I constantly get these flyers for inexpensive checks. I
recently moved and needed checks with my new address. I
found one of these flyers for a company, Designer Checks, out
of Alabama, and ordered 4 boxes of checks. Total payment was
$13.38.

I received my checks and they cashed my payment. So far, so
good. Then, about a month later, I receive a bill for $25.52
because the offer redeemed was for first-time buyers only
and they had found records showing I had bought checks from
them SEVEN YEARS earlier for a different bank.

I contend that they needed to tell me this *before* they
cashed my check and shipped me merchandise. Once they
cashed my check they accepted it as payment-in-full. (On
the form I did fill in all of the boxes and total down to
$13.38.)

If I had known ahead of time that my $13 checks were going
to be $38 I would have ordered from somewhere else.

Am I wrong?

Thanks,
Bob

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:49:33 -0500, 0neub2702@sneakemail.com (Bob)
wrote:

[snip to save space.]If I had known ahead of time that my $13 checks were goingto be $38 I would have ordered from somewhere else.Am I wrong?Thanks,Bob

This matter was dealt with on this group in August of 2002. You may
find the thread at:-

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&th=872e0b82f019734f&rnum=1

I think you will find the thread interesting, though it may not
provide you with a final answer. You will note from my reply at the
time that I tend to agree with your view - however, others had
different ideas.

--
Bob.

The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The
distinction is yours to draw...
..

In article <bmt0vvof6vr6oc5g8do9tdspcl3ualbggj@4ax.com>,
0neub2702@sneakemail.com (Bob) wrote:
I constantly get these flyers for inexpensive checks. I recently moved and needed checks with my new address. I found one of these flyers for a company, Designer Checks, out of Alabama, and ordered 4 boxes of checks. Total payment was $13.38. I received my checks and they cashed my payment. So far, so good. Then, about a month later, I receive a bill for $25.52 because the offer redeemed was for first-time buyers only and they had found records showing I had bought checks from them SEVEN YEARS earlier for a different bank. I contend that they needed to tell me this *before* they cashed my check and shipped me merchandise. Once they cashed my check they accepted it as payment-in-full. (On the form I did fill in all of the boxes and total down to $13.38.) If I had known ahead of time that my $13 checks were going to be $38 I would have ordered from somewhere else. Am I wrong?

You weren't a first-time buyer, were you? So you weren't eligible for
the offer.
--
D.F. Manno
dommanno@netscape.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)

In article <bmt0vvof6vr6oc5g8do9tdspcl3ualbggj@4ax.com> in
misc.legal.moderated, Bob wrote:found one of these flyers for a company, Designer Checks, outof Alabama, and ordered 4 boxes of checks. Total payment was$13.38.I received my checks and they cashed my payment. So far, sogood. Then, about a month later, I receive a bill for $25.52because the offer redeemed was for first-time buyers onlyand they had found records showing I had bought checks fromthem SEVEN YEARS earlier for a different bank.I contend that they needed to tell me this *before* theycashed my check and shipped me merchandise. Once theycashed my check they accepted it as payment-in-full.

Every one of those offers that I've seen says that it's for new
customers only, and that they reserve the right to bill you for the
difference from their (undisclosed) regular rate if they find that
you've been a customer before.

That would appear to be legal, but the practical problem is that
these companies seem to do business under several different names,
so you may not know whether you've done business before with them.
Or, as in your case, who remembers a 7-year-old supplier of a cheap
item?

Assuming their offer contained[1] that contingency, when you sent a
check you accepted their offer. If you had wanted to modify their
offer, you could have made a counteroffer, which they could then
accept or reject. For instance, you could have sent a letter saying
"I enclose a check for $13, to be accepted as full payment
regardless of whether I may have ordered from you before. If you
accept this offer, cash the check and fill the order."

[1] I _assume_ it contained that contingency, since it's standard
language. Did you save all materials (or copies)? If you did, as you
should have, and there's no such contingency anywhere on them, then
send back a letter telling them to take a flying leap.

--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.

I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com

B> I contend that they needed to tell me this *before* they
B> cashed my check and shipped me merchandise. Once they
B> cashed my check they accepted it as payment-in-full. (On
B> the form I did fill in all of the boxes and total down to
B> $13.38.)

