Used from B&H 899.95 Used Pentax Telephoto SMCP-FA 400mm f/5.6 ED IF Autofocus 24580

[jatrax]

They have the right to do what is best for their company, and if have the right to spend my dollars with companies who value having me as a customer. In the last 6 months I have spent over $5k with them and they did this to me. I deserve better and that is that.

Fair enough.

[stevebrot]

You may well deserve better, but your boycotting the merchant will hardly solve your issue. You wanted a highly desirable lens for dirt cheap and nothing but the difference in cash/credit will be acceptable to you. I would suggest small claims court. It costs you virtually nothing to file and you can explain your disappointment to the judge. If your complaint is deemed valid by the conventions of equity, you will be rewarded. If not, you are out the filing fee and time spent to prepare your case.

FWIW, this sort of thing happens (photo/description does not match item) all the time on Amazon and eBay. I have gotten in the habit of always double checking manufacturer's product number.


Steve

[SpecialK]

If your complaint is deemed valid...

Can't imagine this happening as every smart website has disclaimers about erroneous information. Also, the manufacturer's number was listed, so it will be ruled that the plaintiff did not do research on the purchase.

It's an unfortunate occurrence that can and does happen everywhere, and it is at best a learning experience.

[stormtech]

Can't imagine this happening as every smart website has disclaimers about erroneous information.

Yep - even in all caps -

ALTHOUGH REASONABLE CARE HAS BEEN TAKEN WITH REGARD TO THIS SITE'S CONTENT, B&H DOES NOT WARRANT OR REPRESENT THAT THIS SITE'S CONTENT IS ACCURATE, COMPLETE, OR UP-TO-DATE, NOR DOES IT WARRANT OR REPRESENT THAT ACCESS TO AND USE OF THIS SITE OR THE SERVER WHICH MAKES IT AVAILABLE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, ERROR-FREE, AND FREE OF COMPUTER VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS. THE CONTENT OF THIS SITE MAY INCLUDE TECHNICAL INACCURACIES OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS FOR WHICH B&H ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY.

[Aristophanes]

Why? You are not out of pocket for anything.

He's out of opportunity, converted stock (he sold the Sigma to make room for this), and deferred use and enjoyment.

The B&H photo was wrong. B&H is responsible for their listing, so their error.

A minor discount of 5% off a replacement starting at 4x premium is not what I would call reasonable, and I mean that in a legal sense. That smacks of bait and switch upsell.

They should have offered him better compensation to make their error right. Maybe the DA*300 + the new teleconverter for $300 off the package. Something that makes the customer whole, especially after his recent $5k outlay (easily verified).

The whole point of B&H being B&H is their professional reputation for accuracy and knowledge of all things photography. Don't compare them to Amazon or some eBay seller; B&H wants the prestige, they need to maintain it. Their catalogue cover (right in front of me) states very clearly: "The Professional's Source". Then the inside cover goes on about their 40 years of doing right by customers.

I am not saying there is an FA*400 out there to sell at the advertised price. When I see a tacked on $3,000 substitute offered....that is not very good customer service.

---------- Post added 04-11-14 at 11:59 PM ----------

Yep - even in all caps -

ALTHOUGH REASONABLE CARE HAS BEEN TAKEN WITH REGARD TO THIS SITE'S CONTENT, B&H DOES NOT WARRANT OR REPRESENT THAT THIS SITE'S CONTENT IS ACCURATE, COMPLETE, OR UP-TO-DATE, NOR DOES IT WARRANT OR REPRESENT THAT ACCESS TO AND USE OF THIS SITE OR THE SERVER WHICH MAKES IT AVAILABLE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, ERROR-FREE, AND FREE OF COMPUTER VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS. THE CONTENT OF THIS SITE MAY INCLUDE TECHNICAL INACCURACIES OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS FOR WHICH B&H ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY.

You do realize that those disclaimers have about zero legal standing in contract?

A vendor cannot set an overriding precondition that could potentially void all representations or warranties that exist in law, common or statute. Note also that this statement only speaks to the whole B&H site, not each individual listing, and does not become a part of the sale. That's the whole point of a sales agreement and receipt.

