f



Screwed by Canon Rebate

I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we 
didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.

I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know 
I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so 
that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.

I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
the rebate form.

I checked on my rebate status just now.

Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included

Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.

Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.

Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
incident.


0
John
12/29/2006 2:05:53 AM
comp.periphs.printers 18139 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

353 Replies
1294 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 24

John wrote:
> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm
> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in
> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at
> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we
> didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
>
> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know
> I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the
> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so
> that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>
> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase
> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the
> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to
> the rebate form.
>
> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>
> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>
> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>
> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>
> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this
> incident.

Mail-in rebates are always a scam.  Why do they do them?  Because
people buy based on this.
50-80% never claim them.
Rebates take 8-12 weeks and often are never delivered, another 50%
forget about them.
They force you to call someone to fix the problem or ask where your
rebate is 16 weeks past due delivery time.
At the end of it all, according to various business studies, only 3% of
rebates are ever paid out.  So, they can boost sales with what might
amount to a 0.5% overall discount paid.
It is business genius.

0
RichA
12/29/2006 2:13:17 AM
In article <4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, John <John@nospam.net> wrote:
>I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
>quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
>the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
>least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we 
>didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
>
>I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know 
>I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
>principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so 
>that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>
>I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
>receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
>envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
>the rebate form.
>
>I checked on my rebate status just now.
>
>Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>
>Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>
>Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>
>Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
>incident.

Try contacting the retailer from whom you made the purchase.

The courts have recently ruled that the retailer is legally
bound to honor the rebate.

I am hopeful that this ruling will help bring about the demise
of the rebate scam.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
12/29/2006 2:21:36 AM
"John" <John@nospam.net> wrote in message 
news:4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm quite 
>anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in the rebate 
>with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at least minimizes 
>the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we didn't receive 
>your rebate in time" excuses.
>
> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know I 
> go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so that 
> most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>
> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to the 
> rebate form.
>
> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>
> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>
> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>
> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>
> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
> incident.
>
You know, I wonder about these rebate centers.  I've had that exact same 
thing happen to me twice in the last half-dozen years; once for a Sony 
rebate and once for a Hitachi rebate.  I wonder if these rebate centers 
aren't scamming the manufacturers somehow, and cheating some percentage of 
customers, while still  accepting the money from the mfgrs. 


0
k
12/29/2006 2:25:06 AM
Rebates are such a RIP!  Just give me a good deal up front, with no BS.
I got ripped off on a 30.00 rebate on a Netgear networking kit one time.
They rejected my rebate because my address was a PO box.  What bullshit.
I guess that was a good enough excuse for them.

Not everyone has the luxury of home-delivered mail - some of us live in 
small towns.






"John" <John@nospam.net> wrote in message 
news:4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm quite 
>anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in the rebate 
>with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at least minimizes 
>the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we didn't receive 
>your rebate in time" excuses.
>
> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know I 
> go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so that 
> most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>
> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to the 
> rebate form.
>
> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>
> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>
> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>
> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>
> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
> incident.
>
> 


0
J
12/29/2006 2:32:57 AM
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Malcolm Hoar wrote:
<blockquote cite="miden1u3ga04c002malch@nntp.sonic.net" type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">In article <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com">&lt;4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com&gt;</a>, John <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:John@nospam.net">&lt;John@nospam.net&gt;</a> wrote:
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we 
didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.

I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know 
I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so 
that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.

I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
the rebate form.

I checked on my rebate status just now.

Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included

Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.

Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.

Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
incident.
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
Try contacting the retailer from whom you made the purchase.

The courts have recently ruled that the retailer is legally
bound to honor the rebate.
  </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
What court and what state?<br>
<blockquote cite="miden1u3ga04c002malch@nntp.sonic.net" type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">
I am hopeful that this ruling will help bring about the demise
of the rebate scam.

  </pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
0
measekite
12/29/2006 3:39:58 AM
John wrote:
> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.

I have successfully gotten 3 rebates (all at the same time, a package 
deal about this time last year) from Canon. Took a while, but they did 
pay off.



> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.

I'd try appealing to whoever is appropriate and sending the copy with 
all the documentation that you have...might just do the trick. Never know.


> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
> incident.

I can certainly understand the sentiment...have had some NOT pay off on 
rebates (have a data base set up for when to expect the money back etc). 
But you know, I have somewhat recently taken the approach that I will 
*not* play the rebate game. I look for the "instant rebate" or the best 
price without the rebate trying to encourage the folks that don't 
indulge in this garbage. I've heard a while back that Best Buy was going 
to be rebate-free sometime RSN...that was about a year to 1.5 years 
ago...guess they're not rushing in to anything. <g>

Just wanted to let you know that Canon has paid off in the past (at 
least for me).

Tom
0
tom
12/29/2006 3:40:24 AM
RichA wrote:
> 
> John wrote:
> > I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm
> > quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in
> > the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at
> > least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we
> > didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
> >
> > I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know
> > I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the
> > principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so
> > that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
> >
> > I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase
> > receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the
> > envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to
> > the rebate form.
> >
> > I checked on my rebate status just now.
> >
> > Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
> >
> > Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
> >
> > Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
> >
> > Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this
> > incident.
> 
> Mail-in rebates are always a scam.  Why do they do them?  Because
> people buy based on this.
> 50-80% never claim them.
> Rebates take 8-12 weeks and often are never delivered, another 50%
> forget about them.
> They force you to call someone to fix the problem or ask where your
> rebate is 16 weeks past due delivery time.
> At the end of it all, according to various business studies, only 3% of
> rebates are ever paid out.  So, they can boost sales with what might
> amount to a 0.5% overall discount paid.
> It is business genius.

I get every damn rebate I file, so I'm saving money at the expense of
illiterates/incompetents - so what?
0
Bob
12/29/2006 3:47:31 AM
"John" <John@nospam.net> wrote in message 
news:4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm quite 
>anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in the rebate 
>with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at least minimizes 
>the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we didn't receive 
>your rebate in time" excuses.
>
> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know I 
> go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so that 
> most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>
> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to the 
> rebate form.
>
> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>
> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>
> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>
> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>
> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
> incident.
>
>

I think most companies factor in that you forget to send in the rebate 
rather than trying to scam you.  By law they have to provide the rebate 
check unless the company goes under.

One company I used to know, you have to call in and asked the status of the 
rebate first before they would cut the check.

Another company has so many UPC labels or UPC look alike labels (a few on 
the retail box plus couple more on the inside)  that I send everything that 
remotely look like the UPC. Don't know the intend was to confuse but I had a 
rebate for $100 and they said I didn't send in the real UPC.

If you purchase a few items with one receipt and all the rebate forms 
required the original receipt then you're kinda screwed.

I had a few different promotions form the same company with only one receipt 
but they only send me one rebate with the smaller amount.

I have good luck with rebates from Costco and Microsoft - that's like money 
in the pocket.

Don't do rebates much anymore, just not worth the extra effort.







0
Fred
12/29/2006 3:47:55 AM
In article <i60lh.17089$hI.2268@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, boyhowdy wrote:

>>The courts have recently ruled that the retailer is legally
>>bound to honor the rebate.
>
>What court and what state?

My bad. It wasn't the courts per se, it was the FTC:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/03/compusa.htm

They have and are holding retailers liable for non-payment
of manufacturers rebates.

The OP should certainly file a complaint with the FTC.
The more complains they get, the more pressure there
will be to end this silly rebate nonsense.



-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
12/29/2006 3:51:21 AM
In article <45948e29$0$20076$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, tom <tvanderpool.1@juno.com> wrote:

>I can certainly understand the sentiment...have had some NOT pay off on 
>rebates (have a data base set up for when to expect the money back etc). 
>But you know, I have somewhat recently taken the approach that I will 
>*not* play the rebate game. I look for the "instant rebate" or the best 
>price without the rebate trying to encourage the folks that don't 
>indulge in this garbage. I've heard a while back that Best Buy was going 
>to be rebate-free sometime RSN...that was about a year to 1.5 years 
>ago...guess they're not rushing in to anything. <g>

A few major retail chains have already announced their
intent to phase out all rebates. Complaining (on a large
scale) really works.

If you don't receive your rebate, please, please give
the manufacturer, the retailer and the FTC, lots of
grief and hassle. Collectively, consumers can put an
end to this scam.


-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
12/29/2006 3:56:30 AM
Ok, I consider myself to be a true rebate guru ... hundreds per year 
(although not as many as in past years now that OfficeMax and some other 
stores are cutting back on them).  And I get virtually all of them.

I've been in the situation that you describe.  The fact that the issue 
is that they claim that you didn't send in a qualifying original UPC 
code, which you obviously no longer have, does not mean that all is 
lost.  I have protested quite a few such situations, and they have 
always been reversed and the rebate approved.  The one requirement here 
is that you have a copy of everything that you sent in, including the 
UPC label (Obviously  it's not going to be the original - that's ok, the 
copy is good enough for a protest/resubmission).  Protest the denial, 
and in the protest include a copy of the original rebate submission 
(with the UPC) and a copy of the delivery confirmation.  Let them 
explain why they denied it.

[Note:  It could be that you sent in a bar code but not a UPC bar code; 
this happens a lot, although usually only to rebate "newbies" who don't 
know what a UPC code is.  Lots of products have tons of bar code labels 
on them, only one of which is the UPC bar code label.  Another 
possibility is that the UPC code on the product was not on the list of 
qualifying UPC codes supplied to the rebate processor by the rebate 
sponsor.  This is OFTEN a mistake; sometimes, however, there was no 
rebate on the product that you bought, although there was one on a VERY 
similar product.  Either way, this is also worth protesting and denials 
are often reversed.  Note that the same product sold in different stores 
can have different UPC labels, one of which qualifies and the other of 
which does not.  This is common for products sold at warehouse clubs, 
for example (a product sold at a warehouse club like Costco or Sam's 
doesn't qualify for a rebate while the exact same product sold at Best 
Buy does, and they have different UPC labels.]

A couple of comments:  MOST of the rebate firms and the rebate sponsors 
are NOT out to screw you or deny you the rebate (but yes, there are a 
few exceptions], and they are usually reasonable when an issue arises 
(again, there are exceptions).  We've had quite a discussion of this 
recently in another newsgroup (Dell), and my experience is typical of 
people who do a lot of rebates.  More than 90% of rebates work just fine 
with no issues if you follow the directions.  A small number, less than 
10%, will involve some type of post-application correspondence. 
However, if you follow the instructions and appeal when necessary, you 
will get more than 99% of your rebates.

Officially, is no "delivery confirmation" for envelopes (very 
unfortunately), only for packages.  The official USPS policy is that you 
can only do delivery confirmation for packages or letters that are more 
than 3/4 of an inch thick.  Some postal clerks, however, either don't 
know this or don't enforce it and will sell you a delivery confirmation 
anyway.  [I think that this whole policy is a mistake by the postal 
service, but that's another matter].

However, I have never found this to be an issue.  Of all of the rebate 
denials that I have dealt with (a few dozen in 5 or 6 years out of at 
least 600 to 1,000 rebates), the issue has NEVER been that the rebate 
was just "lost".  Not even once.  Further, delivery confirmation and, 
especially a return signature, can actually slow down the process (and 
some rebate processors won't even accept rebate submissions with return 
signature cards that have to be signed for).  What you can do on a 
letter is a lesser known service called a "Certificate of Mailing", 
which you can get on a letter.  It proves that the letter was mailed, 
although not that it was received by the recipient.  But problems with 
missing/wrong UPC labels or receipts, or non-qualification for whatever 
reason, are the bulk of problems.


John wrote:
> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we 
> didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
> 
> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know 
> I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so 
> that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
> 
> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
> the rebate form.
> 
> I checked on my rebate status just now.
> 
> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
> 
> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
> 
> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
> 
> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
> incident.
> 
> 
0
Barry
12/29/2006 4:00:11 AM
But it says right on the rebate form that rebates will not be honored 
from post office boxes.  This is a standard term of virually all 
rebates.  Sure, you have a PO box, but normally you do live SOMEWHERE 
where you could get mail.


J.A. Michel wrote:
> Rebates are such a RIP!  Just give me a good deal up front, with no BS.
> I got ripped off on a 30.00 rebate on a Netgear networking kit one time.
> They rejected my rebate because my address was a PO box.  What bullshit.
> I guess that was a good enough excuse for them.
> 
> Not everyone has the luxury of home-delivered mail - some of us live in 
> small towns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote in message 
> news:4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm quite 
>> anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in the rebate 
>> with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at least minimizes 
>> the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we didn't receive 
>> your rebate in time" excuses.
>>
>> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know I 
>> go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
>> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so that 
>> most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>>
>> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
>> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
>> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to the 
>> rebate form.
>>
>> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>>
>> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>>
>> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>>
>> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>>
>> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
>> incident.
>>
>>
> 
> 
0
Barry
12/29/2006 4:02:04 AM
I don't remember seeing that 'rule' in the paperwork.  This was several 
years ago.  So I guess everyone with a PO box is a criminal or something?? 
I live in a rural area, where home-delivered mail is not an option.  We have 
to have a PO box, and we get to pay box rent for the privilege of being 
treated like crap.

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:45949345$0$5278$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> But it says right on the rebate form that rebates will not be honored from 
> post office boxes.  This is a standard term of virually all rebates. 
> Sure, you have a PO box, but normally you do live SOMEWHERE where you 
> could get mail.
>
>
> J.A. Michel wrote:
>> Rebates are such a RIP!  Just give me a good deal up front, with no BS.
>> I got ripped off on a 30.00 rebate on a Netgear networking kit one time.
>> They rejected my rebate because my address was a PO box.  What bullshit.
>> I guess that was a good enough excuse for them.
>>
>> Not everyone has the luxury of home-delivered mail - some of us live in 
>> small towns.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote in message 
>> news:4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
>>> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
>>> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
>>> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we 
>>> didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
>>>
>>> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know 
>>> I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
>>> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so 
>>> that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>>>
>>> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
>>> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
>>> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
>>> the rebate form.
>>>
>>> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>>>
>>> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>>>
>>> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>>>
>>> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>>>
>>> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
>>> incident.
>>>
>>>
>> 

0
J
12/29/2006 4:21:50 AM
There have been rulings that in SOME cases, retailers are responsible 
for rebates.  I'm not sure that it was a court ruling, but I believe 
that CompUSA signed an FTC consent decree on this matter.  However it's 
not "across the board".

That not withstanding, I have had both Circuit City and Best Buy local 
stores pay me for rebates that were denied (the Circuit City rebate was 
$200 on a laptop .... and they gave me cash right out of the cash 
register, after filling out some forms and having me sign some papers). 
  [Interestingly, this rebate, which had been denied by the rebate 
processor, was subsequently reversed and I received my check ... double 
rebate ... which I took back to the store and signed over to them.] 
Best Buy did not give me cash, but a gift card (which, for me, was as 
good as cash).

It's a last resort, to be used after appealing to the rebate processor, 
but if you have all of the documentation, the local stores will indeed 
sometimes honor a rebate that the rebate processor denies.


measekite wrote:
> 
> 
> Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>> In article <4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, John <John@nospam.net> wrote:
>>   
>>> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
>>> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
>>> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
>>> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we 
>>> didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
>>>
>>> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know 
>>> I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
>>> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so 
>>> that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>>>
>>> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
>>> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
>>> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
>>> the rebate form.
>>>
>>> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>>>
>>> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>>>
>>> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>>>
>>> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>>>
>>> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
>>> incident.
>>>     
>>
>> Try contacting the retailer from whom you made the purchase.
>>
>> The courts have recently ruled that the retailer is legally
>> bound to honor the rebate.
>>   
> 
> What court and what state?
>> I am hopeful that this ruling will help bring about the demise
>> of the rebate scam.
>>
>>   
0
Barry
12/29/2006 4:53:46 AM
"John" <John@nospam.net> wrote in message 
news:4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm quite 
>anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in the rebate 
>with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at least minimizes 
>the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we didn't receive 
>your rebate in time" excuses.
>
> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know I 
> go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so that 
> most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>
> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to the 
> rebate form.
>
> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>
> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>
> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>
> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>
> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
> incident.

I have put in for many rebates over the years and I have always received 
them.


0
Freckles
12/29/2006 4:57:45 AM
No, everyone with a PO box is not a criminal, but most of the scams 
against rebate fulfillment houses and sponsors involve use of PO boxes. 
  So quite some time ago (I'd say more than a decade ago) it became just 
about universal to deny rebates with a PO box address (and it states 
that in the rebate terms).

An interesting situation arose about 2 years ago because almost all 
rebates are limited to "one per address".  The NY attorney general 
brought suit against a ton of rebate firms for not paying rebates to 
residents of large NYC high-rise apartment buildings (same address ..... 
1234 Broadway, NY, NY).  Sometimes some of the things that the rebate 
firms have to do to protect themselves (because they ARE themselves the 
targets of people who would commit fraud) cross the line, sometimes 
unintentionally.  The "one per address" rule is reasonable enough in a 
suburban single-family residence environment, but failed miserably in 
environments with high-rise apartment buildings that have a single address.


J.A. Michel wrote:
> I don't remember seeing that 'rule' in the paperwork.  This was several 
> years ago.  So I guess everyone with a PO box is a criminal or something?? 
> I live in a rural area, where home-delivered mail is not an option.  We have 
> to have a PO box, and we get to pay box rent for the privilege of being 
> treated like crap.
> 
> "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message 
> news:45949345$0$5278$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> But it says right on the rebate form that rebates will not be honored from 
>> post office boxes.  This is a standard term of virually all rebates. 
>> Sure, you have a PO box, but normally you do live SOMEWHERE where you 
>> could get mail.
>>
>>
>> J.A. Michel wrote:
>>> Rebates are such a RIP!  Just give me a good deal up front, with no BS.
>>> I got ripped off on a 30.00 rebate on a Netgear networking kit one time.
>>> They rejected my rebate because my address was a PO box.  What bullshit.
>>> I guess that was a good enough excuse for them.
>>>
>>> Not everyone has the luxury of home-delivered mail - some of us live in 
>>> small towns.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote in message 
>>> news:4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
>>>> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
>>>> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
>>>> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we 
>>>> didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
>>>>
>>>> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know 
>>>> I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
>>>> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so 
>>>> that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>>>>
>>>> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
>>>> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
>>>> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
>>>> the rebate form.
>>>>
>>>> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>>>>
>>>> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>>>>
>>>> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>>>>
>>>> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>>>>
>>>> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
>>>> incident.
>>>>
>>>>
> 
0
Barry
12/29/2006 5:07:42 AM
RichA wrote:
> John wrote:
> 
>>I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm
>>quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in
>>the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at
>>least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we
>>didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
>>
>>I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know
>>I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the
>>principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so
>>that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>>
>>I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase
>>receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the
>>envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to
>>the rebate form.
>>
>>I checked on my rebate status just now.
>>
>>Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>>
>>Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>>
>>Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>>
>>Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this
>>incident.
> 
> 
> Mail-in rebates are always a scam.  Why do they do them?  Because
> people buy based on this.
> 50-80% never claim them.
> Rebates take 8-12 weeks and often are never delivered, another 50%
> forget about them.
> They force you to call someone to fix the problem or ask where your
> rebate is 16 weeks past due delivery time.
> At the end of it all, according to various business studies, only 3% of
> rebates are ever paid out.  So, they can boost sales with what might
> amount to a 0.5% overall discount paid.
> It is business genius.
> 
Hmmm,
I always got my rebate check. Only thing is it takes upto a few weeks to 
get it. Follow the procedure and mail it and be paitient.
0
Tony
12/29/2006 5:14:53 AM
John wrote:

> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we 
> didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
> 
> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know 
> I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so 
> that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
> 
> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
> the rebate form.
> 
> I checked on my rebate status just now.
> 
> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
> 
> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
> 
> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
> 
> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
> incident.
> 
> 
Hmmm,
You may have bought a grey market product? Take it up with your retailer.
0
Tony
12/29/2006 5:15:57 AM
In article <459492d4$0$5265$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:

>A couple of comments:  MOST of the rebate firms and the rebate sponsors 
>are NOT out to screw you or deny you the rebate (but yes, there are a 
>few exceptions], and they are usually reasonable when an issue arises 
>(again, there are exceptions).  We've had quite a discussion of this 
>recently in another newsgroup (Dell), and my experience is typical of 
>people who do a lot of rebates.  More than 90% of rebates work just fine 
>with no issues if you follow the directions.

The 10-20% of rebates that are never submitted work fine (for
the issuer).

In my opinion, none of them work "just fine" for the consumer.
The paperwork is a hassle. Postage is not free. Keeping copies
is even more of a hassle. And chasing non-payments is a major
hassle.

On top of all that, in CA at least, you pay sales tax on the
rebate amount.

The only reason rebates exist is because the issues know with
a high degree of confidence that they'll get to keep some
20% of refundable amount. Large manufacturers and retailers
can play that numbers game to their advantage. Consumers, as
a group, will always loose.