.....

B> Am I wrong?

No, you are right. If they agreed to send you the checks for $13, it's their
decision.

The fact that someone sent you a bill does not mean you have to pay or even
respond.

However, it may be prudent to prevent them from sending the "debt" to
collection by sending a letter (or better fax) requesting verification of
the alleged debt, including the paperwork showing that you ordered the
checks and agreed to pay not just $13.38 but any amount they would request.

[OP (Bob) got a flyer from Designer Checks offering 4 boxes
of checks for $13.38. A month later, Designer Checks billed him
for $25.52 because it's supposed to be for first-time buyers and
they had records showing OP bought checks from them 7 years
earlier.]

D.F. Manno <dommanno@netscape.net> wrote:You weren't a first-time buyer, were you? So you weren't eligible forthe offer.

No, but if OP didn't qualify for their offer to _sell_, then his order
and check constituted an offer to _buy_ for the stated price.

I'd say that Designer Checks had a right to refuse his attempted
acceptance of their offer -- becaus he didn't qualify for the terms --
and/or to reject his offer, but having accepted it they should stand
by the terms.

If they had the ability to find out afterward that he didn't qualify
because he wasn't a "new" customer, they had the ability to do so
_before_ filling the offer.

One possibility is for OP to contact their customer service department
(or billing if CS won't help) and offer to return the remaining checks
(whatever he hasn't already used) if they will refund a proportional
part of his $13.38. He can be magnanimous and offer to pay for the
return shipping.

Since they can't resell the checks to anyone else, I bet they'll
decide that the original offer is their best bet.

If they are really obnoxious about it, I guess it would be easier for
OP to pay the bill then to fight about it, unless his credit is
already trashed. It's unlikely that they will take him to court over
it, but they can report it as an unpaid debt, and getting an attorney
to write them a letter threatening suit for slander of credit just
isn't worth it for $25.52.

It's also possible that this is a standard scam that DC uses because
people _won't_ fight over the $25.52. If OP has a little spare time,
he might report this to his local DA's or state Atty General's
consumer protection unit, and/or his local TV news program's consumer
unit.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.

Stan Brown wrote:
[1] I _assume_ it contained that contingency, since it's standard language. Did you save all materials (or copies)? If you did, as you should have, and there's no such contingency anywhere on them, then send back a letter telling them to take a flying leap.

The "junk mail" mailers I've seen DIDN'T have that contingency, unless
it's in smaller than 5 point type. I don't know about the OP.
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.

bgold@nyx.net (Barry Gold) wrote:
[OP (Bob) got a flyer from Designer Checks offering 4 boxes of checks for $13.38. A month later, Designer Checks billed him for $25.52 because it's supposed to be for first-time buyers and they had records showing OP bought checks from them 7 years earlier.] D.F. Manno <dommanno@netscape.net> wrote:
You weren't a first-time buyer, were you? So you weren'teligible for the offer. No, but if OP didn't qualify for their offer to _sell_, then his order and check constituted an offer to _buy_ for the stated price. I'd say that Designer Checks had a right to refuse his attempted acceptance of their offer -- becaus he didn't qualify for the terms -- and/or to reject his offer, but having accepted it they should stand by the terms.

That's a good point. Even if he knew of the provision that he had
to be a new customer, his non-conforming order would be considered a
counter offer. And by accepting the offer they'd be bound by the
terms of the counter.

Stu

Bob wrote: I constantly get these flyers for inexpensive checks. I recently moved and needed checks with my new address. I found one of these flyers for a company, Designer Checks, out of Alabama, and ordered 4 boxes of checks. Total payment was $13.38. I received my checks and they cashed my payment. So far, so good. Then, about a month later, I receive a bill for $25.52 because the offer redeemed was for first-time buyers only and they had found records showing I had bought checks from them SEVEN YEARS earlier for a different bank. I contend that they needed to tell me this *before* they cashed my check and shipped me merchandise. Once they cashed my check they accepted it as payment-in-full. (On the form I did fill in all of the boxes and total down to $13.38.) If I had known ahead of time that my $13 checks were going to be $38 I would have ordered from somewhere else. Am I wrong? Thanks, Bob

If I were you I would ask the Attorney General's Consumer Affairs
office where you live. I would think that if they cashed your check,
sent you the merchandise, and *then* sent you a bill for more money
*after the facts* that there is a breach of consumer rights in there
somewhere. But consumer protections vary State to State so check at
the local level.