[stevebrot]

Can't imagine this happening as every smart website has disclaimers about erroneous information. Also, the manufacturer's number was listed, so it will be ruled that the plaintiff did not do research on the purchase.

Me neither, to tell you the truth. I suspect that most judges would dismiss the theory as novel, but not compelling. Still though, it makes as much sense as ranting the same theory on the Web.


Steve

---------- Post added 04-11-14 at 08:02 PM ----------

He's out of opportunity, converted stock (he sold the Sigma to make room for this), and deferred use and enjoyment.

The B&H photo was wrong. B&H is responsible for their listing, so their error.

Well! It looks like the OP has found his lawyer!


Steve

[PPPPPP42]

B&H was liable for their mistake and they corrected it with a full refund including shipping, if they had left you with the wrong lens THEN they would have been screwing you over.
The only fault I can find in this situation that hasn't been corrected is selling your lens before verifying that the >USED< lens you though you were getting was everything you expected. Even if it was the right lens I wouldn't have sold what it was replacing until after I had verified the new one was a good copy and still in good shape.
The only time to go out on a limb and sell the old first would be if you were buying a new lens with a warranty, then you can guarantee that it will be what you expect even if it takes several tries and that they would definitely have a replacement.
If you couldn't afford this lens until you sold the other one then you simply couldn't afford this lens. Even I could have floated this on a credit card and then paid off the card when the quality of goods was verified and the old lens was sold, and I am dirt poor.

[OnTheWeb]

Less is more

[Aristophanes]

This is a issue that irritates the heck out of me. If you (OP) had accidently posted your DA 60-250 for $12 instead of $1200 and I contacted you right away and said "I"ll take it!" Do you suppose you would just have to sell me for that, or find me another for that price? I am guessing not. And you would not offer me $200 for the trouble either. The darned thing had a number that could have easily identified it as what it was, too excited getting a killer deal to do any research? This stuff happens all the time on the internet. A company offers a $500 item and lists it for $8 by accident, then the whole world thinks the company should just cough up the item for that and whine about it incessantly. You got your money back and a small discount towards something else, the advice about not getting rid of something until you are sure the replacement will suffice is very astute.

Part of the problem here was that the B&H listing was wrong AND they sent him the lens. It wasn't just a paperwork error. B&H are the pros here, as advertised. That's not just trade puffery but their commitment to the customer.

[kraigg007]

This is a issue that irritates the heck out of me. If you (OP) had accidently posted your DA 60-250 for $12 instead of $1200 and I contacted you right away and said "I"ll take it!" Do you suppose you would just have to sell me for that, or find me another for that price? I am guessing not. And you would not offer me $200 for the trouble either. The darned thing had a number that could have easily identified it as what it was, too excited getting a killer deal to do any research? This stuff happens all the time on the internet. A company offers a $500 item and lists it for $8 by accident, then the whole world thinks the company should just cough up the item for that and whine about it incessantly. You got your money back and a small discount towards something else, the advice about not getting rid of something until you are sure the replacement will suffice is very astute.

Your example of a DA 60-250 for $12 instead of $1200 is not even relevant. I paid $900 for a used lens that original sold new for $1200. Why is that such a great deal? That is about right for a used example. It isn't like a purchased it for $12 or even $120. To my knowledge the lens doesn't come up frequently enough to established a secondary market price. So it irritates me that you are soooo off base with your comments. I could understand a listing error that egregious, but this isn't that. This was no listing accident. This was a bate and switch that they failed to make right by just allowing me to return it for my money back.

Small claims court may not be my best option, but where i spend my money and the value of sharing my experience with others is my only payback. I have been done wrong by B&H in the past as well. Rewards dollars that never materialize during black Friday. I have learned you better print off and date whatever you see on their webpages because what you actually get or don't get can be different that what was advertised.

By the way I got no discount on a future purchase I was offered to buy a $4000 lens for $3850 after the initial investment of $900. Not like I had a $150 credit toward a future purchase. That was the offer take it or leave it and I left it. If I was buying a $250000 house and I signed the papers they gave me the keys and it unlocked the doors to a $150000 house that I hadn't seen before and to make up for it they offered me a DEAL to buy a Million Dollar home for $925000, i wouldn't jump at that offer because it appeared to be a deal out of my price range.