-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
12/29/2006 5:23:36 AM
Bought my first house a few months ago and purchased washer/dryer and
fridge from Lowes.  Washer/dryer came with delivery rebate while fridge
came with delivery and $100 gift card rebate.  Both delivery rebates
came with no hassle..but there was a big delay on the gift card.
Finally I saw on their site that it had been denied and I would be
getting a letter shortly. Well it was more like 2-3 weeks I got a
letter but could not make sense of it. It had a 800 number if I cared
to discuss it further. I called Lowe's customer care first to see what
they would do, which turned out to be a joke as not only would they not
help me, they refused to forward me to management or even give their
names. I then called the 800 number and what they said was they didnt
have my receipt. Interesting they didnt say *I* didnt send it but
rather that the scanning and digitalizing department apparently lost it
and they wanted me to resend (via fax). I asked if this would really
take care of the problem or was I wasting my time . I told them I was
ready to file with my State Attorney General fraud division  (and I was
as I kept good records-(which is what he said to do) if this was
another stall tactic.
They said it wasn't so I faxed the receipt again and within about 1
week the card was in the mail.   I suspect they just want to wear folks
down so they will give up. I let them know (and those frauds at
customer "care") I would follow through. You should do the same and see
if you state has a fraud division and what records they need from you
to go after Cannon. Like the other guys said, if enough people keep up
the pressure, these companies will stop attempting pull off these scams
on customers as it will be unprofitable.

The only downer for me was the fact that I have always liked Lowes and
was sorry to discover they have started down this road too.


Good luck, Fletch

John wrote:
> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm
> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in
> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at
> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we
> didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
>
> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know
> I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the
> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so
> that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>
> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase
> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the
> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to
> the rebate form.
>
> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>
> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>
> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>
> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>
> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this
> incident.

0
fletchb
12/29/2006 6:21:19 AM
I always photocopy everything I send in for rebates, including the UPC 
taped to the form.  Usually, these rebates are not handled by the 
manufacturer, but by a hired "Fulfillment" company.

It is possible in the handling, because it was taped to the form, they 
might have simply missed it.  They are supposed to hold on to any rebate 
form that is in contention, so I would call them and explain the 
situation, they may re-evaluate your form and correct the situation.

Then demand a rapid processing, since they made the error and owe you 
the money.  If they stick to their guns, demand a photocopy of your 
original submission (all sides copied).  If that doesn't get you 
anywhere, if you are in the states or Canada, place a complaint with:

-The attorney general's office for your state or province

-In the US, or if the Fulfillment company is in the US, report to the US 
postal Fraud division.

-Canon in your country... they usually want to know about this.

Lastly, contact the retailer where you bought the goods.  They sometimes 
have a person who follows up on this kind of thing.  In some cases, they 
will just pay the rebate directly to you.

Art


John wrote:

> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we 
> didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
> 
> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know 
> I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so 
> that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
> 
> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
> the rebate form.
> 
> I checked on my rebate status just now.
> 
> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
> 
> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
> 
> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
> 
> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
> incident.
> 
> 
0
Arthur
12/29/2006 6:27:46 AM
These rebate companies often advertise to the companies they are hired 
by that they will make great efforts to disqualify rebates to keep the 
rebate costs down... particularly with larger rebate amounts.

You may also be right about some fraud.

Art


k wrote:

> "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote in message 
> news:4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> 
>>I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm quite 
>>anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in the rebate 
>>with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at least minimizes 
>>the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we didn't receive 
>>your rebate in time" excuses.
>>
>>I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know I 
>>go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
>>principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so that 
>>most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>>
>>I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
>>receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
>>envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to the 
>>rebate form.
>>
>>I checked on my rebate status just now.
>>
>>Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>>
>>Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>>
>>Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>>
>>Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
>>incident.
>>
> 
> You know, I wonder about these rebate centers.  I've had that exact same 
> thing happen to me twice in the last half-dozen years; once for a Sony 
> rebate and once for a Hitachi rebate.  I wonder if these rebate centers 
> aren't scamming the manufacturers somehow, and cheating some percentage of 
> customers, while still  accepting the money from the mfgrs. 
> 
> 
0
Arthur
12/29/2006 6:29:43 AM
They do not deliver rebates to PO boxes because there is often fraud of 
multiple rebates when they are restricted to one per household.  The 
rebate form usually warns you about this.  Unfortunately, probably the 
only thing you can do is find someone elses to submit it for you who has 
a street address.

If someone sends you a letter with your street address and no PO number, 
would your P.O. know where it was to be delivered?

Art

J.A. Michel wrote:

> Rebates are such a RIP!  Just give me a good deal up front, with no BS.
> I got ripped off on a 30.00 rebate on a Netgear networking kit one time.
> They rejected my rebate because my address was a PO box.  What bullshit.
> I guess that was a good enough excuse for them.
> 
> Not everyone has the luxury of home-delivered mail - some of us live in 
> small towns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote in message 
> news:4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> 
>>I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm quite 
>>anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in the rebate 
>>with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at least minimizes 
>>the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we didn't receive 
>>your rebate in time" excuses.
>>
>>I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know I 
>>go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
>>principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so that 
>>most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>>
>>I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
>>receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
>>envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to the 
>>rebate form.
>>
>>I checked on my rebate status just now.
>>
>>Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>>
>>Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>>
>>Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>>
>>Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
>>incident.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
0
Arthur
12/29/2006 6:32:22 AM
I fully agree.  I always pursue my rebates until paid, on principle.

I also report non-responding companies to the authorities.

Art

Malcolm Hoar wrote:

> In article <45948e29$0$20076$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, tom <tvanderpool.1@juno.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I can certainly understand the sentiment...have had some NOT pay off on 
>>rebates (have a data base set up for when to expect the money back etc). 
>>But you know, I have somewhat recently taken the approach that I will 
>>*not* play the rebate game. I look for the "instant rebate" or the best 
>>price without the rebate trying to encourage the folks that don't 
>>indulge in this garbage. I've heard a while back that Best Buy was going 
>>to be rebate-free sometime RSN...that was about a year to 1.5 years 
>>ago...guess they're not rushing in to anything. <g>
> 
> 
> A few major retail chains have already announced their
> intent to phase out all rebates. Complaining (on a large
> scale) really works.
> 
> If you don't receive your rebate, please, please give
> the manufacturer, the retailer and the FTC, lots of
> grief and hassle. Collectively, consumers can put an
> end to this scam.
> 
> 
0
Arthur
12/29/2006 6:41:40 AM
I agree with much of what you wrote here.

The only thing I'd challenge is the integrity of the fulfillment 
companies.  I have actually gone to some of their websites and read how 
they advertise to the clients (the retailers or manufacturers who hire 
them) and they do try to limit rebates with some tactics.

I also have gone through hundreds of rebates, although not as many as 
you have.  I have had many rejected on bogus grounds.  Sometimes trying 
to contact the fulfillment company is very difficult... you get recorded 
messages, etc. and they do not call back.

In all the times I have submitted rebates, I only made one error, which 
I was able to rectify (I send the wrong receipt), however, the rebate 
companies have tried to stiff me dozens of time.  Sometimes massive 
delays, sometimes dishonest refusals.

I have ultimately received every rebate I have ever submitted, but not 
without a lot of wasted time and work I should not have to put into it.

I have gone as far as calling company head offices and speaking with 
Vice presidents of both the fulfillment companies and the manufacturers.

Anyway, I know some errors are made by the purchasers, but the rebate 
process is made intentionally difficult and convoluted, and my 
experience says the fulfillment companies are not as above board as your 
  experience implies.

Art

Barry Watzman wrote:

> Ok, I consider myself to be a true rebate guru ... hundreds per year 
> (although not as many as in past years now that OfficeMax and some other 
> stores are cutting back on them).  And I get virtually all of them.
> 
> I've been in the situation that you describe.  The fact that the issue 
> is that they claim that you didn't send in a qualifying original UPC 
> code, which you obviously no longer have, does not mean that all is 
> lost.  I have protested quite a few such situations, and they have 
> always been reversed and the rebate approved.  The one requirement here 
> is that you have a copy of everything that you sent in, including the 
> UPC label (Obviously  it's not going to be the original - that's ok, the 
> copy is good enough for a protest/resubmission).  Protest the denial, 
> and in the protest include a copy of the original rebate submission 
> (with the UPC) and a copy of the delivery confirmation.  Let them 
> explain why they denied it.
> 
> [Note:  It could be that you sent in a bar code but not a UPC bar code; 
> this happens a lot, although usually only to rebate "newbies" who don't 
> know what a UPC code is.  Lots of products have tons of bar code labels 
> on them, only one of which is the UPC bar code label.  Another 
> possibility is that the UPC code on the product was not on the list of 
> qualifying UPC codes supplied to the rebate processor by the rebate 
> sponsor.  This is OFTEN a mistake; sometimes, however, there was no 
> rebate on the product that you bought, although there was one on a VERY 
> similar product.  Either way, this is also worth protesting and denials 
> are often reversed.  Note that the same product sold in different stores 
> can have different UPC labels, one of which qualifies and the other of 
> which does not.  This is common for products sold at warehouse clubs, 
> for example (a product sold at a warehouse club like Costco or Sam's 
> doesn't qualify for a rebate while the exact same product sold at Best 
> Buy does, and they have different UPC labels.]
> 
> A couple of comments:  MOST of the rebate firms and the rebate sponsors 
> are NOT out to screw you or deny you the rebate (but yes, there are a 
> few exceptions], and they are usually reasonable when an issue arises 
> (again, there are exceptions).  We've had quite a discussion of this 
> recently in another newsgroup (Dell), and my experience is typical of 
> people who do a lot of rebates.  More than 90% of rebates work just fine 
> with no issues if you follow the directions.  A small number, less than 
> 10%, will involve some type of post-application correspondence. However, 
> if you follow the instructions and appeal when necessary, you will get 
> more than 99% of your rebates.
> 
> Officially, is no "delivery confirmation" for envelopes (very 
> unfortunately), only for packages.  The official USPS policy is that you 
> can only do delivery confirmation for packages or letters that are more 
> than 3/4 of an inch thick.  Some postal clerks, however, either don't 
> know this or don't enforce it and will sell you a delivery confirmation 
> anyway.  [I think that this whole policy is a mistake by the postal 
> service, but that's another matter].
> 
> However, I have never found this to be an issue.  Of all of the rebate 
> denials that I have dealt with (a few dozen in 5 or 6 years out of at 
> least 600 to 1,000 rebates), the issue has NEVER been that the rebate 
> was just "lost".  Not even once.  Further, delivery confirmation and, 
> especially a return signature, can actually slow down the process (and 
> some rebate processors won't even accept rebate submissions with return 
> signature cards that have to be signed for).  What you can do on a 
> letter is a lesser known service called a "Certificate of Mailing", 
> which you can get on a letter.  It proves that the letter was mailed, 
> although not that it was received by the recipient.  But problems with 
> missing/wrong UPC labels or receipts, or non-qualification for whatever 
> reason, are the bulk of problems.
> 
> 
> John wrote:
> 
>> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
>> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
>> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
>> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, 
>> we didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
>>
>> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I 
>> know I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's 
>> the principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate 
>> so that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>>
>> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
>> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
>> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
>> the rebate form.
>>
>> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>>
>> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>>
>> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>>
>> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>>
>> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember 
>> this incident.
>>
>>
0
Arthur
12/29/2006 6:54:36 AM
I had a similar situation.  The rebate was only for $10, and I was paid 
by the retailer.  Eventually, the rebate cheque showed up, and I 
attempted to return it to the store.  They didn't want it and told me to 
cash it.

One more caveat... some fulfillment companies send cheques that look 
like junkmail.  It is usually a plain white laser printed postcard. 
Usually really flimsy, and it even has the postage and cancellation on 
it when you get it.  The reverse side IS the cheque.  It's easy to 
discard or lose this, so be careful to read those junkmail looking 
postcards, they may be a cheque.

Art

Barry Watzman wrote:

> There have been rulings that in SOME cases, retailers are responsible 
> for rebates.  I'm not sure that it was a court ruling, but I believe 
> that CompUSA signed an FTC consent decree on this matter.  However it's 
> not "across the board".
> 
> That not withstanding, I have had both Circuit City and Best Buy local 
> stores pay me for rebates that were denied (the Circuit City rebate was 
> $200 on a laptop .... and they gave me cash right out of the cash 
> register, after filling out some forms and having me sign some papers). 
>  [Interestingly, this rebate, which had been denied by the rebate 
> processor, was subsequently reversed and I received my check ... double 
> rebate ... which I took back to the store and signed over to them.] Best 
> Buy did not give me cash, but a gift card (which, for me, was as good as 
> cash).
> 
> It's a last resort, to be used after appealing to the rebate processor, 
> but if you have all of the documentation, the local stores will indeed 
> sometimes honor a rebate that the rebate processor denies.
> 
> 
> measekite wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>>
>>> In article <4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, John 
>>> <John@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>  
>>>
>>>> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so 
>>>> I'm quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS 
>>>> sending in the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery 
>>>> confirmation at least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your 
>>>> rebate" or "Sorry, we didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
>>>>
>>>> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I 
>>>> know I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but 
>>>> it's the principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a 
>>>> rebate so that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>>>>
>>>> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, 
>>>> purchase receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put 
>>>> that in the envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape 
>>>> the UPC code to the rebate form.
>>>>
>>>> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>>>>
>>>> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>>>>
>>>> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>>>>
>>>> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>>>>
>>>> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember 
>>>> this incident.
>>>>     
>>>
>>>
>>> Try contacting the retailer from whom you made the purchase.
>>>
>>> The courts have recently ruled that the retailer is legally
>>> bound to honor the rebate.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> What court and what state?
>>
>>> I am hopeful that this ruling will help bring about the demise
>>> of the rebate scam.
>>>
>>>   
0
Arthur
12/29/2006 6:59:40 AM
Bob (but not THAT Bob) wrote:
> RichA wrote:
> >
> > John wrote:
> > > I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm
> > > quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in
> > > the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at
> > > least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we
> > > didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
> > >
> > > I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know
> > > I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the
> > > principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so
> > > that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
> > >
> > > I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase
> > > receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the
> > > envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to
> > > the rebate form.
> > >
> > > I checked on my rebate status just now.
> > >
> > > Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
> > >
> > > Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
> > >
> > > Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
> > >
> > > Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this
> > > incident.
> >
> > Mail-in rebates are always a scam.  Why do they do them?  Because
> > people buy based on this.
> > 50-80% never claim them.
> > Rebates take 8-12 weeks and often are never delivered, another 50%
> > forget about them.
> > They force you to call someone to fix the problem or ask where your
> > rebate is 16 weeks past due delivery time.
> > At the end of it all, according to various business studies, only 3% of
> > rebates are ever paid out.  So, they can boost sales with what might
> > amount to a 0.5% overall discount paid.
> > It is business genius.
>
> I get every damn rebate I file, so I'm saving money at the expense of
> illiterates/incompetents - so what?

No problem, I'm just pointing out the differences between mail-in
rebates and instant rebates.
Having automatic computer verification of rebates at the time of sale
would increase payouts massively, but the companies don't want that at
all.  Meanwhile, there is also the  chance with instant rebates your
name and other information wouldn't be sold to a 1000 different
databases months afterward....

0
RichA
12/29/2006 7:14:38 AM

RichA wrote:
> 
> Having automatic computer verification of rebates at the time of sale
> would increase payouts massively, but the companies don't want that at
> all.  Meanwhile, there is also the  chance with instant rebates your
> name and other information wouldn't be sold to a 1000 different
> databases months afterward....

The problem with instant rebates is that there is no way they
could validate that you're not doing more than one like they can
when you have to mail it in. So people could easily end up with
multiples, and the companies do not want that, especially with
the free (after rebate) stuff. For stuff like giving $100 back
on an appliance, or Sears giving free shipping after rebate,
there's really no excuse for a mail-in rebate, other than
avoiding paying it.

BTW as someone who does a LOT of rebates, there is absolutely NO
evidence that my name is sold as a result of rebates (I do get
mail specifically from a couple of companies whose rebates I
claimed). And I don't think that anyone has been able to prove
this -- it's just paranoid people like you who keep claiming
that it is true. If you have proof, post it here.

Bill
0
Bill
12/29/2006 8:03:44 AM
"J.A. Michel" <jm44316@spamnotalltel.net> writes:

>I don't remember seeing that 'rule' in the paperwork.  This was several 
>years ago.  So I guess everyone with a PO box is a criminal or something?? 
>I live in a rural area, where home-delivered mail is not an option.  We have 
>to have a PO box, and we get to pay box rent for the privilege of being 
>treated like crap.

  When I lived in a rural area we also had a "box" (formerly "rural 
route") address and we couldn't get any offers, rebates, or anything.  
The "no PO boxes" rule is very common, although I can't say I know why.  
Even some catalogues won't send to a PO box.  I'm sure they get away 
with it because so few people have rural addresses.
  Nowadays rural addresses have what's called a "911 address", maybe you 
can call the post office and see if mail will be delivered to you if 
it's got that address?

Stacia

0
stacia
12/29/2006 9:11:17 AM
I was so very impressed and pleased with Canon's email service support
on an old printer that I will go out of my way to buy 'Canon' in the
future.

I too am a bit 'anal' about rebates and as a result have never had a
problem getting rebates, and I apply for quite a few.

I believe Canon contracts out rebates.  While Canon should insure its
contractor is not screwing over people, it's hard to do when it's not
your employees and the contractor is far away.

Mike



On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:05:53 -0500, John <John@nospam.net> wrote:

>I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
>quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
>the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
>least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we 
>didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
>
>I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know 
>I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
>principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so 
>that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>
>I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
>receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
>envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
>the rebate form.
>
>I checked on my rebate status just now.
>
>Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>
>Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>
>Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>
>Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
>incident.
>

0
Mike
12/29/2006 10:55:44 AM
"John" <John@nospam.net> wrote in message 
news:4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off snip<

The purpose is to get you to cut the box your merchandise came in. Once you 
do it that baby is yours. Pure and simple.

When sending in the UPC remove it from the cardboard. Don't send the whole 
darn thing in.

Enclose one sheet showing minature copies of everything they asked for. This 
will be a tip off to them you have the necessary copies to back up your 
claims.

mark_ 


0
mark_digital
12/29/2006 11:08:27 AM
John wrote:
> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off ..

    While I don't like the idea of rebates, I do carefully apply for most of 
the ones I am qualified for.  I have only had problems twice.  Once was my 
fault and I misread the requirements and I had the wrong product.  In 
another case I had made some mistake in applying for it, but they wrote 
back, requesting the additional bit of information and when I complied I got 
the rebate.  That includes several Canon rebates.  BTW the two questioned 
rebates were not Canon.

-- 
Joseph Meehan

 Dia 's Muire duit



0
Joseph
12/29/2006 11:25:12 AM
"Bill" <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:4594CB6A.1D89E676@prodigy.net...
>
>
> RichA wrote:
> >
> > Having automatic computer verification of rebates at the time of sale
> > would increase payouts massively, but the companies don't want that at
> > all.  Meanwhile, there is also the  chance with instant rebates your
> > name and other information wouldn't be sold to a 1000 different
> > databases months afterward....
>
>
> BTW as someone who does a LOT of rebates, there is absolutely NO
> evidence that my name is sold as a result of rebates (I do get
> mail specifically from a couple of companies whose rebates I
> claimed). And I don't think that anyone has been able to prove
> this -- it's just paranoid people like you who keep claiming
> that it is true. If you have proof, post it here.
>
> Bill

I used to agree but think it has changed. Recently bought a Ultra HDD
enclosure at CC. Didn't look closely enough at the rebate PDF until readying
the paperwork. The rebate has to go through an operation called
OnRebate.com. An obvious data mining operation. I refuse to do business with
an outfit like this and will relinquish the $20 to keep from it. I'll never
buy a product again with a rebate that goes through something like this.


0
T
12/29/2006 12:47:17 PM
As has been adequately explained here before, rebates are by their very
nature a scam.  There is no logical explanation for a rebate program other
than being a scam.   The following truth will never change:

If the producer of a product wants to sell you his product at a lower than
normal price,  they will give you a price break at the check out counter.
Any   "program" to make you jump through silly hoops to get your "discount"
six months later , is nothing other than a silly scam.  There is NO logical
reason for a  "program" to give you a better price six months later
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!     IF they wanted to give you a lower price, they would do
it  ON THE DAY THAT YOU BUY THE PRODUCT !!

I am glad that this is all cleared up now.          But alas, I do know
there are those that believe in the tooth fairy, so here come the
flames........

Oh well........

