I don’t have that many fractals dealing with diamonds or jewels so for this update I chose CrossDiamond because the post involves diamonds and everyone involved are no doubt cross (at the very least). That being said, on with the corrections!-
I wasn’t able to find any information on the Saks Fifth Avenue Jewelry Store case (not that I tried all that hard) but my sister Andrea Keskey in Oceanside found the story and sent me a link. Check it out here if you’re interested in seeing the original story: http://blog.oregonlive.com/complaintdesk/2008/11/should_saks_fifth_avenue_sue_o.html . I made some mistakes in most post of November 22 so, in the interest of “journalistic integrity” I humbly submit these corrections for your listening and dancing pleasure.
-
The incident happened in a downtown Portland Oregon Saks Fifth Avenue store NOT Orange County as I had reported. The total was $76,000 not 78.000. The customer’s name is Emily Pickering and the Saks General Manager who made the calls seeking to correct the mistake is Bill Halleran. (The two Sales Clerks who made the mistake were not named in the article.)
-
Laura Gunderson, a Reporter for The Oregonian solicited comments from several people that I found interesting (so I’ll include them here.
-
Portland Lawyer Perry Heitman believes (as I do) the “fault” lies with Saks Fifth Avenue. The store is responsible for setting the prices and making sure they are correct.
-
Boutique owner Paul Schneider (of art and jewelry boutique Twist) agrees. (Quoting from the article) “When a customer is quoted a price, pays and the retailer accepts the payment, a binding agreement has been reached. Schneider and other retailers questioned whether it's worth the cost to sue a customer, considering a company's public relations and the fact that retailers earn a mark-up on jewelry and have already factored in a certain amount of losses to their budget each year. Saks should be more concerned that their sales clerks aren't better trained on the value and pricing of the pieces they're selling” To which I say--testify brother! (If/when I ever get back to Portland I hope I‘ll be able to pay a visit to the store: Mr. Schneider sounds like a reasonable and intelligent businessman.)
-
Most consumers and those commenting on the case agreed that, legal or not, the customer was ethically obligated to return or pay for the brooch (which also agreed with my position). Still, I have to wonder how they’d react if a windfall of this magnitude fell into their laps (but that’s just the cynic in me).
-
So, there you have the corrected/updated version of the story.
No comments:
Post a Comment