-2014 13:22

Satch:
Kyanar:
freitasm: I think you folks are missing the "NOT FOR RESALE" in the packaging. If they are selling it (charging for it) then they are breaching the contract with their supplier, and trying to get money off the consumer at the same time.

Not necessarily. Unless they get a paper contract with it that explicitly states they may not sell it, then there is no contract and first sale doctrine applies (which is to say, once a product has been sold by the manufacturer, it exhausts their right to control what is done with the product).

While this has only actually been tested in the US courts thus far to my knowledge, our bag of laws pertaining to it are similar enough that NZ law would most likely find the same way.

While legally it's almost certainly OK, the supplier is almost certain to be unhappy about it, and it's certainly unethical as all heck IMO.

Explain to us what you believe "NOT FOR RESALE" means then?

It's a discouragement that suppliers put on packaging to shame companies into NOT reselling items that weren't intended for resale. As raised already things like First Sale Doctrines in the States apply that allow retailers to do whatever they like once they've purchased something, as long as it's within 'the Law', so the shame tactic is employed to show that places are cheap'os and hope people won't buy from them.

See there is a word missing.... "INTENDED" i.e. "NOT INTENDED FOR RESALE".

(Edit: Going way back to the OP/freitasm's point: None the less, coupled with 'Professional Sample' that is slightly different, sample implies free in my books)

Satch

1985 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 259

#1082395 7-Jul-2014 13:25

nigelj:
Satch:
Kyanar:
freitasm: I think you folks are missing the "NOT FOR RESALE" in the packaging. If they are selling it (charging for it) then they are breaching the contract with their supplier, and trying to get money off the consumer at the same time.

Not necessarily. Unless they get a paper contract with it that explicitly states they may not sell it, then there is no contract and first sale doctrine applies (which is to say, once a product has been sold by the manufacturer, it exhausts their right to control what is done with the product).

While this has only actually been tested in the US courts thus far to my knowledge, our bag of laws pertaining to it are similar enough that NZ law would most likely find the same way.

While legally it's almost certainly OK, the supplier is almost certain to be unhappy about it, and it's certainly unethical as all heck IMO.

Explain to us what you believe "NOT FOR RESALE" means then?

It's a discouragement that suppliers put on packaging to shame companies into NOT reselling items that weren't intended for resale. As raised already things like First Sale Doctrines in the States apply that allow retailers to do whatever they like once they've purchased something, as long as it's within 'the Law', so the shame tactic is employed to show that places are cheap'os and hope people won't buy from them.

See there is a word missing.... "INTENDED" i.e. "NOT INTENDED FOR RESALE".

We are not in the States and the word INTENDED doesn't feature here. I miss the point of your post.

nigelj

856 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#1082402 7-Jul-2014 13:37

Satch:
nigelj:
Satch:
Kyanar:
freitasm: I think you folks are missing the "NOT FOR RESALE" in the packaging. If they are selling it (charging for it) then they are breaching the contract with their supplier, and trying to get money off the consumer at the same time.

Not necessarily. Unless they get a paper contract with it that explicitly states they may not sell it, then there is no contract and first sale doctrine applies (which is to say, once a product has been sold by the manufacturer, it exhausts their right to control what is done with the product).

While this has only actually been tested in the US courts thus far to my knowledge, our bag of laws pertaining to it are similar enough that NZ law would most likely find the same way.

While legally it's almost certainly OK, the supplier is almost certain to be unhappy about it, and it's certainly unethical as all heck IMO.

Explain to us what you believe "NOT FOR RESALE" means then?

It's a discouragement that suppliers put on packaging to shame companies into NOT reselling items that weren't intended for resale. As raised already things like First Sale Doctrines in the States apply that allow retailers to do whatever they like once they've purchased something, as long as it's within 'the Law', so the shame tactic is employed to show that places are cheap'os and hope people won't buy from them.

See there is a word missing.... "INTENDED" i.e. "NOT INTENDED FOR RESALE".

We are not in the States and the word INTENDED doesn't feature here. I miss the point of your post.

My point is as other's have stated most countries have the principle in idea of America's First Sale Doctrine, else how would a second hand market (say Trade Me, pawn shops, e-Bay, etc) work (sorry reading back what I wrote, this should've been clearer, my brain doesn't seem to be working right today)? Additionally, exactly the word INTENDED is missing, just because it says something on the packet, doesn't mean that it's legally enforceable. It's just their wish/intention that people don't resell it.

Per my edit I actually acknowledged that the text is actually "Professional Sample - Not For Resale" (which the Quote Thread doesn't ack), the word 'sample' quantifies it slightly differently in my books.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1082435 7-Jul-2014 13:59

If the product concerned was labelled in store as being $24.99 then the store should either honour the price or remove it from sale and correct the labelling. Mistakes can happen especially if the deal was set up by head office and the POS updated before the staff came aware and corrected in store labelling etc. As for the "Professional Sample - Not For Resale" issue it may well be legal to sell it but is it moral? ethics and goodwill go hand in hand.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41052

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1082436 7-Jul-2014 14:01

And would it be ethical to have a product for $24.99 and the same product with the "PROFESSIONAL SAMPLE" charged at $32?

Not in my opinion.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

nigelj

856 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#1082463 7-Jul-2014 14:33

freitasm: And would it be ethical to have a product for $24.99 and the same product with the "PROFESSIONAL SAMPLE" charged at $32?

Not in my opinion.

This is the most succinct summary of the issue, and the one I agree with, they've been dumped with a bunch of 'professional samples' and decided to bundle them with the standard product and charge people for the privilege. That is wrong. (Not because of the whole 'not for resale' thing, but because of the whole 'sample'/doesn't sit right thing). If it was "Bonus small bottle at regular price" then I'd be "meh, who cares".

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#1082468 7-Jul-2014 14:37

Satch:

We are not in the States and the word INTENDED doesn't feature here. I miss the point of your post.

First Sale Doctrine originates in Common Law, from which NZ law derives as well. Hence the principle would apply in NZ equally. Which is why I'm saying that it's unlikely this would be a legal issue - however it is an ethical one IMO. Getting free samples then taping them to regular product and charging extra is a bit of taking the mickey.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1082477 7-Jul-2014 15:11

Kyanar:
Satch:

We are not in the States and the word INTENDED doesn't feature here. I miss the point of your post.

First Sale Doctrine originates in Common Law, from which NZ law derives as well. Hence the principle would apply in NZ equally. Which is why I'm saying that it's unlikely this would be a legal issue - however it is an ethical one IMO. Getting free samples then taping them to regular product and charging extra is a bit of taking the mickey.

In NZ is it not possible the rights holder to apply a restriction on resale? from memory the exhaustion doctrine I may well be wrong though

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5