--James--




0
James
12/29/2006 1:39:26 PM
"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:4594fb14$0$5264$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> John wrote:
>> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off ..
>
>    While I don't like the idea of rebates, I do carefully apply for most 
> of the ones I am qualified for.  I have only had problems twice.  Once was 
> my fault and I misread the requirements and I had the wrong product.  In 
> another case I had made some mistake in applying for it, but they wrote 
> back, requesting the additional bit of information and when I complied I 
> got the rebate.  That includes several Canon rebates.  BTW the two 
> questioned rebates were not Canon.
>
> -- 
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia 's Muire duit
>
>
>

Biblical names get better treatment. 


0
mark_digital
12/29/2006 2:00:58 PM
> I get every damn rebate I file, so I'm saving money at 
> the expense of
> illiterates/incompetents - so what?

he said he followed the directions to the letter... you're 
nuts if you think the rebate houses don't often deny for 
bullshit reasons.  I get all mine too, but more than once 
i've had to resort to pretty well harrassing them to do 
it.  I am meticulous as he is, and i've had them denied 
for bogus reasons.

The most recent example was with a Seagate hard drive. 
They tried to claim my model wasn't eligible for a rebate, 
despite the rebate form itself showing the model as 
eligible.  They also gave the same excuse to my father, so 
it wasn't simply me.... and fatwallet.com had more 
examples of people being falsely denied on this rebate, 
they were denying legit claims left & right.  It was only 
after calling & raising hell they reversed the denials and 
sent the checks.  Still took over 6 mos.

my hassle with a BellSouth rebate was even worse.  The 
rebate house claimed my copy of my phone bill wasn't 
valid.  I didn't get paper bills, & the only copies of 
bills available electronically at the time didn't look 
like normal bills -- everything was in a courier 10pt 
font, no graphics, lines anything.  The rebate house 
repeatedly diddled around saying that wasn't acceptable, 
despite it being the only option available to me.  And 
it's not like BellSouth didn't know I had their product. 
I had to write to Georgia's Office of Consumer Protections 
to get that one.  That got the BellSouth's presidential 
escalations office involved.

Others I've had to call multiple times.  I note the 
dates/times I call or check the website, the CSR i spoke 
with, everything... nowadays i even put a piece of paper 
in the envelope advising that all contents have been 
photocopied, including the postmarked mailing date on the 
envelope (i use a machine), and that i will be routinely 
following up.

certain rebate houses repeatedly crop up when people talk 
about bogus denials.  The goal is to deny.  If the rebate 
house promises a vendor only xx% will be fulfilled, often 
they have to eat anything above that amount.


0
anon
12/29/2006 2:02:31 PM
Tony Hwang wrote:
> John wrote:
> 
>> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
>> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
>> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
>> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, 
>> we didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
>>
>> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I 
>> know I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's 
>> the principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate 
>> so that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>>
>> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
>> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
>> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
>> the rebate form.
>>
>> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>>
>> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>>
>> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>>
>> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>>
>> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember 
>> this incident.
>>
>>
> Hmmm,
> You may have bought a grey market product? Take it up with your retailer.

However did you arrive at the possibility that it was a gray market 
item?  Besides, the rebate was refused because they claimed a UPC was 
not included.

It wasn't gray and Canon has already done warranty work on it (I don't 
believe they would do that for gray products).

Someone else suggested that I might not have sent it the correct label.
I cut off all the barcodes from the box just in case.

I scan everything. The box before I cut off the UPC codes. The postal 
confirmation receipt. The original store receipt. Everything scanned is 
put into a directory for that product.

If the rebate is a PDF form then using Adobe Pro, I add text fields and 
type in everything in 14 point bold Arial font.  That way they can't 
claim they can't read my writing.

Finally, I scan in and save the filled in rebate.  I copy and paste 
their address and use Word to generate an envelope (avoids possible 
transposition errors). Then I drive to the post office to get delivery 
confirmation added.  Cost about $2.75.

Is this a lot of work? Yes. Is this usually worth the effort?  No. But 
as I previously stated, it's the principle of the matter.  Am I anal? 
You bet.

One less than bright Best Buy manager was boasting to me that most 
rebates are not claimed for one reason or another and that's how they 
increase their profits.

After all this, I think one might come to appreciate why I'm miffed with 
Canon for screwing me over.  Oh, please don't say it's not Canon's fault 
but the rebate processing center.  Canon chose the company, Canon is 
responsible.

I have absolutely no idea how I would "prove" that something was in an 
envelope.  No matter what I do, it'll still come down to their word 
versus mine.  Wouldn't it?

As others have suggested, I also don't know what the retailer could do 
for me or attempting to charge back the the item to the credit company 
would accomplish.  After all, I received the item.  Any suggestions?
0
John
12/29/2006 2:12:16 PM
Re: "The 10-20% of rebates that are never submitted work fine (for the 
issuer)."

I've been on the other side of this, as a marketing manager offering or 
considering offering, rebates.

The rebate houses will give you tables with the price of the item on one 
axis, the amount of the rebate on the other axis, and the percent of 
sales for which the rebate will be claimed in the table body.  Some of 
them will guarantee the rebate (e.g. if more than they estimate are 
claimed, they will pay the rebates rather than the rebate sponsor).

The number of rebates that are not claimed is WAY more than 10% to 20%. 
  Redemption rates do not reach even 50% (much less the 80% to 90% that 
you were speculating) until you get to rebates that are both absolutely 
large ($50 and up) and ALSO a high percentage of the item price (in the 
range of 50%).  For most rebates, the percent that are CLAIMED are more 
like what you were thinking of for the percent NOT CLAIMED, e.g. 10% to 30%.

Rebates work for the seller because they allow him to achieve 
"differential pricing" and thereby increase his market share (number of 
units sold).  For the buyer, you need to know if you do or do not 
actually "get" your rebates.  A quick review of this thread will show 
you lots of people who don't, but also lots of people who do.  The 
difference is in the people and their approach to rebates, not in the 
rebates themselves (well, for the most part ... there are some rip-off 
rebates, but they are the exception).  The rebate is a tax on the 
disorgznized and lazy for the benefit of the people who have the mind 
set to do the rebates right.  There is generally no deception or fraud 
involved, but effort is required, as is some level of knowledge of how 
the system works.  It's possible to benefit, but not everyone does. 
However, when they don't, it's generally because of their own actions.


Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> In article <459492d4$0$5265$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> 
>> A couple of comments:  MOST of the rebate firms and the rebate sponsors 
>> are NOT out to screw you or deny you the rebate (but yes, there are a 
>> few exceptions], and they are usually reasonable when an issue arises 
>> (again, there are exceptions).  We've had quite a discussion of this 
>> recently in another newsgroup (Dell), and my experience is typical of 
>> people who do a lot of rebates.  More than 90% of rebates work just fine 
>> with no issues if you follow the directions.
> 
> The 10-20% of rebates that are never submitted work fine (for
> the issuer).
> 
> In my opinion, none of them work "just fine" for the consumer.
> The paperwork is a hassle. Postage is not free. Keeping copies
> is even more of a hassle. And chasing non-payments is a major
> hassle.
> 
> On top of all that, in CA at least, you pay sales tax on the
> rebate amount.
> 
> The only reason rebates exist is because the issues know with
> a high degree of confidence that they'll get to keep some
> 20% of refundable amount. Large manufacturers and retailers
> can play that numbers game to their advantage. Consumers, as
> a group, will always loose.
> 
> 
0
Barry
12/29/2006 3:10:14 PM
An "instant rebate" isn't a rebate at all, it's just a sale price.  And 
no doubt that it's better than a mail-in rebate of the same amount, but 
you will NEVER find "instant rebates" that are the equivalent of the 
larger mail-in rebates.  The rebate "system" depends on the fact that 
only a minority of buyers will ever apply for the rebate.


RichA wrote:

> 
> No problem, I'm just pointing out the differences between mail-in
> rebates and instant rebates.
> Having automatic computer verification of rebates at the time of sale
> would increase payouts massively, but the companies don't want that at
> all.  Meanwhile, there is also the  chance with instant rebates your
> name and other information wouldn't be sold to a 1000 different
> databases months afterward....
> 
0
Barry
12/29/2006 3:16:12 PM
"RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:

>John wrote:
>> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm
>> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in
>> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at
>> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we
>> didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
>>
>> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know
>> I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the
>> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so
>> that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>>
>> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase
>> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the
>> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to
>> the rebate form.
>>
>> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>>
>> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>>
>> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>>
>> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>>
>> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this
>> incident.
>
>Mail-in rebates are always a scam.  

Scott, is it really you masquerading as "RichA"? I can't imagine
another poster making the same idiotic statements.

If you're not Scott, let me tell you something: rebate are a scam only
if you're a stupid and lazy slob. I get every single rebate I file.
Just received my $350 rebate from Office Depot for HP multifunction
center and $20 rebate from Circuit City for a cable modem.
0
Andrew
12/29/2006 3:20:08 PM
Barry Watzman (WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com) writes:
> An "instant rebate" isn't a rebate at all, it's just a sale price.  And 
> no doubt that it's better than a mail-in rebate of the same amount, but 
> you will NEVER find "instant rebates" that are the equivalent of the 
> larger mail-in rebates.  The rebate "system" depends on the fact that 
> only a minority of buyers will ever apply for the rebate.
> 
> 
I'm glad you said that, because the whole "instant rebate" thing just
seems a renaming of "sale prices" because of the current trend to a lot
of real rebates.

I can remember decades ago, "rebates" were not common and you'd have
to buy six items to send off the box tops, or something similar, and
you didn't get much back.  Yet, if you were lucky you'd know about
such a rebate, and it might give you something back if it was something
you actually were buying.

It's only in recent years that they've become a major "marketing tool".
And I think what irks many people is not the rebate thing, but the flyers
that make the rebate part of the deal.  No longer is it a subtle matter of
finding a coupon somewhere and thinking "I was going to buy that anyway,
and getting a few dollars back would be neat".  Instead, you see a great
price, and then the fine print says "after rebate".  It is a promotional
tool, and the rebate becomes a far bigger part of the price and appeal
than those old coupons you might find somewhere.  "That's on sale, I'll
buy it.  Oh, I have to do a rebate".

The "instant rebates" are just the stores "cashing in" on the rebate craze.
The only reason I can think why they'd use the term is because customers
will think "Oh a rebate, but I don't have to do anything", which shouldn't
be necessary anyway except there are so many mail in rebates in the flyers
to begin with.

If everyone gets the "instant rebate" then there is nothing different
from an item on sale, because the company or store does not benefit
from only some people going after the rebate (but likely most buyers
choose that item based on the after-rebate price).  They also don't
get the peripheral information that they may see as a benefit of
rebates.

   Michael
0
et472
12/29/2006 3:35:11 PM
In article <4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
 John <John@nospam.net> wrote:

> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we 
> didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
> 
> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know 
> I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so 
> that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
> 
> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
> the rebate form.
> 
> I checked on my rebate status just now.
> 
> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included 

Did you contact Canon to complain? If so, and you didn't get a 
satisfactory response, try sending a snail mail complaint to Canon's 
CEO. No CEO of a large company likes getting complaints from customers. 
I had a problem with Kodak where I got nowhere by going through Kodak's 
standard consumer relations channels. I finally wrote a letter of 
complaint and sent it to the CEO. A week later, I got a call from some 
VP there who was very apologetic. He took down my snail mail address 
and, a few days later, he sent me a box full of Kodak stuff to thank me 
for bringing the problem to their attention. That box also included a 
letter of apology. Maybe you would get the same results by contacting 
Canon's CEO.
0
Shawn
12/29/2006 3:47:09 PM
anon wrote:
> > I get every damn rebate I file, so I'm saving money at
> > the expense of
> > illiterates/incompetents - so what?
>
> he said he followed the directions to the letter...

No, he didn't.

The OP stated that he sent in a COPY of the UPC when the rebate clearly
specified that he had to send in the *original*.

As such, the OP failed to follow the specified instructions, so he was
denied the rebate.


> you're nuts if you think the rebate houses don't often
> deny for bullshit reasons.

True, but it does not apply in this particular case.


-hh

0
hh
12/29/2006 4:16:43 PM
In article <4595226a$0$18096$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
 John <John@nospam.net> wrote:

> Tony Hwang wrote:
> > John wrote:
> > 
> >> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
> >> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
> >> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
> >> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, 
> >> we didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
> >>
> >> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I 
> >> know I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's 
> >> the principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate 
> >> so that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
> >>
> >> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
> >> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
> >> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
> >> the rebate form.
> >>
> >> I checked on my rebate status just now.
> >>
> >> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
> >>
> >> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
> >>
> >> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
> >>
> >> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember 
> >> this incident.
> >>
> >>
> > Hmmm,
> > You may have bought a grey market product? Take it up with your retailer.
> 
> However did you arrive at the possibility that it was a gray market 
> item?  Besides, the rebate was refused because they claimed a UPC was 
> not included.
> 
> It wasn't gray and Canon has already done warranty work on it (I don't 
> believe they would do that for gray products).
> 
> Someone else suggested that I might not have sent it the correct label.
> I cut off all the barcodes from the box just in case.
> 
> I scan everything. The box before I cut off the UPC codes. The postal 
> confirmation receipt. The original store receipt. Everything scanned is 
> put into a directory for that product.
> 
> If the rebate is a PDF form then using Adobe Pro, I add text fields and 
> type in everything in 14 point bold Arial font.  That way they can't 
> claim they can't read my writing.
> 
> Finally, I scan in and save the filled in rebate.  I copy and paste 
> their address and use Word to generate an envelope (avoids possible 
> transposition errors). Then I drive to the post office to get delivery 
> confirmation added.  Cost about $2.75.
> 
> Is this a lot of work? Yes. Is this usually worth the effort?  No. But 
> as I previously stated, it's the principle of the matter.  Am I anal? 
> You bet. 

Geez! You sure are anal retentive, to say the least. In all the years I 
have sent in rebates, I have only had a few rebates declined. I just 
send in the usual paperwork via standard first class mail by dropping 
the envelope in the mailbox outside my office. I do photocopy everything 
first. 

I have only had two or three rebates where there was a rejection. On one 
of them, I did make an error, and I sent in the corrected rebate 
materials and I got the rebate check a few weeks later. If I had to go 
to the trouble you go through in submitting each rebate, I would simply 
not bother because my time is worth more than the typical rebate.

In fact, I am waiting for a $100 Xbox 360 rebate now and a $30 rebate 
for a printer I recently bought.
0
Shawn
12/29/2006 4:32:15 PM
You have missed a big part of the picture.

With mail in rebates, the store sales figures aren't
decreased as they would be with the instant reduction.
Localities like it because they get the full sales tax
amount.

In most cases the store doesn't pay the rebate, the parent
company or manufacturer does.


Barry Watzman wrote:
> An "instant rebate" isn't a rebate at all, it's just a sale price.  And 
> no doubt that it's better than a mail-in rebate of the same amount, but 
> you will NEVER find "instant rebates" that are the equivalent of the 
> larger mail-in rebates.  The rebate "system" depends on the fact that 
> only a minority of buyers will ever apply for the rebate.
0
M
12/29/2006 4:50:03 PM
Can you show us some examples of where companies advertise
that they will make great efforts to disqualify claims?
I can't imagine many reputable companies would hire them.

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> These rebate companies often advertise to the companies they are hired 
> by that they will make great efforts to disqualify rebates to keep the 
> rebate costs down... particularly with larger rebate amounts.
> 
> You may also be right about some fraud.
> 
0
M
12/29/2006 4:53:59 PM
James wrote:
> As has been adequately explained here before, rebates are by their
> very nature a scam.  There is no logical explanation for a rebate
> program other than being a scam.

Here's further proof:

I got a rebate check sometime back. It came in a nondescript envelope via 
"Bulk Mail" (now known as "Standard Mail").

I normally toss snail-mail-spam. Probably millions others do too. Evidently 
the rebate company tried to take advantage of this social engineering 
concept. 


0
HeyBub
12/29/2006 4:54:15 PM
No you don't.  You pay sales tax on the product price.
The rebate is not a sale price.  It's a rebate.

Malcolm Hoar wrote:

> On top of all that, in CA at least, you pay sales tax on the
> rebate amount.
> 
0
M
12/29/2006 5:01:43 PM
-hh wrote:
> anon wrote:
>>> I get every damn rebate I file, so I'm saving money at
>>> the expense of
>>> illiterates/incompetents - so what?
>> he said he followed the directions to the letter...
> 
> No, he didn't.
> 
> The OP stated that he sent in a COPY of the UPC when the rebate clearly
> specified that he had to send in the *original*.
> 
> As such, the OP failed to follow the specified instructions, so he was
> denied the rebate.
> 
> 
>> you're nuts if you think the rebate houses don't often
>> deny for bullshit reasons.
> 
> True, but it does not apply in this particular case.
> 
> 
> -hh
> 

NO!

REREAD MY ORIGINAL POST!  SHOW ME WHERE I STATED THAT I SENT IN A COPY.

I never said that I sent in a COPY.  I sent in the original, genuine UPC 
codes (actually, all the barcodes) cut off from the box.

I said that I had a scanned copy of the box (for my own records).

NO COPY OF THE UPC CODE WERE MAILED IN.

There's no other way of phrasing it:  CANON RIPPED ME OFF EVEN THOUGH I 
FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES.

0
John
12/29/2006 5:04:54 PM
"John" <John@nospam.net> wrote in message 
news:4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm quite 
>anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in the rebate 
>with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at least minimizes 
>the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we didn't receive 
>your rebate in time" excuses.
>
> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know I 
> go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so that 
> most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>
> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to the 
> rebate form.
>
> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>
> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>
> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>
> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>
> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
> incident.
>
I have had good results if sent to Young America MN. The ones I loose out on 
are the ones sent to Texas.  I think the workers find a way to collect the 
rebate themselves. W W 


0
Warren
12/29/2006 5:26:30 PM
"M Berger" <berger@shout.net> wrote in message 
news:en3h76$9da$4@roundup.shout.net...
> Can you show us some examples of where companies advertise
> that they will make great efforts to disqualify claims?
> I can't imagine many reputable companies would hire them.
>


Here's an example, a patent for a system to make it easier to file for a 
rebate while still maintaining "breakage".

"Now, you'd be right if you guessed that companies behind the rebates work 
hard to "encourage" breakage.  There are countless tricks that companies use 
to try to boost the breakage numbers.  Now Parago, the company behind 
Circuit City rebates, has been granted a patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,120,591) 
for an online redemption system for product rebates.  Sounds innocent enough 
to begin with. "


". promotion sponsors can offer promotions with multiple disbursement 
options designed to recapture a rebate by allowing a consumer to apply 
rebate credits to the sale of additional goods and services. Furthermore, 
the rebate processing system provides a user friendly interface, yet retains 
hurdles sufficient to maintain breakage."

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=115 


0
jolt
12/29/2006 5:34:34 PM
Bill wrote:
> RichA wrote:
> >
> > Having automatic computer verification of rebates at the time of sale
> > would increase payouts massively, but the companies don't want that at
> > all.  Meanwhile, there is also the  chance with instant rebates your
> > name and other information wouldn't be sold to a 1000 different
> > databases months afterward....
>
> The problem with instant rebates is that there is no way they
> could validate that you're not doing more than one like they can
> when you have to mail it in. So people could easily end up with
> multiples, and the companies do not want that, especially with
> the free (after rebate) stuff. For stuff like giving $100 back
> on an appliance, or Sears giving free shipping after rebate,
> there's really no excuse for a mail-in rebate, other than
> avoiding paying it.
>
> BTW as someone who does a LOT of rebates, there is absolutely NO
> evidence that my name is sold as a result of rebates (I do get
> mail specifically from a couple of companies whose rebates I
> claimed). And I don't think that anyone has been able to prove
> this -- it's just paranoid people like you who keep claiming
> that it is true. If you have proof, post it here.
>
> Bill

Do I have proof that your name is sold? No, how could I.  But, unless
the small print says they won't do this, it is likely that they do.

0
RichA
12/29/2006 5:37:22 PM
In article <5ccap2tkcm5lpueaucr47kji1a785on472@4ax.com>,
 Andrew White <nospamers@allowed.at.all.net> wrote:

> If you're not Scott, let me tell you something: rebate are a scam only
> if you're a stupid and lazy slob.

Everyone who has not gotten their rebate thanks you for setting them 
straight with your two cents. All rebates are run by honest Abe 
corporations. They are not simply a promotional scheme designed to sell 
more products without losing revenue. Rebates are designed to give stuff 
away. Rebates are for the CONSUMER, not for the company. 

Rebate rules are necessary to keep consumers honest, not to shield the 
company from having to honor them. 

What a silly fucking screed.
0
yassahmassa
12/29/2006 5:49:49 PM
John wrote:
>
> REREAD MY ORIGINAL POST!  SHOW ME WHERE I STATED THAT I SENT IN A COPY.

My apologies.