The irony I see in all this is that I use a similar service called
"Checks in the Mail" and that company purges customer information if
you haven't ordered in two years. Consequently, you are eligible for
their "new customer rates" if you don't place an order very
frequently. I asked them about this, as it was such a PITA to
register on line as a "new customer" when I already had a reorder
form from them in hand. I was told I was considered a "new customer"
and would pay the "new customer" discount rate accordingly. (I did.)
And go through the pain of registration and providing identification
as a "new customer" as well.

Rick

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:42:22 -0500, Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com>
wrote: bgold@nyx.net (Barry Gold) wrote: [OP (Bob) got a flyer from Designer Checks offering 4 boxes of checks for $13.38. A month later, Designer Checks billed him for $25.52 because it's supposed to be for first-time buyers and they had records showing OP bought checks from them 7 years earlier.] D.F. Manno <dommanno@netscape.net> wrote:You weren't a first-time buyer, were you? So you weren'teligible for the offer. No, but if OP didn't qualify for their offer to _sell_, then his order and check constituted an offer to _buy_ for the stated price. I'd say that Designer Checks had a right to refuse his attempted acceptance of their offer -- becaus he didn't qualify for the terms -- and/or to reject his offer, but having accepted it they should stand by the terms. That's a good point. Even if he knew of the provision that he had to be a new customer, his non-conforming order would be considered a counter offer. And by accepting the offer they'd be bound by the terms of the counter.

Not if the original offer made provision for exactly that. If the
original offer indicated that the company would check to see if
he was a repeat customer and then seek more money, then the original
order would not be non-conforming.

Isaac

[OP (Bob) got a flyer from Designer Checks offering 4 boxes of checks for $13.38. A month later, Designer Checks billed him for $25.52 because it's supposed to be for first-time buyers and they had records showing OP bought checks from them 7 years earlier.]


I smell a scam. I wonder how many people get dunned and
pay up rather than fight?

Is this NY State? Write AG Spitser...

--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

In article <3ooivv8525q3k5l8g1u7dm54vo5jpidgac@4ax.com>,
isaac@latveria.castledoom.org (Isaac) writes:

| On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:42:22 -0500, Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com>
| wrote:
| > bgold@nyx.net (Barry Gold) wrote:
| >
| >> [OP (Bob) got a flyer from Designer Checks offering 4 boxes
| >> of checks for $13.38. A month later, Designer Checks billed
| >> him for $25.52 because it's supposed to be for first-time
| >> buyers and they had records showing OP bought checks from
| >> them 7 years earlier.]
| >>
| >> D.F. Manno <dommanno@netscape.net> wrote:
| >
| >>>You weren't a first-time buyer, were you? So you weren't
| >>>eligible for the offer.
| >>
| >> No, but if OP didn't qualify for their offer to _sell_, then his
| >> order and check constituted an offer to _buy_ for the stated
| >> price.
| >>
| >> I'd say that Designer Checks had a right to refuse his attempted
| >> acceptance of their offer -- becaus he didn't qualify for the
| >> terms -- and/or to reject his offer, but having accepted it they
| >> should stand by the terms.
| >
| > That's a good point. Even if he knew of the provision that he had
| > to be a new customer, his non-conforming order would be considered a
| > counter offer. And by accepting the offer they'd be bound by the
| > terms of the counter.
|
| Not if the original offer made provision for exactly that. If the
| original offer indicated that the company would check to see if
| he was a repeat customer and then seek more money, then the original
| order would not be non-conforming.

It's interesting how in this case we are interpreting the merchant's
advertisement as an an actual offer (convenient for the merchant since
the customer's supposed acceptance of that offer creates a contract with
terms exactly as set by the merchant) whereas usually we interpret a
merchant's advertisement as an enticement for a customer to make an
offer (convenient again for the merchant since the merchant can simply
reject that offer and propose different terms--or refuse to do business
altogether).

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com wrote: That's a good point. Even if he knew of the provision that he had to be a new customer, his non-conforming order would be considered a counter offer. And by accepting the offer they'd be bound by the terms of the counter.

Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:Not if the original offer made provision for exactly that. If theoriginal offer indicated that the company would check to see ifhe was a repeat customer and then seek more money, then the originalorder would not be non-conforming.

Yes. *If* the original order form offer had wording like that. It's
even possible that it did. But I'm betting it just said something
like "this offer only valid for new customers".

And even if it _did_ have wording that said repeat customers would be
charged the "regular" price, many states' attorney generals would
probably treat it as deceptive advertising.

Another example of how the law is fact-specific.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 09:51:08 -0500, Barry Gold <bgold@nyx.net> wrote: Yes. *If* the original order form offer had wording like that. It's even possible that it did. But I'm betting it just said something like "this offer only valid for new customers".

I thought there was a suggestion otherwise in the thread, but I'm
not going back to check since you think the state would find it
deceptive anyway.
And even if it _did_ have wording that said repeat customers would be charged the "regular" price, many states' attorney generals would probably treat it as deceptive advertising.

What makes you say it is probably deceptive?

Isaac

I wrote: And even if it _did_ have wording that said repeat customers would be charged the "regular" price, many states' attorney generals would probably treat it as deceptive advertising.

Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:What makes you say it is probably deceptive?

The exact situation reported by OP. The check printing company wants
to charge him a higher fee because he bought checks from them 7 years
ago. What are the chances that a typical consumer remembers every
purchase he made in the last 7 years?

Surely the vendor (check printing company in this case) is in a better
situation to determine whether this is a repeat order or not, and
hence better able to determine whether to accept the customer's offer
to buy at the given terms.

This is all related to basic legal principles, such as:

. if one of two innocent parties must suffer a loss, the one whose
negligence made it possible will have to pay.

. you aren't allowed to set "traps" for other people to fall
into, whether physical "mantraps" or intentional legal
pitfalls.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.

I>> And even if it _did_ have wording that said repeat customers would
I>> be charged the "regular" price, many states' attorney generals
I>> would probably treat it as deceptive advertising.

I> What makes you say it is probably deceptive?

My guess: they would have to name the exact price rather than mentioning
"regular"; also they would have to provide some tool to verify "repeat or
not" before ordering. Creating a situation when the customer is ordering
without the knowledge of the price is deceptive.

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:29:58 -0500, Barry Gold <bgold@nyx.net> wrote: I wrote: And even if it _did_ have wording that said repeat customers would be charged the "regular" price, many states' attorney generals would probably treat it as deceptive advertising. Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:What makes you say it is probably deceptive? The exact situation reported by OP. The check printing company wants to charge him a higher fee because he bought checks from them 7 years ago. What are the chances that a typical consumer remembers every purchase he made in the last 7 years?

As long as the vendor allows the customer to back out of the transaction
I don't see anything wrong with their ad campaign. It would be a good
idea that the "first time only" requirement be prominent on the
advertisement. I have no idea what the ad looks like.
Surely the vendor (check printing company in this case) is in a better situation to determine whether this is a repeat order or not, and hence better able to determine whether to accept the customer's offer to buy at the given terms.

What offer to buy at the given terms? Did the customer communicate an
offer to be bound only at the lower price? I don't think that's clear.
Certainly he could have done so explicitly if he wished. Instead he
sent in a check which could have been either a payment in full or a
partial payment as appears to be stated in the advertisement.
This is all related to basic legal principles, such as: . if one of two innocent parties must suffer a loss, the one whose negligence made it possible will have to pay.

I don't see any evidence of negligence. You're inventing a standard of
care and a duty for the merchant without suggesting how the law establishes
either of those things. You're just guessing.

And that principle you've cited doesn't hold true in a large number of
negligence actions. It's just one of a competing number of concerns.

If the merchant was actually simply going through his old database and
sending out messages to clients with the hope of deceiving them, then I
think we've got a possible complaint. But that wouldn't be negligence.
That would be some an intentional tort. It's also a tort based on
assumptions with really weak support.
. you aren't allowed to set "traps" for other people to fall into, whether physical "mantraps" or intentional legal pitfalls.

It isn't a trap if the message was prominent and a simple conversation
cancels the order.

