2 ms·

> electing not to sell a unique item at an advertised price when a concrete offer is received is not the same thing I disagree. I think it very much is the sam

> electing not to sell a unique item at an advertised price when a concrete offer is received is not the same thing I disagree. I think it very much is the same thing. Unless they had other reasons (other than that they didn't want to honor their advertisement). Both quotes you wrote down seem to quite clearly apply in this Pepsi case.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> I think it very much is the same thing. It doesn't fit the regulatory definition for two key reasons: (1) the regulatory definition of bait advertising turns on intent at the time of advertising, not decisions which happen later. (2) the regulatory definition also turns on the intent being not to sell the thing adveritsed; even if the intent in advance is to sell it on different terms, that is not “bait advertising” (it may br prohibited by some other law or rule in some cases.) > Both quotes you wrote down seem to quite clearly apply in this Pepsi case. Even if you could construe the ad as an offer to sell anything, it wasn’t an offer to sell one thing to lure people in and sell them something else. (And, of course, the Court already ruled in the case, in adjudicating a different claim to which the same question was relevant, that it couldn’t be reasonably viewed as an offer at all.)
- billytetrud 5y ago
  1) Ok. And the intent at time of advertising was always not to see the jet. So I don't see your point. Still seems to apply at the time of advertising. 2) They did indeed not ever intend to sell the thing advertised. So again, what are you talking about? I dunno man, I guess I just disagree.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > And the intent at time of advertising was always not to see the jet And the court ruled that no one could reasonably view it as an offer to make the jet available as a reward. Even if that wasn't the case, what is the substitute product?
    - billytetrud 5y ago
      > the court ruled that no one could reasonably view it as an offer to make the jet available as a reward And I told you I think they were wrong. > Even if that wasn't the case, what is the substitute product? All of the other garbage they sold for Pepsi points...
  - billytetrud 5y ago
    > the court ruled that no one could reasonably view it as an offer to make the jet available as a reward And I told you I think they were wrong. > Even if that wasn't the case, what is the substitute product? All of the other garbage they sold for Pepsi points...
- ric2b 5y ago
  > it wasn’t an offer to sell one thing to lure people in and sell them something else. Clearly they wanted to lure people in to sell them Pepsi cans...

dragonwriter 5y ago

> I think it very much is the same thing. It doesn't fit the regulatory definition for two key reasons: (1) the regulatory definition of bait advertising turns on intent at the time of advertising, not decisions which happen later. (2) the regulatory definition also turns on the intent being not to sell the thing adveritsed; even if the intent in advance is to sell it on different terms, that is not “bait advertising” (it may br prohibited by some other law or rule in some cases.) > Both quotes you wrote down seem to quite clearly apply in this Pepsi case. Even if you could construe the ad as an offer to sell anything, it wasn’t an offer to sell one thing to lure people in and sell them something else. (And, of course, the Court already ruled in the case, in adjudicating a different claim to which the same question was relevant, that it couldn’t be reasonably viewed as an offer at all.)

billytetrud 5y ago
1) Ok. And the intent at time of advertising was always not to see the jet. So I don't see your point. Still seems to apply at the time of advertising. 2) They did indeed not ever intend to sell the thing advertised. So again, what are you talking about? I dunno man, I guess I just disagree.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > And the intent at time of advertising was always not to see the jet And the court ruled that no one could reasonably view it as an offer to make the jet available as a reward. Even if that wasn't the case, what is the substitute product?
  - billytetrud 5y ago
    > the court ruled that no one could reasonably view it as an offer to make the jet available as a reward And I told you I think they were wrong. > Even if that wasn't the case, what is the substitute product? All of the other garbage they sold for Pepsi points...
- billytetrud 5y ago
  > the court ruled that no one could reasonably view it as an offer to make the jet available as a reward And I told you I think they were wrong. > Even if that wasn't the case, what is the substitute product? All of the other garbage they sold for Pepsi points...
ric2b 5y ago
> it wasn’t an offer to sell one thing to lure people in and sell them something else. Clearly they wanted to lure people in to sell them Pepsi cans...