I saw your statement of:

"Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice"

...which I interpreted to mean that you had originally sent in a copy
instead of the original.


> There's no other way of phrasing it:  CANON RIPPED ME OFF EVEN THOUGH I
> FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES.

Actually, it is the Redemption company who is Canon's representative
who is doing the "ripping offing".

It would appear that their excuse was because they were able to "lose"
your UPC since you didn't physically attach it.

My suggestion would be for you to photograph your swiss-cheesed box and
send that photo along with the rest of your documentation to Canon and
ask Canon to contact their redemption company to provide *to Canon,
their customer* their documentation on precisely what they claimed that
they received from you.  If they have absolutely none of the cardboard
(or all of the bar codes except the UPC), even though it is your word
against theirs, you have a pretty good case that you did send it and
you can ask Canon to ovrride the recommendation of their *service
provider* and cut you a rebate check.

If this doesn't work and you want to litigate, there was just a case
recently (I think in NJ) where the supoena was delivered to a local
employee (IIRC, a Verizon cellphone kiosk?) as a company
representative.  What's clever about this approach is that if they fail
to show up in court or whatever, your *local jurisdiction* has the
authority to shut down the *local* store and possibly even sieze
merchandice to satisfy the legal lien.

Granted, you might not want to do this to your local Mom&Pop camera
store, but it is worth looking up this lawsuit to see what the
specifics were and if it could be applied.


-hh

0
hh
12/29/2006 5:56:01 PM
In article <1e9lh.14305$AY1.4202@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
 "anon" <lkjlkj23@2lkj2lkj33.com.pt> wrote:

> The most recent example was with a Seagate hard drive. 
> They tried to claim my model wasn't eligible for a rebate, 
> despite the rebate form itself showing the model as 
> eligible. 

HP did the same to me. Then they backpedaled and said, "Oh, the machine 
is eligible, but you didn't included the UPC label." 

Like hell I didn't. I will never buy another HP product again. Corrupt 
business practices, corrupt executives, shit for products and ignorant 
snowjob tech support.

But boy, they got **great** propaganda... oops, I mean "marketing"-- 
especially with rebates-- as all their defenders will show.
0
yassahmassa
12/29/2006 5:57:25 PM

HeyBub wrote:
> 
> Here's further proof:
> 
> I got a rebate check sometime back. It came in a nondescript envelope via
> "Bulk Mail" (now known as "Standard Mail").
> 
> I normally toss snail-mail-spam. Probably millions others do too. Evidently
> the rebate company tried to take advantage of this social engineering
> concept.

Actually, they do it to save money on postage. If you like to
toss unknown mail, then put a special middle initial on your
rebate forms and then you'll know when it's a check.

Let me guess that you also complain about postcard checks as
being too easy to steal, and you'd also complain about an
envelope that said "your rebate check is enclosed!!".

Bill
0
Bill
12/29/2006 6:32:50 PM
T Shadow wrote:
> 
> I used to agree but think it has changed. Recently bought a Ultra HDD
> enclosure at CC. Didn't look closely enough at the rebate PDF until readying
> the paperwork. The rebate has to go through an operation called
> OnRebate.com. An obvious data mining operation. I refuse to do business with
> an outfit like this and will relinquish the $20 to keep from it. I'll never
> buy a product again with a rebate that goes through something like this.

Onrebate.com is just a different rebate processing company (with
really picky rules about their rebate submissions and a
requirement that you submit it online and then print and mail
the form). Please tell us how you figured out that they are a
data mining operations any more than Parago (rebateshq.com) and
the other rebate processors??? Parago also lets you submit your
forms online.

Interestingly, Ultra seems to have switched to another company
as of December.

Bill
0
Bill
12/29/2006 6:38:25 PM
THIS IS EASILY SOLVED:

You did the right thing by using DC and keeping copies. However, this
is how to get your rebate paid:


1. Go to the rebate web site and find out which fullfillment company
owns it so you'll know which one is handling this for Canon. You can
then search Google for their address.

2. Go to BBB.org and file a complaint online against the Fullfillment
company (not Canon) explaining that you mailed the original UPC, you
have a copy to prove it, they claim you did not send it and will not
correct the problem for you.

I had to do this three times in all my years of rebates.. EVERY time
the fullfillment company MAGICALLY "found" my entire claim the moment
the BBB contacted them and one even sent my check via FedEd.

DON'T GIVE UP. It's not hard to shake the money out of them, just have
to use the right tactics. :-)

0
Ryan
12/29/2006 6:40:37 PM
Ryan wrote:
> 
> THIS IS EASILY SOLVED:
> 
> You did the right thing by using DC and keeping copies. However, this
> is how to get your rebate paid:
> 
> 1. Go to the rebate web site and find out which fullfillment company
> owns it so you'll know which one is handling this for Canon. You can
> then search Google for their address.
> 
> 2. Go to BBB.org and file a complaint online against the Fullfillment
> company (not Canon) explaining that you mailed the original UPC, you
> have a copy to prove it, they claim you did not send it and will not
> correct the problem for you.
> 
> I had to do this three times in all my years of rebates.. EVERY time
> the fullfillment company MAGICALLY "found" my entire claim the moment
> the BBB contacted them and one even sent my check via FedEd.
> 
> DON'T GIVE UP. It's not hard to shake the money out of them, just have
> to use the right tactics. :-)

This is a great suggestion. I've had success filing complaints
against Parago.

Another option is going to the Canon USA website and looking for
some email address to complain to. He could also file a BBB
complaint against Canon.
 
The worst thing people can do is simply sit back and say "they
ripped me off on that rebate, and my response is to not buy from
them again". The best response is to get your money.

Bill
0
Bill
12/29/2006 6:45:31 PM
Reading this thread raised my blood pressure.  I have always suspected 
rebates were a scam, and our Federa agencies don't seem to have much
interest in protecting us.

Not to start a political discussion, but why is our goverment for business 
and not the people?

If cloned beef and milk is not harmful, then why NOT label it as such and 
let us decide if we want to eat it?

This is the time of year that credit card companies send us privacy 
notifications and give us the opportunity to opt out.  I can do just about
anything I want on-line with my Citibank credit card, increase my limit, add 
a second authorized user, etc.  Opt out of their privacy policy?  No, I have
to mail a form at my expense to some freaking PO Box in Des Moines and wait 
30 days for it to take effect.  I guess something like this is too hard to
program on a website.  What a crock.

Sorry for the rant.  Time for my medication.



0
Buck
12/29/2006 7:27:51 PM
Andrew White <nospamers@allowed.at.all.net> wrote:
>If you're not Scott, let me tell you something: rebate are a scam only
>if you're a stupid and lazy slob. I get every single rebate I file.

Andrew, you are, of course, our hero. Only you could state with
absolute certainty that no rebate in history has ever remained unpaid
unless the submitter was a lazy slob.


-- 

Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.

....G.K. Chesterton
0
Steve
12/29/2006 8:12:53 PM
"Steve" <teu@qprc.inv> wrote in message 
news:ggtap25d9puu21hp059kjtl10d9ih4i8fl@4ax.com...
> Andrew White <nospamers@allowed.at.all.net> wrote:
>>If you're not Scott, let me tell you something: rebate are a scam only
>>if you're a stupid and lazy slob. I get every single rebate I file.
>
> Andrew, you are, of course, our hero. Only you could state with
> absolute certainty that no rebate in history has ever remained unpaid
> unless the submitter was a lazy slob.

It's Andrew's MO. This guy is a hoot! When you get bored, read some of his 
postings, he's proof, the Indian used to screw the buffalo.


0
Glen
12/29/2006 8:37:14 PM
> If someone sends you a letter with your street address and no PO number,
> would your P.O. know where it was to be delivered?

Most of the time, yes.  Fortunatley, our town is small enough (pop. 325) 
that the postmaster knows most everyone.
However, problems arise when we get a new postmaster, or when postmaster 
relief is on duty.

J.A. Michel




0
J
12/29/2006 9:09:40 PM
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> I had a similar situation.  The rebate was only for $10, and I was paid 
> by the retailer.  Eventually, the rebate cheque showed up, and I 
> attempted to return it to the store.  They didn't want it and told me to 
> cash it.
> 
> One more caveat... some fulfillment companies send cheques that look 
> like junkmail.  It is usually a plain white laser printed postcard. 
> Usually really flimsy, and it even has the postage and cancellation on 
> it when you get it.  The reverse side IS the cheque.  It's easy to 
> discard or lose this, so be careful to read those junkmail looking 
> postcards, they may be a cheque.
> 

I have seen this as well. The postcard check had to be cashed within 60 
days and could not be cashed by a third party. This after taking about 5 
months to get to me. And yes it looked like junkmail.

0
ISO
12/29/2006 9:17:45 PM
Bill wrote:
> Ryan wrote:
>> THIS IS EASILY SOLVED:
>>
>> You did the right thing by using DC and keeping copies. However, this
>> is how to get your rebate paid:
>>
>> 1. Go to the rebate web site and find out which fullfillment company
>> owns it so you'll know which one is handling this for Canon. You can
>> then search Google for their address.
>>
>> 2. Go to BBB.org and file a complaint online against the Fullfillment
>> company (not Canon) explaining that you mailed the original UPC, you
>> have a copy to prove it, they claim you did not send it and will not
>> correct the problem for you.
>>
>> I had to do this three times in all my years of rebates.. EVERY time
>> the fullfillment company MAGICALLY "found" my entire claim the moment
>> the BBB contacted them and one even sent my check via FedEd.
>>
>> DON'T GIVE UP. It's not hard to shake the money out of them, just have
>> to use the right tactics. :-)
> 
> This is a great suggestion. I've had success filing complaints
> against Parago.
> 
> Another option is going to the Canon USA website and looking for
> some email address to complain to. He could also file a BBB
> complaint against Canon.
>  
> The worst thing people can do is simply sit back and say "they
> ripped me off on that rebate, and my response is to not buy from
> them again". The best response is to get your money.
> 
> Bill

You're absolutely correct.  I may verbal, but I don't sit on my hands.

I used one Canon number to find the Canon Rebate status phone number.  I 
then called the Canon Rebate status number.

As it turns out, the error message was in error.  The person at Canon 
Rebate was holding my UPC codes in his hand (his words).

He said that the rebate would be sent out in a few weeks.

Which leads me to ponder another mystery.  In the age of the Internet 
and fast computers, why would it take weeks to months to send out a 
rebate check?

One rebate said that if I don't receive the rebate in 12 (twelve, that's 
a dozen) weeks I should call to determine the status.  I wonder if 
they're hoping that I'll forget about the rebate in 3 months?
0
John
12/29/2006 9:29:38 PM
In article <12pai1n3lnqd37b@news.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

>I got a rebate check sometime back. It came in a nondescript envelope via 
>"Bulk Mail" (now known as "Standard Mail").

At least it was in an envelope. The last check I got was printed on a
postcard.

--
http://yosemitenews.info/
0
ellis
12/29/2006 9:35:58 PM
In article <459561D5.B1D8EF32@prodigy.net>,
Bill  <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote:

>He could also file a BBB complaint against Canon.

Don't bother with BBB. They're worthless.


0
ellis
12/29/2006 9:40:41 PM
go to fatwallet.com and check the 'rebates' forum.  You 
may be able to get contact info there for someone at 
Canon, the retailer, or the rebate house.

it may be a cliche, but it's true that the squeaky wheel 
gets the grease.  If you're not going away like many do, 
you should get someone to take care of you.

good luck.


0
anon
12/29/2006 10:22:04 PM
"Bill" <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:4595602C.9422D98D@prodigy.net...
> T Shadow wrote:
> >
> > I used to agree but think it has changed. Recently bought a Ultra HDD
> > enclosure at CC. Didn't look closely enough at the rebate PDF until
readying
> > the paperwork. The rebate has to go through an operation called
> > OnRebate.com. An obvious data mining operation. I refuse to do business
with
> > an outfit like this and will relinquish the $20 to keep from it. I'll
never
> > buy a product again with a rebate that goes through something like this.
>
> Onrebate.com is just a different rebate processing company (with
> really picky rules about their rebate submissions and a
> requirement that you submit it online and then print and mail
> the form). Please tell us how you figured out that they are a
> data mining operations any more than Parago (rebateshq.com) and
> the other rebate processors??? Parago also lets you submit your
> forms online.
>
> Interestingly, Ultra seems to have switched to another company
> as of December.
>
> Bill

 Ever read Websites Privacy Policies?
Know what a web beacon is?
I've used other online operations. This is going way too far IMHO.


0
T
12/29/2006 10:47:49 PM
On 29 Dec 2006 09:56:01 -0800, "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote:

>It would appear that their excuse was because they were able to "lose"
>your UPC since you didn't physically attach it.

I bought a Canon from a big-box store several years ago.  Canon tried
to B.S. their way out of the rebate even though I stapled the UPC to
the form, and scanned what I did.  After a year of complaining, I
finally got my $50 rebate.  In rersponse to my complaints, they kept
asking for "new" things, like the front page of the printer manual,
"photocopy" of the printer driver CD,  etc.

I also had cc.'d the big-box store.  The week before I got my check
from Canon, the store offered to pay me $50 in cash, which I got when
I went to the store.

Did I cash the check?  Hell, ya.  I consider it payment for the time
Canon made me jump through hoops by falsely denying my rebate.
0
The
12/29/2006 11:09:05 PM
-hh wrote:
> John wrote:
>> There's no other way of phrasing it:  CANON RIPPED ME OFF EVEN THOUGH I
>> FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES.
> 
> Actually, it is the Redemption company who is Canon's representative
> who is doing the "ripping offing".
> 
> It would appear that their excuse was because they were able to "lose"
> your UPC since you didn't physically attach it.

I don't have to go back to the OP's article to know that he expressly
said he *always* attaches the UPC to the rebate form with tape.

-- 
Nazi: a person who is winning an argument with a liberal.
0
clifto
12/30/2006 12:12:11 AM
In article <459588ec$0$5059$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
John  <John@nospam.net> wrote:

>Which leads me to ponder another mystery.  In the age of the Internet 
>and fast computers, why would it take weeks to months to send out a 
>rebate check?

It doesn't. But they want the float.

0
ellis
12/30/2006 12:21:48 AM

John wrote:
> He said that the rebate would be sent out in a few weeks.
> 
> Which leads me to ponder another mystery.  In the age of the Internet
> and fast computers, why would it take weeks to months to send out a
> rebate check?

It's because the rebate house doesn't have the money from the
manufacturer/retailer. It appears that they have to invoice the
company, then a check is cut (eventually), and THEN you get
paid. If the rebate house does not get paid (and it happens),
then the consumer does not get paid.

Some rebate houses may sit on the money for a while to get the
float as well. I've never seen that confirmed. The best
companies appear to have money "in the bank" at the rebate
processor, so the check can be cut very quickly.

Bill
0
Bill
12/30/2006 12:30:44 AM
ellis@no.spam wrote:
> 
> In article <459561D5.B1D8EF32@prodigy.net>,
> Bill  <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote:
> 
> >He could also file a BBB complaint against Canon.
> 
> Don't bother with BBB. They're worthless.

Depends on the company you're complaining to. As I said, I had a
very quick response from Parago (Rebateshq.com) and they fixed
all my problems.

I currently have a BBB complaint in against Toys R Us, they are
trying to lie their way out of a $10 (yes, $10) rebate. I went
back and forth with their "customer service" person several
times via email, during which time this person lied and then
contradicted themselves in an effort to avoid paying me the $10
I am clearly due. I may not get my $10, but I've certainly
gotten my $10 worth of revenge by warning people about them.

And BTW, this is proof that no matter how careful you are, there
ARE still companies out there who will screw you. I didn't
expect it of Toys R Us, however.

Oh, and if you want to see their emails and my rebate
submission, you can view them here:

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=68659&t=368665

Bill
0
Bill
12/30/2006 12:37:16 AM
Re: "Someone else suggested that I might not have sent it the correct 
label.  I cut off all the bar codes from the box just in case."

That is NOT the thing to do.  Now you are relying on the data entry 
person to pick the right bar code.  Let me tell you what happens to a 
lot of these:  They arrive at the rebate center (many are in Miami or 
Texas), and they get sent for actual processing to a center in Hatti, 
the Dominican Republic or Mexico where some barely literate clerk 
processes them.  The clerk has a scanner, she scans the bar code you 
sent in, it's recognized as valid or invalid.  Many of these boxes have 
nearly a dozen bar codes on them.  Only ONE of those is the UPC barcode. 
  If the clerk doesn't scan the right barcode .... even if it was among 
the many that you sent in .... at best you are in for a hassle, at worst 
you don't get your rebate.

You have to make things easy and as "idiot proof" as possible for the 
clerk processing your rebate.  That is simply part of the game; the 
fulfillment center is using the cheapest labor they can get (to save 
them money, not specifically to disqualify you).  Your handwriting 
(PRINTING) has to be legible (and preferably include -- in addition to 
but not instead of the printed entry, which is often required by the 
rules -- a rubber stamp or adhesive label PRINTED version of your name, 
address, etc.).  And if it says "UPC label", you send the UPC label --- 
ONLY --- (unless other labels, like the serial number, were specifically 
requested.  DO NOT throw in every bar code on the product, because there 
is a very good chance that the wrong one will be scanned.

By the way, regarding "If the rebate is a PDF form then using Adobe Pro, 
I add text fields and type in everything in 14 point bold Arial font. 
That way they can't claim they can't read my writing."

The rules often REQUIRE that the form be filled out by hand.  This is 
done to make fraudulent mass rebate applications more difficult.  I 
always also include a printed, sticker or rubber stamped version of the 
same information, but the actual form should be filled out by hand.

You just are not playing "the game" very well.  And one of the main 
rules is to know, just by looking at a box, which barcode is the UPC 
barcode.
0
Barry
12/30/2006 12:39:58 AM
ellis@no.spam wrote:
> 
> In article <12pai1n3lnqd37b@news.supernews.com>,
> HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >I got a rebate check sometime back. It came in a nondescript envelope via
> >"Bulk Mail" (now known as "Standard Mail").
> 
> At least it was in an envelope. The last check I got was printed on a
> postcard.

As I said in another post, for everyone who complains about it
coming in a non-descript envelope, there will be another person
who complains about it being sent as a postcard. That said, I
don't think I've ever heard of people having problems with
postcard checks being taken. Amongst other things, I suspect it
is federal offense to steal it.

Bill
0
Bill
12/30/2006 12:42:29 AM
Sales taxes are collected on mail-in rebates, they are NOT collected on 
"instant rebates".

The rest of your post is conjecture that may be true in some cases and 
not true in others.  From the customer's perspective, it doesn't matter: 
  An instant rebate is just a sale price (and sales taxes are NOT paid 
on the rebate amount; only the "net" rings on the register and is 
charged tax).


M Berger wrote:
> You have missed a big part of the picture.
> 
> With mail in rebates, the store sales figures aren't
> decreased as they would be with the instant reduction.
> Localities like it because they get the full sales tax
> amount.
> 
> In most cases the store doesn't pay the rebate, the parent
> company or manufacturer does.
> 
> 
> Barry Watzman wrote:
>> An "instant rebate" isn't a rebate at all, it's just a sale price.  
>> And no doubt that it's better than a mail-in rebate of the same 
>> amount, but you will NEVER find "instant rebates" that are the 
>> equivalent of the larger mail-in rebates.  The rebate "system" depends 
>> on the fact that only a minority of buyers will ever apply for the 
>> rebate.
0
Barry
12/30/2006 12:42:38 AM
I totally disagree with your premis (that rebates are generally a scam 
(there are some that are, but a small minority)), and as for your 
"check", I almost never get an envelope at all, they are almost always 
just postcards.


HeyBub wrote:
> James wrote:
>> As has been adequately explained here before, rebates are by their
>> very nature a scam.  There is no logical explanation for a rebate
>> program other than being a scam.
> 
> Here's further proof:
> 
> I got a rebate check sometime back. It came in a nondescript envelope via 
> "Bulk Mail" (now known as "Standard Mail").
> 
> I normally toss snail-mail-spam. Probably millions others do too. Evidently 
> the rebate company tried to take advantage of this social engineering 
> concept. 
> 
> 
0
Barry
12/30/2006 12:43:57 AM
No Berger, you do pay sales tax on the amount of a mail-in rebate.  The 
rebate does not show up on the sales receipt.  It's a separate 
transaction that occurs (or doesn't) later.



M Berger wrote:
> No you don't.  You pay sales tax on the product price.
> The rebate is not a sale price.  It's a rebate.
> 
> Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> 
>> On top of all that, in CA at least, you pay sales tax on the
>> rebate amount.
>>
0
Barry
12/30/2006 12:45:00 AM
Buck Turgidson wrote:
> 
> Reading this thread raised my blood pressure.  I have always suspected
> rebates were a scam, and our Federal agencies don't seem to have much
> interest in protecting us.
> 
> Not to start a political discussion, but why is our goverment for business
> and not the people?