Isaac

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:30:14 -0500, bat <bat@bats.com> wrote: I>> And even if it _did_ have wording that said repeat customers would I>> be charged the "regular" price, many states' attorney generals I>> would probably treat it as deceptive advertising. I> What makes you say it is probably deceptive? My guess: they would have to name the exact price rather than mentioning "regular"; also they would have to provide some tool to verify "repeat or not" before ordering. Creating a situation when the customer is ordering without the knowledge of the price is deceptive.

The tool might be sending the checks back if you don't like the order
or the price.

Isaac

I wrote, citing among other principles: . you aren't allowed to set "traps" for other people to fall into, whether physical "mantraps" or intentional legal pitfalls.

Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:It isn't a trap if the message was prominent and a simple conversationcancels the order.

In this case it was a trap. They didn't give OP an opportunity to
cancel the order. Instead, they shipped the checks and then billed
him for the difference between the "new customer" price and their
"usual" price.

If they had sent him a note saying, "you are not a new customer, but
we will be happy to fill your order at our regular price of $X unless
you tell us otherwise by (some date far enough in the future to give
him an opportunity to respond)," then I would agree it wouldn't be a
trap.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 07:56:26 -0500, Barry Gold <bgold@nyx.net> wrote: I wrote, citing among other principles: . you aren't allowed to set "traps" for other people to fall into, whether physical "mantraps" or intentional legal pitfalls. Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:It isn't a trap if the message was prominent and a simple conversationcancels the order. In this case it was a trap. They didn't give OP an opportunity to cancel the order. Instead, they shipped the checks and then billed him for the difference between the "new customer" price and their "usual" price.

Of course. They told him up front that they would do so.

Now, what happens if he elects to return the checks instead of paying the
bill?

Isaac

It seems "Isaac" wrote in misc.legal.moderated in article
<rdp700hac1ga2clm8i1cqg13ionu4e7ifo@4ax.com>:
["Cheap checks" place says on order form that if you've ordered
before they'll fill the order and bill you for the difference from
regular price. MAYBE it says that -- I remember such a form but the
OP has not told us whether the form in question said that.]

[OP ordered checks, paying "new customer" price, received checks,
received a bill for difference because company said he had bought
checks from then 7 years ago.]
Of course. They told him up front that they would do so.Now, what happens if he elects to return the checks instead of paying thebill?

If -- I say _if_ -- the bill is pursuant to a valid contract, then I
don't think he gets off the hook by returning the checks.

More specifically, he might be able to _negotiate_ returning them in
return for a refund. But he cannot unilaterally cancel a valid
contract by returning the merchandise he ordered -- unless, of
course, the contract itself gives a right of return of non-defective
merchandise. (Whether this particular contract is valid is not 100%
clear, and we've all been supplying our pet hypotheticals and
speculating on that basis.)

As several people have said, a way to prevent this mess would have
been to enclose a letter with the order specifically rejecting the
"prior customer" trap and offering to buy checks at the "new
customer" price, company's acceptance to be indicated by accepting
the payment.

--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.

I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:49:04 -0500, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm>
wrote: It seems "Isaac" wrote in misc.legal.moderated in article<rdp700hac1ga2clm8i1cqg13ionu4e7ifo@4ax.com>: ["Cheap checks" place says on order form that if you've ordered before they'll fill the order and bill you for the difference from regular price. MAYBE it says that -- I remember such a form but the OP has not told us whether the form in question said that.] [OP ordered checks, paying "new customer" price, received checks, received a bill for difference because company said he had bought checks from then 7 years ago.]Of course. They told him up front that they would do so.Now, what happens if he elects to return the checks instead of paying thebill? If -- I say _if_ -- the bill is pursuant to a valid contract, then I don't think he gets off the hook by returning the checks. More specifically, he might be able to _negotiate_ returning them in return for a refund. But he cannot unilaterally cancel a valid contract by returning the merchandise he ordered -- unless, of course, the contract itself gives a right of return of non-defective merchandise. (Whether this particular contract is valid is not 100% clear, and we've all been supplying our pet hypotheticals and speculating on that basis.)

Yes, but the question was whether or not this is a deceptive trap. My
point was that if the vendor allowed customers who mistakenly thought
they were first timers to back out, then it isn't a trap.

Isaac