Not here to piss anyone off, but my experience with B&H is different that what you may have. If you like shopping there, do it. Enjoy it. For me Ain't Gonna Happen! They burned me for the last time. I have other options an until I don't have other options, my dollars will be spent elsewhere.

[Clinton]

\, or the could have said the next time we get in a FA 400 lens it is yours at the $900 price you paid for it.

I think they could have, but it would have just been empty air. They aren't going to get another of these in.

They could have offered you a new or used DA* 300/4 at cost perhaps. You might even suggest it to @henryp

[monochrome]

This reminds me of a small listing error the Pentax Webstore made a while back. Of course that time the shoe was on the other foot.*


*(I ordered 50 of those lenses and you damned well better ship me 50 of those lenses).

[rgknief60]

My personal experience is that the (attention to detail/organization/identification) at the B&H used department might be lacking.

I recently ordered two used Pentax branded SMC filters from B&H. Both were listed to be in excellent condition. When I received them, a different brand had been substituted for the 72mm, it was dirty, and not in excellent condition. The 49mm looked okay through the plastic baggie. I made the mistake of not taking it out of the baggie to inspect it.

B&H emailed me a return label for the 72mm. I requested that they substitute the remaining identical Pentax 72mm still listed. That was not honored; I received a refund. Not a big deal to me. I spent an additional $5 plus 45 minutes of my time to drive to a shipping point and back home.

Later, I decided to use the 49mm. It was filthy, and lightly scratched. So much for excellent condition. The price of that filter was not worth my time and gas money, so I did not contact them. Perhaps that was a mistake, for a business can't make changes if they don't know there is a problem. I'm confident that had I contacted them, they would have provided a refund.

My overall experience with B&H is positive. I will definitely purchase new product from B&H in the future.

[Aristophanes]

Here in the U.S., this (a sale of goods over $500) is all covered under the Uniform Commercial Code . Since you rejected the goods, the only things B+H is immediately legally responsible for is arranging for the return and refunding your money. If you bought another of the same lens elsewhere afterwards, then you could potentially sue B+H for the difference in prices you paid between the transactions (this is called "cover"). Of course you would be on the hook for any court costs, not to mention your time, associated with your suit. Any equitable reliance argument such as that suggested by stevebrot would likely be laughed right out of a courtroom, even in small claims, since you could just as easily hop right back on eBay and buy another Sigma for a similar price to what you got, not to mention SpecialK's point regarding information on the listing, disclaimers, etc.

Despite what Aristophanes said, B+H's response is more than reasonable in a legal sense, especially in the U.S. His "bait and switch upsell" comments are an enormous leap and verge on the defamatory, especially in light of their apparent ready willingness take the item back and give you a full refund, and it is clear that it indeed was a clerical error that led to it. Do you really think an organization as established as B+H would risk lawsuits and damage to their reputation as one of the few honest camera merchants out there by consciously trying to mislead consumers?

In sum, yeah, it's a pain in the $##, but mistakes like this happens all the time. It's the nature of having a large retail business. By all accounts, most B+H customers are completely satisfied with their purchases - you happened to be unlucky enough to run into one of the rare mistakes. If you are as put out as you seem, switch merchants. But try to keep things in perspective - things like this surely happen with Adorama too,

Taking a $900 sale gone wrong due to vendor error and offering a 320% substitute product is neither good biz nor "reasonable" under any common law legal standard I know. Usually you compensate new the same price point. Not doing so invites bait and switch finger pointing because this is precisely how bait and switch operates. It's all about misrepresenting.

And if you knew anything about US defamation you would know the onus is on the subject to prove. So B&H would have to demonstrate that a 320% return offer could not be seen by a reasonable person as a bait and switch tactic. Good luck with that.

It's poor customer service to mess up a $900 sale and then offer a discount on a $4,000 product. In the whole transaction that offer was B&H compounding the error, not making it better. For a company with a "pro" designation in their motto, that is not professional service in any way.

[kraigg007]

I want to thank everyone for their comments, but going at each other wasn't the intent of this post. I just wanted to voice my dissatisfaction with B&h. I was hoping they would make it right, but that hasn't happened and now they are on break for the Passover, so I will respect this important time for them an not continue this discussion until they reopen.

I guess my refund will be delayed as well.