There are a couple of companies in California who are known to
be rebate scammers (6+ months to pay, don't pay until you go
after them). They've done it for years, and to the best of my
knowledge no government agency has attempted to go after them.
And I don't think that the Virginia AG has gone after Circuit
City for some of their shady practices, despite a large number
of complaints. That's a real shame.

Bill
0
Bill
12/30/2006 12:51:19 AM
How can a postcard that is a legally valid check (Pay to the order of 
...... $xxx.xx) look like junk mail?

M�n�ig�or �oddoM wrote:

> 
> I have seen this as well. The postcard check had to be cashed within 60 
> days and could not be cashed by a third party. This after taking about 5 
> months to get to me. And yes it looked like junkmail.
> 
0
Barry
12/30/2006 12:51:32 AM
OK - here's the best rebate story ever - seriously, try and top it.

A number of years ago I went to one of those big box electronics store
to buy 2 computer systems for my kids for Christmas. With all the
various rebates, the total "list price" of $1750 (which no one in their
right mind would ever pay) was going to be reduced to roughly $800.
When I went to check out, I was asked if I wanted to open a store
credit card. One of the features of the card was "unemployment
protection" where for a small monthly fee they would pay off 10% of the
card balance each month while the cardholder is unemployed.

Well, at the time of the purchase I was employed, but a few weeks
earlier I had been informed that I was going to be downsized at the end
of the year. Naturally I jumped on this offer. I put the $1750 on the
card and mailed in all the paperwork for the ~$950 in rebates, which I
promptly put in the bank.

Starting in January, I submitted my first un-employment claim and they
paid ~$175 toward my balance. The next month they paid ~$155, and so on
for the 6 months that I was out of work. By the time I found a job, the
balance on my card was less than the rebate money I had banked. I then
used most of the rebate money to pay off the balance of the card.

In the end, I ended up with 2 complete systems (CPU, monitors,
printers, etc) and about $50 extra in my pocket.

Nice, huh?


Barry Watzman wrote:
> I totally disagree with your premis (that rebates are generally a scam
> (there are some that are, but a small minority)), and as for your
> "check", I almost never get an envelope at all, they are almost always
> just postcards.
>
>
> HeyBub wrote:
> > James wrote:
> >> As has been adequately explained here before, rebates are by their
> >> very nature a scam.  There is no logical explanation for a rebate
> >> program other than being a scam.
> >
> > Here's further proof:
> >
> > I got a rebate check sometime back. It came in a nondescript envelope via
> > "Bulk Mail" (now known as "Standard Mail").
> >
> > I normally toss snail-mail-spam. Probably millions others do too. Evidently
> > the rebate company tried to take advantage of this social engineering
> > concept. 
> > 
> >

0
DerbyDad03
12/30/2006 1:25:13 AM
Barry Watzman wrote:
> Officially, is no "delivery confirmation" for envelopes (very 
> unfortunately), only for packages.  The official USPS policy is that you 
> can only do delivery confirmation for packages or letters that are more 
> than 3/4 of an inch thick.

http://pe.usps.gov/text/DMM300/503.htm#6_0

-- 
Nazi: a person who is winning an argument with a liberal.
0
clifto
12/30/2006 1:34:55 AM
RichA wrote:
> 
> Bob (but not THAT Bob) wrote:
> > RichA wrote:
> > >
> > > John wrote:
> > > > I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm
> > > > quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in
> > > > the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at
> > > > least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we
> > > > didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
> > > >
> > > > I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know
> > > > I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the
> > > > principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so
> > > > that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
> > > >
> > > > I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase
> > > > receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the
> > > > envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to
> > > > the rebate form.
> > > >
> > > > I checked on my rebate status just now.
> > > >
> > > > Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
> > > >
> > > > Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
> > > >
> > > > Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
> > > >
> > > > Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this
> > > > incident.
> > >
> > > Mail-in rebates are always a scam.  Why do they do them?  Because
> > > people buy based on this.
> > > 50-80% never claim them.
> > > Rebates take 8-12 weeks and often are never delivered, another 50%
> > > forget about them.
> > > They force you to call someone to fix the problem or ask where your
> > > rebate is 16 weeks past due delivery time.
> > > At the end of it all, according to various business studies, only 3% of
> > > rebates are ever paid out.  So, they can boost sales with what might
> > > amount to a 0.5% overall discount paid.
> > > It is business genius.
> >
> > I get every damn rebate I file, so I'm saving money at the expense of
> > illiterates/incompetents - so what?
> 
> No problem, I'm just pointing out the differences between mail-in
> rebates and instant rebates.
> Having automatic computer verification of rebates at the time of sale
> would increase payouts massively, but the companies don't want that at
> all.  Meanwhile, there is also the  chance with instant rebates your
> name and other information wouldn't be sold to a 1000 different
> databases months afterward....

Oddly enough I haven't seem a spam increase EXCEPT when a company
specifically says to uncheck a box to stay off their mailing list.

A deluge always follows.
0
Bob
12/30/2006 2:06:37 AM
Barry Watzman spake thus:

> M�n�ig�or �oddoM wrote:
> 
>> I have seen this as well. The postcard check had to be cashed within 
>> 60 days and could not be cashed by a third party. This after taking 
>> about 5 months to get to me. And yes it looked like junkmail.
>
 > How can a postcard that is a legally valid check (Pay to the order of
 > ..... $xxx.xx) look like junk mail?

Believe us, it can; just another of the many weapons in the arsenal of 
the lying, scum-sucking retailers who use this phony-baloney practice to 
make more bux.


-- 
Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

- Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)
0
David
12/30/2006 2:14:52 AM
DerbyDad03 wrote:

> OK - here's the best rebate story ever - seriously, try and top it.
> 
> A number of years ago I went to one of those big box electronics store
> to buy 2 computer systems for my kids for Christmas. With all the
> various rebates, the total "list price" of $1750 (which no one in their
> right mind would ever pay) was going to be reduced to roughly $800.
> When I went to check out, I was asked if I wanted to open a store
> credit card. One of the features of the card was "unemployment
> protection" where for a small monthly fee they would pay off 10% of the
> card balance each month while the cardholder is unemployed.
> 
> Well, at the time of the purchase I was employed, but a few weeks
> earlier I had been informed that I was going to be downsized at the end
> of the year. Naturally I jumped on this offer. I put the $1750 on the
> card and mailed in all the paperwork for the ~$950 in rebates, which I
> promptly put in the bank.
> 
> Starting in January, I submitted my first un-employment claim and they
> paid ~$175 toward my balance. The next month they paid ~$155, and so on
> for the 6 months that I was out of work. By the time I found a job, the
> balance on my card was less than the rebate money I had banked. I then
> used most of the rebate money to pay off the balance of the card.
> 
> In the end, I ended up with 2 complete systems (CPU, monitors,
> printers, etc) and about $50 extra in my pocket.
> 
> Nice, huh?
> 
> 
> Barry Watzman wrote:
> 
>>I totally disagree with your premis (that rebates are generally a scam
>>(there are some that are, but a small minority)), and as for your
>>"check", I almost never get an envelope at all, they are almost always
>>just postcards.
>>
>>
>>HeyBub wrote:
>>
>>>James wrote:
>>>
>>>>As has been adequately explained here before, rebates are by their
>>>>very nature a scam.  There is no logical explanation for a rebate
>>>>program other than being a scam.
>>>
>>>Here's further proof:
>>>
>>>I got a rebate check sometime back. It came in a nondescript envelope via
>>>"Bulk Mail" (now known as "Standard Mail").
>>>
>>>I normally toss snail-mail-spam. Probably millions others do too. Evidently
>>>the rebate company tried to take advantage of this social engineering
>>>concept. 
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
Hmmm,
You must feel good about it? Once I purchased an item from Office Depot
which came with a rebate coupon. I claimed it and mailed papers in.
Few days later I changed my mind and returned the item. Then few weeks
later rebate check came. I sort of felt guilty about it but loop hole
was there at their fault.
0
Tony
12/30/2006 2:35:43 AM
Tony,

The difference between my experience and yours is that I did not have
to rely on any "loop hole". I followed every rule concerning the
rebates, I paid the fee for the unemployment insurance coverage and I
did indeed use the rebate to reduce the price of my computer systems.

I simply took advantage of the timing of the rebates, the features of
the charge card and the (oh by the way) wonderful experience of being
downsized and unemployed for 6 months.

Tony Hwang wrote:
> DerbyDad03 wrote:
>
> > OK - here's the best rebate story ever - seriously, try and top it.
> >
> > A number of years ago I went to one of those big box electronics store
> > to buy 2 computer systems for my kids for Christmas. With all the
> > various rebates, the total "list price" of $1750 (which no one in their
> > right mind would ever pay) was going to be reduced to roughly $800.
> > When I went to check out, I was asked if I wanted to open a store
> > credit card. One of the features of the card was "unemployment
> > protection" where for a small monthly fee they would pay off 10% of the
> > card balance each month while the cardholder is unemployed.
> >
> > Well, at the time of the purchase I was employed, but a few weeks
> > earlier I had been informed that I was going to be downsized at the end
> > of the year. Naturally I jumped on this offer. I put the $1750 on the
> > card and mailed in all the paperwork for the ~$950 in rebates, which I
> > promptly put in the bank.
> >
> > Starting in January, I submitted my first un-employment claim and they
> > paid ~$175 toward my balance. The next month they paid ~$155, and so on
> > for the 6 months that I was out of work. By the time I found a job, the
> > balance on my card was less than the rebate money I had banked. I then
> > used most of the rebate money to pay off the balance of the card.
> >
> > In the end, I ended up with 2 complete systems (CPU, monitors,
> > printers, etc) and about $50 extra in my pocket.
> >
> > Nice, huh?
> >
> >
> > Barry Watzman wrote:
> >
> >>I totally disagree with your premis (that rebates are generally a scam
> >>(there are some that are, but a small minority)), and as for your
> >>"check", I almost never get an envelope at all, they are almost always
> >>just postcards.
> >>
> >>
> >>HeyBub wrote:
> >>
> >>>James wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>As has been adequately explained here before, rebates are by their
> >>>>very nature a scam.  There is no logical explanation for a rebate
> >>>>program other than being a scam.
> >>>
> >>>Here's further proof:
> >>>
> >>>I got a rebate check sometime back. It came in a nondescript envelope via
> >>>"Bulk Mail" (now known as "Standard Mail").
> >>>
> >>>I normally toss snail-mail-spam. Probably millions others do too. Evidently
> >>>the rebate company tried to take advantage of this social engineering
> >>>concept.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> Hmmm,
> You must feel good about it? Once I purchased an item from Office Depot
> which came with a rebate coupon. I claimed it and mailed papers in.
> Few days later I changed my mind and returned the item. Then few weeks
> later rebate check came. I sort of felt guilty about it but loop hole
> was there at their fault.

0
DerbyDad03
12/30/2006 3:36:28 AM
We were talking about "Delivery Confirmation".  Your link references 
"Return Receipt", which is a totally different animal.  Not the same 
thing at all.

[And some rebate processors won't accept items sent with return receipt 
because it requires an employee to sign for the item.]

Also note from the same page, but much further down in another section: 
"Delivery Confirmation is available for First-Class Mail PARCELS" {my 
emphasis}; in another section it states more explicilty "parcels only", 
e.g. NOT FOR LETTERS, unless they qualify as "parcels" (generally, that 
means at least 3/4 of an inch thick).


clifto wrote:
> Barry Watzman wrote:
>> Officially, is no "delivery confirmation" for envelopes (very 
>> unfortunately), only for packages.  The official USPS policy is that you 
>> can only do delivery confirmation for packages or letters that are more 
>> than 3/4 of an inch thick.
> 
> http://pe.usps.gov/text/DMM300/503.htm#6_0
> 
0
Barry
12/30/2006 3:45:35 AM
Sorry, I don't believe you.  You see, I have eyes, and know what a check 
looks like.  I also know what a UPC code looks like, and what MICR is 
and what routing numbers and account numbers are.  I will never mistake 
a postcard that is a valid check for junk mail.  And anyone who does 
deserves to forfeit the check made payable to them.


David Nebenzahl wrote:
> Barry Watzman spake thus:
> 
>> M�n�ig�or �oddoM wrote:
>>
>>> I have seen this as well. The postcard check had to be cashed within 
>>> 60 days and could not be cashed by a third party. This after taking 
>>> about 5 months to get to me. And yes it looked like junkmail.
>>
>  > How can a postcard that is a legally valid check (Pay to the order of
>  > ..... $xxx.xx) look like junk mail?
> 
> Believe us, it can; just another of the many weapons in the arsenal of 
> the lying, scum-sucking retailers who use this phony-baloney practice to 
> make more bux.
> 
> 
0
Barry
12/30/2006 3:47:37 AM
In article <4595e163$0$4908$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>Sorry, I don't believe you.  You see, I have eyes, and know what a check 
>looks like.  I also know what a UPC code looks like, and what MICR is 
>and what routing numbers and account numbers are.  I will never mistake 
>a postcard that is a valid check for junk mail.  And anyone who does 
>deserves to forfeit the check made payable to them.

You're right, up to a point.

But my mailbox is choked full of daily junk much of
which is intentionally designed to deceive.

Like you, I am not easily fooled. But clearly some
people are and that's why companies continue to send
out this crap (at considerable cost to them).

Can I believe that some rebate processors mail out
checks in a format designed to increase the likelihood
the check will junked and never presented? Absolutely!

Corporations, including big Fortune 100 corporations, 
send me a huge variety of mailings that incorporate
such deceptive practices on a daily basis.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
12/30/2006 4:01:18 AM
Barry Watzman (WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com) writes:
> No, everyone with a PO box is not a criminal, but most of the scams 
> against rebate fulfillment houses and sponsors involve use of PO boxes. 
>   So quite some time ago (I'd say more than a decade ago) it became just 
> about universal to deny rebates with a PO box address (and it states 
> that in the rebate terms).
> 

What would happen if somebody called the company direct and asked for the
marketing director, explaining the PO box problem?  When I've had
problems, which I usually avoid by calling first the fulfillmanet house
and then the company when I'm not sure about a requirement, often they
will take my name and address and prequalify me, informing the fulfillment
house.  Then I send the rebate in.

Brendan


> An interesting situation arose about 2 years ago because almost all 
> rebates are limited to "one per address".  The NY attorney general 
> brought suit against a ton of rebate firms for not paying rebates to 
> residents of large NYC high-rise apartment buildings (same address ..... 
> 1234 Broadway, NY, NY).  Sometimes some of the things that the rebate 
> firms have to do to protect themselves (because they ARE themselves the 
> targets of people who would commit fraud) cross the line, sometimes 
> unintentionally.  The "one per address" rule is reasonable enough in a 
> suburban single-family residence environment, but failed miserably in 
> environments with high-rise apartment buildings that have a single address.
> 
> 
> J.A. Michel wrote:
>> I don't remember seeing that 'rule' in the paperwork.  This was several 
>> years ago.  So I guess everyone with a PO box is a criminal or something?? 
>> I live in a rural area, where home-delivered mail is not an option.  We have 
>> to have a PO box, and we get to pay box rent for the privilege of being 
>> treated like crap.
>> 
>> "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message 
>> news:45949345$0$5278$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> But it says right on the rebate form that rebates will not be honored from 
>>> post office boxes.  This is a standard term of virually all rebates. 
>>> Sure, you have a PO box, but normally you do live SOMEWHERE where you 
>>> could get mail.
>>>
>>>
>>> J.A. Michel wrote:
>>>> Rebates are such a RIP!  Just give me a good deal up front, with no BS.
>>>> I got ripped off on a 30.00 rebate on a Netgear networking kit one time.
>>>> They rejected my rebate because my address was a PO box.  What bullshit.
>>>> I guess that was a good enough excuse for them.
>>>>
>>>> Not everyone has the luxury of home-delivered mail - some of us live in 
>>>> small towns.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote in message 
>>>> news:4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
>>>>> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
>>>>> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
>>>>> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we 
>>>>> didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
>>>>>
>>>>> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know 
>>>>> I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
>>>>> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so 
>>>>> that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
>>>>> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
>>>>> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
>>>>> the rebate form.
>>>>>
>>>>> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
>>>>> incident.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> 


0
ck183
12/30/2006 6:01:03 AM
Malcolm Hoar spake thus:

> In article <4595e163$0$4908$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> 
>>Sorry, I don't believe you.  You see, I have eyes, and know what a check 
>>looks like.  I also know what a UPC code looks like, and what MICR is 
>>and what routing numbers and account numbers are.  I will never mistake 
>>a postcard that is a valid check for junk mail.  And anyone who does 
>>deserves to forfeit the check made payable to them.
> 
> You're right, up to a point.
> 
> But my mailbox is choked full of daily junk much of
> which is intentionally designed to deceive.
> 
> Like you, I am not easily fooled. But clearly some
> people are and that's why companies continue to send
> out this crap (at considerable cost to them).
> 
> Can I believe that some rebate processors mail out
> checks in a format designed to increase the likelihood
> the check will junked and never presented? Absolutely!
> 
> Corporations, including big Fortune 100 corporations, 
> send me a huge variety of mailings that incorporate
> such deceptive practices on a daily basis.

And not just to consumers: when I owned a business, I regularly got 
these "official"-looking notices that, if you didn't read them too 
carefully, looked like something issued by a government agency, telling 
you that you needed to update your worker's comp posters. In fact, they 
were from some scamming company that sold the package (for $49.95 or 
some such), with absolutely no authority behind their claims that you'd 
better buy them and put them up, or else.

It's the American way.


-- 
Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

- Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)
0
David
12/30/2006 6:06:07 AM
Arthur Entlich (e-printerhelp@mvps.org) writes:
> I always photocopy everything I send in for rebates, including the UPC 
> taped to the form.  Usually, these rebates are not handled by the 
> manufacturer, but by a hired "Fulfillment" company.
> 
> It is possible in the handling, because it was taped to the form, they 
> might have simply missed it.  They are supposed to hold on to any rebate 
> form that is in contention, so I would call them and explain the 
> situation, they may re-evaluate your form and correct the situation.
> 
> Then demand a rapid processing, since they made the error and owe you 
> the money.  If they stick to their guns, demand a photocopy of your 
> original submission (all sides copied).  If that doesn't get you 
> anywhere, if you are in the states or Canada, place a complaint with:
> 
> -The attorney general's office for your state or province
> 
> -In the US, or if the Fulfillment company is in the US, report to the US 
> postal Fraud division.
> 
> -Canon in your country... they usually want to know about this.
> 
> Lastly, contact the retailer where you bought the goods.  They sometimes 
> have a person who follows up on this kind of thing.  In some cases, they 
> will just pay the rebate directly to you.
> 
> Art
> 

I always tape EVERYTHING together.  The copy of the receipt (never the
original) gets taped to the rebate form (increasingly printed on register
tape these days), and then the UPC (or copy, with the words "copy of UPC
as required by offer" on the same piece of paper) to one of the two.  If
the UPC is tiny I draw an arrow pointing to it.

This has not stopped the place with the El Paso address from bouncing a
number of rebates for lack of a UPC, which they always rectify when I
call.  I think they must make a certain amount of money from people who
don't respond to that little trick on their part.

I also do two things: 1) call after about three weeks to verify that my
submission has been received and is being processed, and 2) kepp calling
after 6 weeks about when it will be mailed (genrally at 10 weeks).  I
store copies of my my pending rebates by date of purchase and just call
about the top few to keep them honest, once in a while. 

Brendan
0
ck183
12/30/2006 6:09:52 AM
Arthur Entlich (e-printerhelp@mvps.org) writes:
> These rebate companies often advertise to the companies they are hired 
> by that they will make great efforts to disqualify rebates to keep the 
> rebate costs down... particularly with larger rebate amounts.
> 
> You may also be right about some fraud.
> 
> Art
> 

YOu mean like that place in El Pase that keeps sending me cards that I
didn't include the UPC?  They always pay, but it's clear they would prefer
not too, and their phone staff gives in so quickly when you complain that
I have to wonder if they have some sort of company policy.

Brendan
0
ck183
12/30/2006 6:12:20 AM
Bill (billrubin@prodigy.net) writes:
> RichA wrote:
>> 
>> Having automatic computer verification of rebates at the time of sale
>> would increase payouts massively, but the companies don't want that at
>> all.  Meanwhile, there is also the  chance with instant rebates your
>> name and other information wouldn't be sold to a 1000 different
>> databases months afterward....
> 
> The problem with instant rebates is that there is no way they
> could validate that you're not doing more than one like they can
> when you have to mail it in. So people could easily end up with
> multiples, and the companies do not want that, especially with
> the free (after rebate) stuff. For stuff like giving $100 back
> on an appliance, or Sears giving free shipping after rebate,
> there's really no excuse for a mail-in rebate, other than
> avoiding paying it.
> 
> BTW as someone who does a LOT of rebates, there is absolutely NO
> evidence that my name is sold as a result of rebates (I do get
> mail specifically from a couple of companies whose rebates I
> claimed). And I don't think that anyone has been able to prove
> this -- it's just paranoid people like you who keep claiming
> that it is true. If you have proof, post it here.
> 
> Bill


Easy enough to find out.  Label the street address with a #CP (Canon
printer) and if that every shows up, you'll know.

eg. 123 Main St.  #CP
    Anytown

Brendan
0
ck183
12/30/2006 6:17:07 AM
Shawn Hirn (srhi@comcast.net) writes:
> In article <4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>  John <John@nospam.net> wrote:
> 
>> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
>> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
>> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
>> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we 
>> didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
>> 
>> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know 
>> I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
>> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so 
>> that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>> 
>> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
>> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
>> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
>> the rebate form.
>> 
>> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>> 
>> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included 
> 
> Did you contact Canon to complain? If so, and you didn't get a 
> satisfactory response, try sending a snail mail complaint to Canon's 
> CEO. No CEO of a large company likes getting complaints from customers. 
> I had a problem with Kodak where I got nowhere by going through Kodak's 
> standard consumer relations channels. I finally wrote a letter of 
> complaint and sent it to the CEO. A week later, I got a call from some 
> VP there who was very apologetic. He took down my snail mail address 
> and, a few days later, he sent me a box full of Kodak stuff to thank me 
> for bringing the problem to their attention. That box also included a 
> letter of apology. Maybe you would get the same results by contacting 
> Canon's CEO.


My tactic is to use the toll free number and ask for either Marketing
(which many operators don't know as a deptment) or the president's
secretary, who almost always knows more than he does and is paid to keep
people like me away from people like him.  The most difficult thing is
usaully getting a toll free number to corporate HQ, and not to "Consumer
Affairs", which is often not even in the same state.

Brendan
0
ck183
12/30/2006 6:25:16 AM
"Buck Turgidson" (jc_va@hotmail.com) writes:
> Reading this thread raised my blood pressure.  I have always suspected 
> rebates were a scam, and our Federa agencies don't seem to have much
> interest in protecting us.
> 
> Not to start a political discussion, but why is our goverment for business 
> and not the people?
> 
> If cloned beef and milk is not harmful, then why NOT label it as such and 
> let us decide if we want to eat it?
> 
> This is the time of year that credit card companies send us privacy 
> notifications and give us the opportunity to opt out.  I can do just about
> anything I want on-line with my Citibank credit card, increase my limit, add 
> a second authorized user, etc.  Opt out of their privacy policy?  No, I have
> to mail a form at my expense to some freaking PO Box in Des Moines and wait 
> 30 days for it to take effect.  I guess something like this is too hard to
> program on a website.  What a crock.
> 
> Sorry for the rant.  Time for my medication.
> 
> 
> 


Got a replacement Representative in Washington?  With all these seats
changing hands maybe the new guys will pay attention to their constituents
for the first two weeks or so (until lobbyists have taken them out to
lunch a few times) and think about sponsoring a very popular regulatory
bill. 

Brendan
0
ck183
12/30/2006 6:32:41 AM
Bill wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>>
>> Here's further proof:
>>
>> I got a rebate check sometime back. It came in a nondescript
>> envelope via "Bulk Mail" (now known as "Standard Mail").
>>
>> I normally toss snail-mail-spam. Probably millions others do too.
>> Evidently the rebate company tried to take advantage of this social
>> engineering concept.
>
> Actually, they do it to save money on postage. If you like to
> toss unknown mail, then put a special middle initial on your
> rebate forms and then you'll know when it's a check.

Good idea.

>
> Let me guess that you also complain about postcard checks as
> being too easy to steal, and you'd also complain about an
> envelope that said "your rebate check is enclosed!!".

It's generally not a wise to guess about what I'm thinking. Inasmuch as it's 
against federal law to send invoices by Standard Mail (look at your 
telephone bill's envelope), one would think a similar rationale would apply 
to other financial instruments. 


0
HeyBub
12/30/2006 2:08:51 PM
That's why I spelled it out.  The customer isn't the only
involved in the transaction.  People are complaining that
rebates aren't for their exclusive benefit.  They're
right.  But nobody is forcing you to buy the product.

Barry Watzman wrote:
> Sales taxes are collected on mail-in rebates, they are NOT collected on 
> "instant rebates".
> 
> The rest of your post is conjecture that may be true in some cases and 
> not true in others.  From the customer's perspective, it doesn't matter: 
>  An instant rebate is just a sale price (and sales taxes are NOT paid on 
> the rebate amount; only the "net" rings on the register and is charged 
> tax).
> 
> 
> M Berger wrote:
>> You have missed a big part of the picture.
>>
>> With mail in rebates, the store sales figures aren't
>> decreased as they would be with the instant reduction.
>> Localities like it because they get the full sales tax
>> amount.
>>
>> In most cases the store doesn't pay the rebate, the parent
>> company or manufacturer does.
0
M
12/30/2006 5:12:43 PM
Wow... how lucky.  You were unemployed for six months but you got
2 computers and $ 50 out of it!

DerbyDad03 wrote:
....
> Starting in January, I submitted my first un-employment claim and they
> paid ~$175 toward my balance. The next month they paid ~$155, and so on
> for the 6 months that I was out of work. By the time I found a job, the
> balance on my card was less than the rebate money I had banked. I then
> used most of the rebate money to pay off the balance of the card.
> 
> In the end, I ended up with 2 complete systems (CPU, monitors,
> printers, etc) and about $50 extra in my pocket.
> 
> Nice, huh?
0
M
12/30/2006 5:15:15 PM
You're mistaken.  When you get a $10 rebate, they send
you $ 10.  They don't charge sales tax.  You already
paid it when you bought the product.

Barry Watzman wrote:
> No Berger, you do pay sales tax on the amount of a mail-in rebate.  The 
> rebate does not show up on the sales receipt.  It's a separate 
> transaction that occurs (or doesn't) later.
> 
> 
> 
> M Berger wrote:
>> No you don't.  You pay sales tax on the product price.
>> The rebate is not a sale price.  It's a rebate.
>>
>> Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>>
>>> On top of all that, in CA at least, you pay sales tax on the
>>> rebate amount.
>>>
0
M
12/30/2006 5:19:11 PM
Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> said in misc.consumers:

>>>>>As has been adequately explained here before, rebates are by their
>>>>>very nature a scam.  There is no logical explanation for a rebate
>>>>>program other than being a scam.
>>>>
>>>>Here's further proof:
>>>>
>>>>I got a rebate check sometime back. It came in a nondescript envelope via
>>>>"Bulk Mail" (now known as "Standard Mail").
>>>>
>>>>I normally toss snail-mail-spam. Probably millions others do too. Evidently
>>>>the rebate company tried to take advantage of this social engineering
>>>>concept. 
>> 
>Hmmm,
>You must feel good about it? Once I purchased an item from Office Depot
>which came with a rebate coupon. I claimed it and mailed papers in.
>Few days later I changed my mind and returned the item. Then few weeks
>later rebate check came. I sort of felt guilty about it but loop hole
>was there at their fault.

Of course, rebator companies scream bloody murder about this sort of
"fraud" (i.e. loopholes which cost them money) but at the same time
it's A-OK for them to deny thousands of valid claims and "lose"
thousands more. And the guy who came up with the idea of disguising
the rebate check as junk mail probably got himself a big raise and a
corner office.
0
Scott
12/30/2006 5:21:18 PM
Buck Turgidson wrote:

> Not to start a political discussion, but why is our goverment for business 
> and not the people?

This is a capitalist society, and corporations have a lot more
money than most individuals.  That makes them far more powerful.

> 
> If cloned beef and milk is not harmful, then why NOT label it as such and 
> let us decide if we want to eat it?

How do you *know* it's not harmful?  It hasn't been around very long.

> 
> This is the time of year that credit card companies send us privacy 
> notifications and give us the opportunity to opt out.  I can do just about
> anything I want on-line with my Citibank credit card, increase my limit, add 
> a second authorized user, etc.  Opt out of their privacy policy?  No, I have
> to mail a form at my expense to some freaking PO Box in Des Moines and wait 
> 30 days for it to take effect.  I guess something like this is too hard to
> program on a website.  What a crock.

As you know, they use the information for sales solicitations so they
can make more money.  See #1 above.  Of course they don't want to make
it easy for you to keep them from doing it.

> 
> Sorry for the rant.  Time for my medication.

Share.
> 
> 
> 
0
M
12/30/2006 5:24:16 PM
M Berger wrote:
- Wow... how lucky.  You were unemployed for six months but you got
- 2 computers and $ 50 out of it!

Yep, and a year's salary continuance from the company that I was
downsized from.

Let's do the math:
 -- A year's salary continuance from my old job
 -- A new (better paying) job 6 months later (can you say
"double-dipping"?)
 -- 2 computers
 -- $50 bucks

I'd say "lucky" is the right word to use in this situation. Good
choice.

M Berger wrote:
> Wow... how lucky.  You were unemployed for six months but you got
> 2 computers and $ 50 out of it!
>
> DerbyDad03 wrote:
> ...
> > Starting in January, I submitted my first un-employment claim and they
> > paid ~$175 toward my balance. The next month they paid ~$155, and so on
> > for the 6 months that I was out of work. By the time I found a job, the
> > balance on my card was less than the rebate money I had banked. I then
> > used most of the rebate money to pay off the balance of the card.
> >
> > In the end, I ended up with 2 complete systems (CPU, monitors,
> > printers, etc) and about $50 extra in my pocket.
> > 
> > Nice, huh?

0
DerbyDad03
12/30/2006 5:46:05 PM
In article <en66ma$4an$1@roundup.shout.net>, M Berger <berger@shout.net> wrote:
>That's why I spelled it out.  The customer isn't the only
>involved in the transaction.  People are complaining that
>rebates aren't for their exclusive benefit.  They're
>right.  But nobody is forcing you to buy the product.

That is correct; people should have the freedom to make
poor choices as well as good ones. However, in most
civilized societies, outright fraud is outlawed.

The rebate scam is borderline fraud.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
12/30/2006 5:48:30 PM
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Malcolm Hoar wrote:
<blockquote cite="miden4oae120ku002malch@nntp.sonic.net" type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">In article <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:4595e163$0$4908$4c368faf@roadrunner.com">&lt;4595e163$0$4908$4c368faf@roadrunner.com&gt;</a>, Barry Watzman <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com">&lt;WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com&gt;</a> wrote:
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Sorry, I don't believe you.  You see, I have eyes, and know what a check 
looks like.  I also know what a UPC code looks like, and what MICR is 
and what routing numbers and account numbers are.  I will never mistake 
a postcard that is a valid check for junk mail.  And anyone who does 
deserves to forfeit the check made payable to them.
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
You're right, up to a point.

But my mailbox is choked full of daily junk much of
which is intentionally designed to deceive.

Like you, I am not easily fooled. But clearly some
people are and that's why companies continue to send
out this crap (at considerable cost to them).

Can I believe that some rebate processors mail out
checks in a format designed to increase the likelihood
the check will junked and never presented? Absolutely!

Corporations, including big Fortune 100 corporations, 
send me a huge variety of mailings that incorporate
such deceptive practices on a daily basis.
  </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
You are correct<br>
</body>
</html>
0
measekite
12/30/2006 5:51:33 PM
>> The OP stated that he sent in a COPY of the UPC when the rebate clearly
>> specified that he had to send in the *original*.

>NO!
>
>REREAD MY ORIGINAL POST!  SHOW ME WHERE I STATED THAT I SENT IN A COPY.

You said your new tactic was to use wide tape and attach the UPC to
the rebate form. Did this tape cover the entire bar code on the UPC?
0
tnom
12/30/2006 5:57:39 PM
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 11:15:15 -0600, M Berger <berger@shout.net> wrote:

>Wow... how lucky.  You were unemployed for six months but you got
>2 computers and $ 50 out of it!

That might have eased the pain of being unemployed, but I would rather
have been employed for the six months and paid for the cost of the
computer (less the rebate, of course).
0
The
12/30/2006 8:16:33 PM
Etobian,

Perhaps you missed my response to M Berger:

I received a year's salary continuance from the company that I was
downsized from.

Let's do the math:
 -- A year's salary continuance from my old job
 -- A new (better paying) job 6 months later (can you say
"double-dipping"?)
 -- 2 computers
 -- $50 bucks

In the end, not only did I end up with 2 free computers, but I made
more money that year than any year in my life and my new job pays
better than the old.

I was forced into making the career change that so many people think
about but are frozen by fear from doing. There's a saying about making
a major change that goes something like this: "Before a change can be
made, the pain of staying has to be greater than the pain of leaving."
That's why many people remain in dead-end jobs or careers they really
don't enjoy. The pain/fear of being unemployed for any length of time
or failing at the new career keeps people locked into an unhappy, but
safe, situation. That's exactly where I was. As I look back, I am very
grateful for those 6 months of (fully paid) unemployment. I was forced
to look inside and decide what I really wanted to do for the rest of my
life and then go out and make it happen.

And on top of it all, I ended up with 2 free computer systems!

The Etobian wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 11:15:15 -0600, M Berger <berger@shout.net> wrote:
>
> >Wow... how lucky.  You were unemployed for six months but you got
> >2 computers and $ 50 out of it!
>
> That might have eased the pain of being unemployed, but I would rather
> have been employed for the six months and paid for the cost of the
> computer (less the rebate, of course).

0
DerbyDad03
12/30/2006 8:38:52 PM
J.A. Michel wrote:
>> If someone sends you a letter with your street address and no PO number,
>> would your P.O. know where it was to be delivered?
> 
> Most of the time, yes.  Fortunatley, our town is small enough (pop. 325) 
> that the postmaster knows most everyone.
> However, problems arise when we get a new postmaster, or when postmaster 
> relief is on duty.
> 
> J.A. Michel
> 
> 
> 
> 
I live in a rural area, too, and I know what you're talking about. My
mail is delivered from the office in a neighboring Zip code. In fact,
I'm on the end of the route for that office. The next house closer to
the local office gets its mail from a third office. The houses right in
the village get mail at the local office. Others handle other parts of
the district. It's a complicated setup, but it works.

Here's a way to overcome your above "problem." Since there are only 325
people, the postmaster could work up a cross-reference list to translate
street locations to box numbers without too much trouble. This is
actually the way the ZIP+4 system works. the +4 numbers make up a box
number. Take a look sometime at an address that uses a PO box and a
ZIP+4 number. You'll see what I mean. Anyway, with a cross-reference at
hand, even a new postmaster or substitute could get things right. If the
postmaster frowns at doing the job him- or her-self, offer your own
services - and don't be afraid to do it for free. Call it "giving back
to the Community." It'll help you, and everyone else. You'll be a hero.

TJ

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
TJ
12/31/2006 12:20:58 AM
RichA wrote:
> John wrote:
> 
>>I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm
>>quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in
>>the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at
>>least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we
>>didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
>>
>>I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know
>>I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the
>>principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so
>>that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>>
>>I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase
>>receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the
>>envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to
>>the rebate form.
>>
>>I checked on my rebate status just now.
>>
>>Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>>
>>Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>>
>>Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>>
>>Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this
>>incident.
> 
> 
> Mail-in rebates are always a scam.  Why do they do them?  Because
> people buy based on this.
> 50-80% never claim them.
> Rebates take 8-12 weeks and often are never delivered, another 50%
> forget about them.
> They force you to call someone to fix the problem or ask where your
> rebate is 16 weeks past due delivery time.
> At the end of it all, according to various business studies, only 3% of
> rebates are ever paid out.  So, they can boost sales with what might
> amount to a 0.5% overall discount paid.
> It is business genius.
> 


I LOVE rebates.

I always fill them out, checking off each step on the firm as I do so, 
always make copies of everything, and always send them in, with delivery 
confirmation.

Eight out of 10 times no problem.

When there is a problem, I go to the local Small Claims Court here in 
Oregon and sue both the stre and the manufacturer for breach of 
contract, fraud, and for violtions of something called the Oregon 
Unlawful trade Practices Act (ORS 646.601 et seq.)

The local vendor is an actual and apparent agent of the manufacturer.

I have always recovered my filing fees; a minimum of $ 200.00 statutory 
damages under the Oregon UTPA; a stautory "prevailing party fee" of $ 
250.00 and the costs of service of the complaints and summonses on the 
local retailer and the registered agent of the manufacturer.

Zinging Fry's and its various manufacturers is lots of fun.  I just 
fiished, in early December, with Frys and Kingston Memoy on a thumb 
drive, which Kingston laimed lacked a  dated sales receipt.  They get so 
twidgy when served with a  request for production requiring them to 
produce the original of the entirety of the rebate package sent in to 
the.   Apparently whatever the service company at the post office box 
address in El Paso which so many manufacturers use (the work is actually 
done in Juarez across the river) keep no iinal records at all.  Judges 
get so ticked  when a  defendant's lawyers say its company polivy to 
thow orginal records away <g>.

Having  lawyered for amost 40 years before hanging up my cleats makes 
this rather simple and quite profitable.
After hiring lawyers two or three times to represen them, Fry's has 
figred out its cheaper to  pay me than to contest the claim.

YMMV.
0
jJim
12/31/2006 12:23:08 AM
John wrote:
> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we 
> didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
> 
> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know 
> I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so 
> that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
> 
> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
> the rebate form.
> 
> I checked on my rebate status just now.
> 
> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
> 
> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
> 
> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
> 
> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
> incident.
> 
> 
I've generally had good luck with rebates. The most memorable exception 
was three years ago. I bought a pack of 50 blank CDs from Office Max 
under a "Free after Rebate" deal. They were to be one of my Christmas 
presents for my brother. I bought the CDs online, rather late in the 
sale. They were out of stock and backordered, something they didn't 
bother to tell me until after the sale had been finalized, and something 
that wasn't indicated on the email receipt they sent me. The CDs were 
shipped ten days later, just in time for Christmas but over a week after 
the sale was over. Part of the rebate requirements were that the rebate 
had to be sent in within two weeks after the sale, and online orders had 
to include a delivery receipt. Needless to say, I was late. I sent in 
the stuff I was supposed to anyway, and included a copy of the email to 
show that while the delivery was after the time period, it wasn't MY 
fault. I made copies of everything, for whatever good it might do me.

My brother died unexpectedly on January 4. Among other things, I wound 
up with the CDs, which he never had a chance to open. A week after the 
funeral, the rebate denial notice was in my mailbox. It wasn't in me at 
the time to pursue the matter.

My brother will probably never forgive me for that.

TJ

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
TJ
12/31/2006 1:00:08 AM
Jim McLaughlin wrote:
> 
> Zinging Fry's and its various manufacturers is lots of fun.  I just
> fiished, in early December, with Frys and Kingston Memoy on a thumb
> drive, which Kingston laimed lacked a  dated sales receipt.  They get so
> twidgy when served with a  request for production requiring them to
> produce the original of the entirety of the rebate package sent in to
> the.   Apparently whatever the service company at the post office box
> address in El Paso which so many manufacturers use (the work is actually
> done in Juarez across the river) keep no iinal records at all.  Judges
> get so ticked  when a  defendant's lawyers say its company polivy to
> thow orginal records away <g>.

Kingston rebates don't go to El Paso, they go to White Bear
Lake, MN (I just got finished mailing some out). I trust that
the rest of your rather amusing story was more accurate?

Bill
0
Bill
12/31/2006 1:51:31 AM
M Berger wrote:
> 
> As you know, they use the information for sales solicitations so they
> can make more money.  See #1 above.  Of course they don't want to make
> it easy for you to keep them from doing it.

Once again, except for isolated cases, there is no evidence that
this is done.

Bill
0
Bill
12/31/2006 1:52:04 AM
HeyBub wrote:

> It's generally not a wise to guess about what I'm thinking. Inasmuch as it's
> against federal law to send invoices by Standard Mail (look at your
> telephone bill's envelope), one would think a similar rationale would apply
> to other financial instruments.

And presumably one would be wrong for assuming that, since its
being done. Of course, you could point this out to Parago and
see if they are willing to change their practice.

And invoices are much different than checks, in that invoices
need to be delivered promptly so the recipient has ample time to
pay it.

Bill
0
Bill
12/31/2006 1:54:04 AM
Bill wrote:

> M Berger wrote:
> 
>>As you know, they use the information for sales solicitations so they
>>can make more money.  See #1 above.  Of course they don't want to make
>>it easy for you to keep them from doing it.
> 
> 
> Once again, except for isolated cases, there is no evidence that
> this is done.
> 
> Bill

You gotta be kidding! You got it backwards. The reason you opt out is so 
that your private info is not sold to the marketing companies otherwise 
when you sign up for  their services you agree to allow the info to be sold.
Next time read the fine print as almost every time you sign up for a 
service you have to call/write and request to opt out of your personal 
info being sold to all marketing companies.
It's just another way for companies to make money off you by selling 
your personal information you had to give to them in order to get their 
services.
Frank
0
Frank
12/31/2006 3:08:20 AM
Frank wrote:
> 
> Bill wrote:
> 
> > M Berger wrote:
> >
> >>As you know, they use the information for sales solicitations so they
> >>can make more money.  See #1 above.  Of course they don't want to make
> >>it easy for you to keep them from doing it.
> >
> >
> > Once again, except for isolated cases, there is no evidence that
> > this is done.
> >
> > Bill
> 
> You gotta be kidding! You got it backwards. The reason you opt out is so
> that your private info is not sold to the marketing companies otherwise
> when you sign up for  their services you agree to allow the info to be sold.
> Next time read the fine print as almost every time you sign up for a
> service you have to call/write and request to opt out of your personal
> info being sold to all marketing companies.
> It's just another way for companies to make money off you by selling
> your personal information you had to give to them in order to get their
> services.
> Frank

Let me repeat again what I have already said in this thread. I
do a LOT of rebates. Except for one company (Peachtree), I do
not get any obvious mail/email as a result of my rebate
submissions. Others have confirmed this in earlier threads.
Unless you can prove otherwise FROM YOUR OWN PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE, please stop making claims that cannot be
substantiated.

Bill
0
Bill
12/31/2006 4:24:25 AM
Do you want to see if your rebate submissions are causing you to get
unsolicited mail? Try this:

Each time you submit a rebate, make a small change to the spelling of
your name - change the middle initial, spell Robert with 2 b's or 2
t's, etc. Make the changes small enough so you won't have any problem
depositing the checks. Keep track of who you send which spelling to.

If you ever get mail addressed to Robbert and/or Robertt, check your
records and you'll know which company sold your name.


Bill wrote:
> Frank wrote:
> >
> > Bill wrote:
> >
> > > M Berger wrote:
> > >
> > >>As you know, they use the information for sales solicitations so they
> > >>can make more money.  See #1 above.  Of course they don't want to make
> > >>it easy for you to keep them from doing it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Once again, except for isolated cases, there is no evidence that
> > > this is done.
> > >
> > > Bill
> >
> > You gotta be kidding! You got it backwards. The reason you opt out is so
> > that your private info is not sold to the marketing companies otherwise
> > when you sign up for  their services you agree to allow the info to be sold.
> > Next time read the fine print as almost every time you sign up for a
> > service you have to call/write and request to opt out of your personal
> > info being sold to all marketing companies.
> > It's just another way for companies to make money off you by selling
> > your personal information you had to give to them in order to get their
> > services.
> > Frank
>
> Let me repeat again what I have already said in this thread. I
> do a LOT of rebates. Except for one company (Peachtree), I do
> not get any obvious mail/email as a result of my rebate
> submissions. Others have confirmed this in earlier threads.
> Unless you can prove otherwise FROM YOUR OWN PERSONAL
> EXPERIENCE, please stop making claims that cannot be
> substantiated.
> 
> Bill

0
DerbyDad03
12/31/2006 4:35:35 AM
In article <1167539735.259308.243360@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>, "DerbyDad03" <teamarrows@eznet.net> wrote:
>Do you want to see if your rebate submissions are causing you to get
>unsolicited mail? Try this:
>
>Each time you submit a rebate, make a small change to the spelling of
>your name - change the middle initial, spell Robert with 2 b's or 2
>t's, etc. Make the changes small enough so you won't have any problem
>depositing the checks. Keep track of who you send which spelling to.
>
>If you ever get mail addressed to Robbert and/or Robertt, check your
>records and you'll know which company sold your name.

...the *first* time. Names are sold onto lists which are sold
and resold again and again. So although you know who "leaked"
it first, you won't learn much more. And the initial "leaker"
will likely swear he wasn't responsible.

Besides, most of us are already on heaps of lists. If you
drive, your state DMV probably has a nice little income
out of selling your info. 

The best you can do is to sign up for the DMA's opt-out
list. Direct mail is relatively expensive and many companies
are happy to save some money and avoid irritating people
who don't want the junk by respecting that request.

http://www.dmaconsumers.org/offmailinglist.html

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
12/31/2006 5:05:57 AM
In article <YKKdncedHqN3nwrYnZ2dnUVZ_qSrnZ2d@comcast.com>,
 jJim McLaughlin <jimm.claughlin@comcast.com> wrote:

> 
> I LOVE rebates.
> 
> I always fill them out, checking off each step on the firm as I do so, 
> always make copies of everything, and always send them in, with delivery 
> confirmation.
> 
> Eight out of 10 times no problem.
> 
> When there is a problem, I go to the local Small Claims Court here in 
> Oregon and sue both the stre and the manufacturer for breach of 
> contract, fraud, and for violtions of something called the Oregon 
> Unlawful trade Practices Act (ORS 646.601 et seq.)
> 
> The local vendor is an actual and apparent agent of the manufacturer.
> 
> I have always recovered my filing fees; a minimum of $ 200.00 statutory 
> damages under the Oregon UTPA; a stautory "prevailing party fee" of $ 
> 250.00 and the costs of service of the complaints and summonses on the 
> local retailer and the registered agent of the manufacturer.
> 
>
<snip>

I asked my lawyer friend if CA had a similar law.  Here's her $.02.

California does indeed. It is called the "Unfair Trade Practices Act." Business and 
Professions Code section 17200,  states:

 "As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, 
unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or 
misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 
17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code."

Section 17500 states in relevant part that: "It is unlawful for any person, firm, 
corporation or association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or 
indirectly to dispose of real or personal property or to perform services, 
professional or otherwise, or anything of any nature whatsoever or to induce the 
public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause 
to be made or disseminated before the public in this state, or to make or disseminate 
or cause to be made or disseminated from this state before the public in any state, 
in any newspaper or other publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry 
or proclamation, or in any other manner or means whatever, including over the 
Internet, any statement, concerning that real or personal property or those services, 
professional or otherwise, or concerning any circumstance or matter of fact connected 
with the proposed performance or disposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading, 
and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to 
be untrue or misleading ...."

However, I have not, yet, found the award of fees which he claims. In California, 
these cases are generally brought by the Attorney General and/or DA etc. on behalf of 
the People of the State of California. Civil penalties are awarded, but are paid to 
the state or to the city or county who brought the suit on behalf of the People. I 
don't see any basis, at least in the California version, to bring a separate claim 
and obtain these fees he mentions. As to the fraud and breach of contract issues, 
that may be different, but I still doubt they are paid to the individual, because the 
purpose is to make the consumer whole, not to be able to obtain monies over and above 
what they have lost or had to spend to recover that which was lost. Those kinds of 
fees generally go for intangibles like defamation, slander, intentional infliction of 
mental distress, etc.

Not worth your time, other than when you can't get your money back. THEN small claims 
would be worth it. No lawyers in small claims, unless he or she is a party.

-- 
ADD Example

bobert
0
Bob
12/31/2006 6:32:05 AM
Bill wrote:

> Frank wrote:
> 
>>Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>M Berger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>As you know, they use the information for sales solicitations so they
>>>>can make more money.  See #1 above.  Of course they don't want to make
>>>>it easy for you to keep them from doing it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Once again, except for isolated cases, there is no evidence that
>>>this is done.
>>>
>>>Bill
>>
>>You gotta be kidding! You got it backwards. The reason you opt out is so
>>that your private info is not sold to the marketing companies otherwise
>>when you sign up for  their services you agree to allow the info to be sold.
>>Next time read the fine print as almost every time you sign up for a
>>service you have to call/write and request to opt out of your personal
>>info being sold to all marketing companies.
>>It's just another way for companies to make money off you by selling
>>your personal information you had to give to them in order to get their
>>services.
>>Frank
> 
> 
> Let me repeat again what I have already said in this thread. I
> do a LOT of rebates. Except for one company (Peachtree), I do
> not get any obvious mail/email as a result of my rebate
> submissions. Others have confirmed this in earlier threads.
> Unless you can prove otherwise FROM YOUR OWN PERSONAL
> EXPERIENCE, please stop making claims that cannot be
> substantiated.
> 
> Bill
Let me repeat what I have said earlier...read the fine print. It usually 
states that they have the right to use the personal information you gave 
them unless you specifically request the op out form.
It's that simple.
Frank
0
Frank
12/31/2006 6:59:53 AM
It seems to me that if the fulfillment company is insuring the client 
(the manufacturer) against excessive rebate response, then they have 
good reason to falsify invalidite of a good percentage to stay within or 
below their proposed quotas.

The excuse I often get from the fulfillment houses is "the response was 
considerably greater than expected" but they have only once admitted 
they couldn't pay me because the source for the rebate had not covered 
their expenses.

Rebates are a psychological ploy, because studies have shown that cost 
conscientious people will often buy based upon the rebated price, but 
never actually get the rebate forms out in time.  However, in spite of 
that, those same people quote the rebated price and recall it as such 
cleaving them to believe they got a better price.


Art

Barry Watzman wrote:

> Re: "The 10-20% of rebates that are never submitted work fine (for the 
> issuer)."
> 
> I've been on the other side of this, as a marketing manager offering or 
> considering offering, rebates.
> 
> The rebate houses will give you tables with the price of the item on one 
> axis, the amount of the rebate on the other axis, and the percent of 
> sales for which the rebate will be claimed in the table body.  Some of 
> them will guarantee the rebate (e.g. if more than they estimate are 
> claimed, they will pay the rebates rather than the rebate sponsor).
> 
> The number of rebates that are not claimed is WAY more than 10% to 20%. 
>  Redemption rates do not reach even 50% (much less the 80% to 90% that 
> you were speculating) until you get to rebates that are both absolutely 
> large ($50 and up) and ALSO a high percentage of the item price (in the 
> range of 50%).  For most rebates, the percent that are CLAIMED are more 
> like what you were thinking of for the percent NOT CLAIMED, e.g. 10% to 
> 30%.
> 
> Rebates work for the seller because they allow him to achieve 
> "differential pricing" and thereby increase his market share (number of 
> units sold).  For the buyer, you need to know if you do or do not 
> actually "get" your rebates.  A quick review of this thread will show 
> you lots of people who don't, but also lots of people who do.  The 
> difference is in the people and their approach to rebates, not in the 
> rebates themselves (well, for the most part ... there are some rip-off 
> rebates, but they are the exception).  The rebate is a tax on the 
> disorgznized and lazy for the benefit of the people who have the mind 
> set to do the rebates right.  There is generally no deception or fraud 
> involved, but effort is required, as is some level of knowledge of how 
> the system works.  It's possible to benefit, but not everyone does. 
> However, when they don't, it's generally because of their own actions.
> 
> 
> Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> 
>> In article <459492d4$0$5265$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Barry Watzman 
>> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A couple of comments:  MOST of the rebate firms and the rebate 
>>> sponsors are NOT out to screw you or deny you the rebate (but yes, 
>>> there are a few exceptions], and they are usually reasonable when an 
>>> issue arises (again, there are exceptions).  We've had quite a 
>>> discussion of this recently in another newsgroup (Dell), and my 
>>> experience is typical of people who do a lot of rebates.  More than 
>>> 90% of rebates work just fine with no issues if you follow the 
>>> directions.
>>
>>
>> The 10-20% of rebates that are never submitted work fine (for
>> the issuer).
>>
>> In my opinion, none of them work "just fine" for the consumer.
>> The paperwork is a hassle. Postage is not free. Keeping copies
>> is even more of a hassle. And chasing non-payments is a major
>> hassle.
>>
>> On top of all that, in CA at least, you pay sales tax on the
>> rebate amount.
>>
>> The only reason rebates exist is because the issues know with
>> a high degree of confidence that they'll get to keep some
>> 20% of refundable amount. Large manufacturers and retailers
>> can play that numbers game to their advantage. Consumers, as
>> a group, will always loose.
>>
>>
0
Arthur
12/31/2006 12:38:11 PM
It will take me some time to find this again, assuming the websites 
weren't changed.  CBC TV Marketplace in Canada did a expos� on 
fulfillment houses a year or two back, and I did some looking around then.

It's also possible the original program is still online on CBC's website.

Art

M Berger wrote:

> Can you show us some examples of where companies advertise
> that they will make great efforts to disqualify claims?
> I can't imagine many reputable companies would hire them.
> 
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
> 
>> These rebate companies often advertise to the companies they are hired 
>> by that they will make great efforts to disqualify rebates to keep the 
>> rebate costs down... particularly with larger rebate amounts.
>>
>> You may also be right about some fraud.
>>
0
Arthur
12/31/2006 12:48:17 PM
I think you are saying the same thing.

He's stating that you have to pay tax ALSO on the amount you get back in 
rebate, since it is not removed at the till, it is taxed.

With some very large rebates, that tax can be as much or more than the 
final cost of the product (after rebate).

Art




M Berger wrote:

> No you don't.  You pay sales tax on the product price.
> The rebate is not a sale price.  It's a rebate.
> 
> Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> 
>> On top of all that, in CA at least, you pay sales tax on the
>> rebate amount.
>>
0
Arthur
12/31/2006 12:51:29 PM
The last rebate I had a problem with (they claimed I hadn't sent any 
receipt, which clearly wasn't the case since they registered the rebate 
receipt date on their information) was with Young America.  They wanted 
me to fax them the info and then wait another 8-10 weeks.  I told them 
that was NOT OK, since they owned me the money, an they could not keep 
it for so long when they made the error.  I did fax the info, and they 
issued the check in less than 3 weeks.


Art


Warren Weber wrote:


> "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote in message 
> news:4594782d$0$16750$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> 
>>I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm quite 
>>anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in the rebate 
>>with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at least minimizes 
>>the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we didn't receive 
>>your rebate in time" excuses.
>>
>>I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know I 
>>go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
>>principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so that 
>>most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>>
>>I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
>>receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
>>envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to the 
>>rebate form.
>>
>>I checked on my rebate status just now.
>>
>>Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>>
>>Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>>
>>Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>>
>>Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
>>incident.
>>
> 
> I have had good results if sent to Young America MN. The ones I loose out on 
> are the ones sent to Texas.  I think the workers find a way to collect the 
> rebate themselves. W W 
> 
> 
0
Arthur
12/31/2006 12:56:38 PM
Sadly, your rant has some merit.  All I can say is politicians are not 
leaders, they will ultimately do what their constituency wishes, in most 
cases, but you need to be clear and heard.  Business, although it is not 
a voting individual, does often donate to campaigns and political 
parties, so they are listened to.

Art

Buck Turgidson wrote:

> Reading this thread raised my blood pressure.  I have always suspected 
> rebates were a scam, and our Federa agencies don't seem to have much
> interest in protecting us.
> 
> Not to start a political discussion, but why is our goverment for business 
> and not the people?
> 
> If cloned beef and milk is not harmful, then why NOT label it as such and 
> let us decide if we want to eat it?
> 
> This is the time of year that credit card companies send us privacy 
> notifications and give us the opportunity to opt out.  I can do just about
> anything I want on-line with my Citibank credit card, increase my limit, add 
> a second authorized user, etc.  Opt out of their privacy policy?  No, I have
> to mail a form at my expense to some freaking PO Box in Des Moines and wait 
> 30 days for it to take effect.  I guess something like this is too hard to
> program on a website.  What a crock.
> 
> Sorry for the rant.  Time for my medication.
> 
> 
> 
0
Arthur
12/31/2006 1:04:34 PM
I also live in a rural area, so I understand.  But that may be the best 
way, at least its an  attempt to get the rebate.

Art


J.A. Michel wrote:

>>If someone sends you a letter with your street address and no PO number,
>>would your P.O. know where it was to be delivered?
> 
> 
> Most of the time, yes.  Fortunatley, our town is small enough (pop. 325) 
> that the postmaster knows most everyone.
> However, problems arise when we get a new postmaster, or when postmaster 
> relief is on duty.
> 
> J.A. Michel
> 
> 
> 
> 
0
Arthur
12/31/2006 1:06:49 PM
The delay is intentional on a number of levels.  Firstly, the 
rebate/fulfillment companies are understaffed for the number of rebates 
they are responsible for processing.  Secondly, the money is invested 
while they hold it, so they make some extra cash off that.

But one of the main reasons, is because one of the functions of a rebate 
is to trick the shareholders of the company.  By having such a long 
delay between the sale and the payout, companies can clear their channel 
f product (reduce inventory, which ends up looking like sales) during 
one fiscal quarter, and not show the liability (the rebates owed) until 
the following fiscal quarter.

Rebates often move old stock that otherwise would not have sold. Excess 
inventory is a line item that has to be written down and lowers profit 
margins for that quarter, but if the company suddenly sells out of a 
product (even if the company is giving all the money back, plus costs) 
as can be the case with a "full rebate" offered, that money returned is 
done outside of the fiscal quarter, so the company looks more flush.


John wrote:

> Bill wrote:
> 
>> Ryan wrote:
>>
>>> THIS IS EASILY SOLVED:
>>>
>>> You did the right thing by using DC and keeping copies. However, this
>>> is how to get your rebate paid:
>>>
>>> 1. Go to the rebate web site and find out which fullfillment company
>>> owns it so you'll know which one is handling this for Canon. You can
>>> then search Google for their address.
>>>
>>> 2. Go to BBB.org and file a complaint online against the Fullfillment
>>> company (not Canon) explaining that you mailed the original UPC, you
>>> have a copy to prove it, they claim you did not send it and will not
>>> correct the problem for you.
>>>
>>> I had to do this three times in all my years of rebates.. EVERY time
>>> the fullfillment company MAGICALLY "found" my entire claim the moment
>>> the BBB contacted them and one even sent my check via FedEd.
>>>
>>> DON'T GIVE UP. It's not hard to shake the money out of them, just have
>>> to use the right tactics. :-)
>>
>>
>> This is a great suggestion. I've had success filing complaints
>> against Parago.
>>
>> Another option is going to the Canon USA website and looking for
>> some email address to complain to. He could also file a BBB
>> complaint against Canon.
>>  
>> The worst thing people can do is simply sit back and say "they
>> ripped me off on that rebate, and my response is to not buy from
>> them again". The best response is to get your money.
>>
>> Bill
> 
> 
> You're absolutely correct.  I may verbal, but I don't sit on my hands.
> 
> I used one Canon number to find the Canon Rebate status phone number.  I 
> then called the Canon Rebate status number.
> 
> As it turns out, the error message was in error.  The person at Canon 
> Rebate was holding my UPC codes in his hand (his words).
> 
> He said that the rebate would be sent out in a few weeks.
> 
> Which leads me to ponder another mystery.  In the age of the Internet 
> and fast computers, why would it take weeks to months to send out a 
> rebate check?
> 
> One rebate said that if I don't receive the rebate in 12 (twelve, that's 
> a dozen) weeks I should call to determine the status.  I wonder if 
> they're hoping that I'll forget about the rebate in 3 months?
0
Arthur
12/31/2006 1:19:13 PM
The pay to the order is obscured by a bunch of other text around it, and 
that and the amount are in very small print.  There is a laser printed 
signature somewhere on it, a notice about the maximum value and the 
deadline by which it can be cased, which is often only a few days to a 
week, because they hold up these cheques for literally months after they 
postmark them (which is, BTW, illegal).

I was able to prove they do this, as well.  In a case where I had sent 
the correct information and the fulfillment company indicated I had not 
done so, and I sucessfully proved otherwise, I demanded they immediately 
provide me with the rebate, since it was, at that time, already over the 
8 weeks indicated (they wanted me to wait an additional 8 weeks, but I 
told them I would report them to the US Postal Fraud division if they 
did not issue my cheque immediately. The cheque showed up in a hand 
lettered envelope, but the inside cheque, which had my name on it also 
had a metered postage stamp on it which had a date 4 week earlier on it. 
  Since they had originally rejected my claim, there would have been no 
reason for them to have issued a cheque four weeks earlier.

Art


Barry Watzman wrote:

> How can a postcard that is a legally valid check (Pay to the order of 
> ..... $xxx.xx) look like junk mail?
> 
> M�n�ig�or �oddoM wrote:
> 
>>
>> I have seen this as well. The postcard check had to be cashed within 
>> 60 days and could not be cashed by a third party. This after taking 
>> about 5 months to get to me. And yes it looked like junkmail.
>>
0
Arthur
12/31/2006 1:39:18 PM
Obviously, you have connections with the fulfillment industry, and have 
been defending them since this discussion began.

These cards look nothing like standard cheques.  They also are so flimsy 
that they often arrive torn, scuffed and bent.  It also strikes me that 
if they did look like cheques, since they are totally exposed, they 
would get stolen in the mail chain.

There is no logical reason for issuing these in the manner thay are made 
and send.  In fact, they are "juinkier looking than almost any 
junkmail", so I suppose that's a hint to look for. I'll rephrase then.

If you receive a filmsy, torn, smudged, dirty postcard, which looks like 
a piece of garbage, chances are its a rebate cheque.

Art

Barry Watzman wrote:

> Sorry, I don't believe you.  You see, I have eyes, and know what a check 
> looks like.  I also know what a UPC code looks like, and what MICR is 
> and what routing numbers and account numbers are.  I will never mistake 
> a postcard that is a valid check for junk mail.  And anyone who does 
> deserves to forfeit the check made payable to them.
> 
> 
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
> 
>> Barry Watzman spake thus:
>>
>>> M�n�ig�or �oddoM wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have seen this as well. The postcard check had to be cashed within 
>>>> 60 days and could not be cashed by a third party. This after taking 
>>>> about 5 months to get to me. And yes it looked like junkmail.
>>>
>>>
>>  > How can a postcard that is a legally valid check (Pay to the order of
>>  > ..... $xxx.xx) look like junk mail?
>>
>> Believe us, it can; just another of the many weapons in the arsenal of 
>> the lying, scum-sucking retailers who use this phony-baloney practice 
>> to make more bux.
>>
>>
0
Arthur
12/31/2006 1:48:54 PM
My sincere condolences on your unexpected loss.  As much as I can 
understand your sense of responsibility to your brother to have returned 
them, or fought to get justice there, perhaps you can either keep them 
as a remembrance or donate them to a good charity, or perhaps offer a 
charity that needs some CDs burned (data or promotional or whatever) so 
you can have a sense something positive came of them.

Art

TJ wrote:

> John wrote:
> 
>> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
>> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
>> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
>> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, 
>> we didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
>>
>> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I 
>> know I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's 
>> the principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate 
>> so that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>>
>> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
>> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
>> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
>> the rebate form.
>>
>> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>>
>> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>>
>> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>>
>> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>>
>> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember 
>> this incident.
>>
>>
> I've generally had good luck with rebates. The most memorable exception 
> was three years ago. I bought a pack of 50 blank CDs from Office Max 
> under a "Free after Rebate" deal. They were to be one of my Christmas 
> presents for my brother. I bought the CDs online, rather late in the 
> sale. They were out of stock and backordered, something they didn't 
> bother to tell me until after the sale had been finalized, and something 
> that wasn't indicated on the email receipt they sent me. The CDs were 
> shipped ten days later, just in time for Christmas but over a week after 
> the sale was over. Part of the rebate requirements were that the rebate 
> had to be sent in within two weeks after the sale, and online orders had 
> to include a delivery receipt. Needless to say, I was late. I sent in 
> the stuff I was supposed to anyway, and included a copy of the email to 
> show that while the delivery was after the time period, it wasn't MY 
> fault. I made copies of everything, for whatever good it might do me.
> 
> My brother died unexpectedly on January 4. Among other things, I wound 
> up with the CDs, which he never had a chance to open. A week after the 
> funeral, the rebate denial notice was in my mailbox. It wasn't in me at 
> the time to pursue the matter.
> 
> My brother will probably never forgive me for that.
> 
> TJ
> 
0
Arthur
12/31/2006 2:01:13 PM
I'll look forward to seeing it.  It's hard to dispute facts
when they're not available for us to scrutinize.  I can't think
of any other industry where a company would actually advertise
that they make great efforts to piss your customers off.

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> It will take me some time to find this again, assuming the websites 
> weren't changed.  CBC TV Marketplace in Canada did a expos� on 
> fulfillment houses a year or two back, and I did some looking around then.
> 
> It's also possible the original program is still online on CBC's website.
> 
> Art
> 
> M Berger wrote:
> 
>> Can you show us some examples of where companies advertise
>> that they will make great efforts to disqualify claims?
>> I can't imagine many reputable companies would hire them.
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> These rebate companies often advertise to the companies they are 
>>> hired by that they will make great efforts to disqualify rebates to 
>>> keep the rebate costs down... particularly with larger rebate amounts.
>>>
>>> You may also be right about some fraud.
>>>
0
M
12/31/2006 5:38:55 PM
Why do you think any reputable manufacturer would continue
to use a company that did that?  The point of a rebate isn't
to piss your customers off.

You could likewise argue that ANY company has a good reason
to cheat their customers to improve their bottom line.  But
reputable companies don't, and they don't subcontract to
companies that do.

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> It seems to me that if the fulfillment company is insuring the client 
> (the manufacturer) against excessive rebate response, then they have 
> good reason to falsify invalidite of a good percentage to stay within or 
> below their proposed quotas.
0
M
12/31/2006 5:42:17 PM
I think you jumped into the middle here.  We were talking
about CREDIT CARD companies making it difficult to opt out
of mailings.  We were not talking about rebate processors
doing that.  Stop tilting at windmills!

Bill wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>> M Berger wrote:
>>>
>>>> As you know, they use the information for sales solicitations so they
>>>> can make more money.  See #1 above.  Of course they don't want to make
>>>> it easy for you to keep them from doing it.
>>>
>>> Once again, except for isolated cases, there is no evidence that
>>> this is done.
>>>
>>> Bill
>> You gotta be kidding! You got it backwards. The reason you opt out is so
>> that your private info is not sold to the marketing companies otherwise
>> when you sign up for  their services you agree to allow the info to be sold.
>> Next time read the fine print as almost every time you sign up for a
>> service you have to call/write and request to opt out of your personal
>> info being sold to all marketing companies.
>> It's just another way for companies to make money off you by selling
>> your personal information you had to give to them in order to get their
>> services.
>> Frank
> 
> Let me repeat again what I have already said in this thread. I
> do a LOT of rebates. Except for one company (Peachtree), I do
> not get any obvious mail/email as a result of my rebate
> submissions. Others have confirmed this in earlier threads.
> Unless you can prove otherwise FROM YOUR OWN PERSONAL
> EXPERIENCE, please stop making claims that cannot be
> substantiated.
> 
> Bill
0
M
12/31/2006 5:47:02 PM
M Berger wrote:
> Barry Watzman wrote:
>> No Berger, you do pay sales tax on the amount of a mail-in rebate.  The 
>> rebate does not show up on the sales receipt.  It's a separate 
>> transaction that occurs (or doesn't) later.
> 
> You're mistaken.  When you get a $10 rebate, they send
> you $ 10.  They don't charge sales tax.  You already
> paid it when you bought the product.

Let's use a $100 product and a $10 rebate. You pay $100 plus sales tax
on $100 at the register. In the mail you get back $10. Net, you've paid
$90 plus the sales tax on $100. That's what Barry was saying.

-- 
Nazi: a person who is winning an argument with a liberal.
0
clifto
12/31/2006 6:16:47 PM
Barry Watzman wrote:
> clifto wrote:
>> Barry Watzman wrote:
>>> Officially, is no "delivery confirmation" for envelopes (very 
>>> unfortunately), only for packages.  The official USPS policy is that you 
>>> can only do delivery confirmation for packages or letters that are more 
>>> than 3/4 of an inch thick.
>> 
>> http://pe.usps.gov/text/DMM300/503.htm#6_0
> 
> We were talking about "Delivery Confirmation".  Your link references 
> "Return Receipt", which is a totally different animal.  Not the same 
> thing at all.
> 
> [And some rebate processors won't accept items sent with return receipt 
> because it requires an employee to sign for the item.]

And that's my point: you get a card signed by the recipient proving in
some small way that your letter reached its destination, or they decline
the delivery.

In your follow-up article you correctly capitalized the trademark
"Delivery Confirmation"; in the original you cited it generically.
Courts continue to accept return receipts as confirmation of delivery.

-- 
Nazi: a person who is winning an argument with a liberal.
0
clifto
12/31/2006 6:21:43 PM

> As has been adequately explained here before, rebates are by their very
> nature a scam.  There is no logical explanation for a rebate program other
> than being a scam.   The following truth will never change:
>
> If the producer of a product wants to sell you his product at a lower than
> normal price,  they will give you a price break at the check out counter.

Why not to assume that the company needs the money NOW. For example they 
need to report a good sales in this quarter.
To me a rebate looks like an interest free loan from a customer, which 
taking into account that the customer gets a good deal sounds fair. 


0
VC
12/31/2006 6:49:04 PM
Bob wrote:
> In article <YKKdncedHqN3nwrYnZ2dnUVZ_qSrnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>  jJim McLaughlin <jimm.claughlin@comcast.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I LOVE rebates.
>>
>>I always fill them out, checking off each step on the firm as I do so, 
>>always make copies of everything, and always send them in, with delivery 
>>confirmation.
>>
>>Eight out of 10 times no problem.
>>
>>When there is a problem, I go to the local Small Claims Court here in 
>>Oregon and sue both the stre and the manufacturer for breach of 
>>contract, fraud, and for violtions of something called the Oregon 
>>Unlawful trade Practices Act (ORS 646.601 et seq.)
>>
>>The local vendor is an actual and apparent agent of the manufacturer.
>>
>>I have always recovered my filing fees; a minimum of $ 200.00 statutory 
>>damages under the Oregon UTPA; a stautory "prevailing party fee" of $ 
>>250.00 and the costs of service of the complaints and summonses on the 
>>local retailer and the registered agent of the manufacturer.
>>
>>
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I asked my lawyer friend if CA had a similar law.  Here's her $.02.
> 
> California does indeed. It is called the "Unfair Trade Practices Act." Business and 
> Professions Code section 17200,  states:
> 
>  "As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, 
> unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or 
> misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 
> 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code."
> 
> Section 17500 states in relevant part that: "It is unlawful for any person, firm, 
> corporation or association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or 
> indirectly to dispose of real or personal property or to perform services, 
> professional or otherwise, or anything of any nature whatsoever or to induce the 
> public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause 
> to be made or disseminated before the public in this state, or to make or disseminate 
> or cause to be made or disseminated from this state before the public in any state, 
> in any newspaper or other publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry 
> or proclamation, or in any other manner or means whatever, including over the 
> Internet, any statement, concerning that real or personal property or those services, 
> professional or otherwise, or concerning any circumstance or matter of fact connected 
> with the proposed performance or disposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading, 
> and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to 
> be untrue or misleading ...."
> 
> However, I have not, yet, found the award of fees which he claims. In California, 
> these cases are generally brought by the Attorney General and/or DA etc. on behalf of 
> the People of the State of California. Civil penalties are awarded, but are paid to 
> the state or to the city or county who brought the suit on behalf of the People. I 
> don't see any basis, at least in the California version, to bring a separate claim 
> and obtain these fees he mentions. As to the fraud and breach of contract issues, 
> that may be different, but I still doubt they are paid to the individual, because the 
> purpose is to make the consumer whole, not to be able to obtain monies over and above 
> what they have lost or had to spend to recover that which was lost. Those kinds of 
> fees generally go for intangibles like defamation, slander, intentional infliction of 
> mental distress, etc.


Must be sad to live in such a backward place as California, with little 
in the way of  consumer protections.

Oregon law has a  private right of action under its UTPA.  See, ORS 
646.638 (1).

Oregon law also allows the State Attorney General or a District Attorney 
to bring a case.  ORS 646.632.
The two causes of action are separate and independent.

Oregon law provides for minimum statutory damages for private party 
plantiffs in UTPA cases.  See, ORS 646.638 (1).

Oregon law provides for attorneys fees for a  successful plaintiff.  ORS 
646.638 (3).

Oregon law sets forth a  far more extensive "laundry list" of 
sanctionable Unlawful Trade Practices
than does California. ORS 646.608.

See generally, texts at:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/646.html

  Prevailing party fees, in addition to damages, are provided for in ORS 
20.190.

Your doubts not withstanding, common law claims for breach of contract 
and for fraud always allow damages to a  sucessful plantiff.  None of 
thse damages are ever payable to the state, whether in Oregon or 
California.

You California lawyer friend really needs t get her head out of her ass. 
   As do you.

> 
> Not worth your time, other than when you can't get your money back. THEN small claims 
> would be worth it. No lawyers in small claims, unless he or she is a party.
> 
0
jJim
12/31/2006 8:31:45 PM
"M Berger" <berger@shout.net> wrote in message 
news:en8sje$uj5$1@roundup.shout.net...
> I'll look forward to seeing it.  It's hard to dispute facts
> when they're not available for us to scrutinize.  I can't think
> of any other industry where a company would actually advertise
> that they make great efforts to piss your customers off.
>

Here is just ONE of many such instances.  Your overwhelming faith in 
businesses is astonishing.

http://www.slate.com/id/2084210/

That's from 4 years ago, and from only searching a tiny bit on the subject.

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>> It will take me some time to find this again, assuming the websites 
>> weren't changed.  CBC TV Marketplace in Canada did a expos� on 
>> fulfillment houses a year or two back, and I did some looking around 
>> then.
>>
>> It's also possible the original program is still online on CBC's website.
>>
>> Art
>>
>> M Berger wrote:
>>
>>> Can you show us some examples of where companies advertise
>>> that they will make great efforts to disqualify claims?
>>> I can't imagine many reputable companies would hire them.
>>>
>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>
>>>> These rebate companies often advertise to the companies they are hired 
>>>> by that they will make great efforts to disqualify rebates to keep the 
>>>> rebate costs down... particularly with larger rebate amounts.
>>>>
>>>> You may also be right about some fraud.
>>>> 


0
Eigenvector
12/31/2006 9:03:08 PM

M Berger wrote:
> 
> I think you jumped into the middle here.  We were talking
> about CREDIT CARD companies making it difficult to opt out
> of mailings.  We were not talking about rebate processors
> doing that.  Stop tilting at windmills!

That appeared to be an isolated rant as part of an overall reply
about rebates.

If you want to discuss something else, go start another thread
(or at least change the title of your post).

Bill
0
Bill
12/31/2006 10:55:37 PM
Steve <teu@qprc.inv> wrote:

>Andrew White <nospamers@allowed.at.all.net> wrote:
>>If you're not Scott, let me tell you something: rebate are a scam only
>>if you're a stupid and lazy slob. I get every single rebate I file.
>
>Andrew, you are, of course, our hero. Only you could state with
>absolute certainty that no rebate in history has ever remained unpaid
>unless the submitter was a lazy slob.

You might want to brush up on your reading and message quoting skills.
Here's what  "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote and what I was
responding to:

>Mail-in rebates are always a scam.  

Notice the "always"? You, on the other hand seem to make this
incredible leap from my statement that *I" got all my rebates, to the
conclusion that I believe that all rebates get paid. I neither stated
that, nor do I believe that. Any questions?
0
Andrew
1/1/2007 9:54:04 PM
"Glen" <jt@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Steve" <teu@qprc.inv> wrote in message 
>news:ggtap25d9puu21hp059kjtl10d9ih4i8fl@4ax.com...
>> Andrew White <nospamers@allowed.at.all.net> wrote:
>>>If you're not Scott, let me tell you something: rebate are a scam only
>>>if you're a stupid and lazy slob. I get every single rebate I file.
>>
>> Andrew, you are, of course, our hero. Only you could state with
>> absolute certainty that no rebate in history has ever remained unpaid
>> unless the submitter was a lazy slob.
>
>It's Andrew's MO. This guy is a hoot! When you get bored, read some of his 
>postings, he's proof, the Indian used to screw the buffalo.

Gee, you're witty! I'm really hurt...
0
Andrew
1/1/2007 9:54:49 PM
yassahmassa <father@heaven.invalid> wrote:

>In article <5ccap2tkcm5lpueaucr47kji1a785on472@4ax.com>,
> Andrew White <nospamers@allowed.at.all.net> wrote:
>
>> If you're not Scott, let me tell you something: rebate are a scam only
>> if you're a stupid and lazy slob.
>
>Everyone who has not gotten their rebate thanks you for setting them 
>straight with your two cents. All rebates are run by honest Abe 
>corporations. They are not simply a promotional scheme designed to sell 
>more products without losing revenue. Rebates are designed to give stuff 
>away. Rebates are for the CONSUMER, not for the company. 
>
>Rebate rules are necessary to keep consumers honest, not to shield the 
>company from having to honor them. 
>
>What a silly fucking screed.

I don't understand why you're being so hard on yourself; I don't think
your post was a "silly fucking screed." (10 points for using an
obscure word, by the way!) 

You, like some other poster seem to have a reading skills shortage. I
was responding to the statement by the OP saying that rebates were
"always" a scam. This is patently false! Yes, there are bad apples out
there, but rebates these days are predominantly paid properly, and are
a perfectly good marketing tool. 
0
Andrew
1/1/2007 9:59:19 PM
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:37:16 +0000, Bill wrote:

> ellis@no.spam wrote:
>> 
>> In article <459561D5.B1D8EF32@prodigy.net>, Bill
>> <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> 
>> >He could also file a BBB complaint against Canon.
>> 
>> Don't bother with BBB. They're worthless.
> 
> Depends on the company you're complaining to. As I said, I had a very
> quick response from Parago (Rebateshq.com) and they fixed all my
> problems.
> 
> I currently have a BBB complaint in against Toys R Us, they are trying
> to lie their way out of a $10 (yes, $10) rebate. I went back and forth
> with their "customer service" person several times via email, during
> which time this person lied and then contradicted themselves in an
> effort to avoid paying me the $10 I am clearly due. I may not get my
> $10, but I've certainly gotten my $10 worth of revenge by warning people
> about them.
> 
> And BTW, this is proof that no matter how careful you are, there ARE
> still companies out there who will screw you. I didn't expect it of Toys
> R Us, however.
> 
> Oh, and if you want to see their emails and my rebate submission, you
> can view them here:
> 
> http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=68659&t=368665

Find the 10K report for ToysRUs--it will be on their Web site or if not
there then you can get it from the Securites and Exchange Commission
site--it is a mandatory filing for all publicly traded companies.  It will
have the name of the CEO and the address of record.  Write a polite letter
(snail mail, not email)to the CEO, explaining the problem and what you
would consider to be a reasonable resolution (i.e. you get the rebate)
including copies of the receipt and the rebate form and your
correspondence.  Wait a week or so for it to arrive and be read, then
call.  Don't expect to actually talk to the CEO--the executive secretary
may be able to handle it or if not you'll be transferred to a VP or
ombudsman or someone else who can--all you need is someone who sees the
big picture and has the authority to light a fire under a junior assistant
to the associate peon. If you're in the right and want anything halfway
reasonable something will almost certainly get done.

> Bill

-- 
--John 
to email, dial "usenet" and validate 
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
0
J
1/1/2007 11:30:35 PM
Barry Watzman wrote:
> How can a postcard that is a legally valid check (Pay to the order of 
> ..... $xxx.xx) look like junk mail?
> 

I'm telling you if I was not expecting it from xyz company, it would 
have gone in the trash with all the other student loan consolidation & 
fake rebate ads I get. BTW it was printed with water soluble ink, 
fortunately it smeared an unimportant corner, but it still smeared.
0
ISO
1/2/2007 5:28:34 AM
M Berger wrote:
> Why do you think any reputable manufacturer would continue
> to use a company that did that?  The point of a rebate isn't
> to piss your customers off.
> 
> You could likewise argue that ANY company has a good reason
> to cheat their customers to improve their bottom line.  But
> reputable companies don't, and they don't subcontract to
> companies that do.
> 
What is the color of the sky in your world????
0
ISO
1/2/2007 5:32:30 AM
Bill <billrubin@prodigy.net> said in misc.consumers:

>I currently have a BBB complaint in against Toys R Us, they are
>trying to lie their way out of a $10 (yes, $10) rebate. I went
>back and forth with their "customer service" person several
>times via email, during which time this person lied and then
>contradicted themselves in an effort to avoid paying me the $10
>I am clearly due. I may not get my $10, but I've certainly
>gotten my $10 worth of revenge by warning people about them.

And wasted > $100 worth of your time and aggravation attempting to
browbeat Toys-R-Us into giving you your $10. Not exactly a
cost-effective use of your time.

But hey, at least you have a hobby you enjoy. :)
0
Scott
1/2/2007 3:43:13 PM
What you may not fully comprehend nor appreciate is that this guy's 
battle with Toys R Us may well save you a similar battle in the future 
Often, when one person fights this through the system at a larger 
company, changes are made in how the system functions to resolve the 
problem for the next set of people. Sometimes malicious people in the 
company are dismissed or given different jobs, and sometimes the company 
figures out the problems within the work flow so it doesn't happen again.

Sometimes even more clout can be exercised if you own shares in the 
company.  I find they tend to listen to investors even more than 
clients.  It's a bit strange since the clients are who help crete the 
profit, not the investors.

Art

Scott en Aztl�n wrote:

> Bill <billrubin@prodigy.net> said in misc.consumers:
> 
> 
>>I currently have a BBB complaint in against Toys R Us, they are
>>trying to lie their way out of a $10 (yes, $10) rebate. I went
>>back and forth with their "customer service" person several
>>times via email, during which time this person lied and then
>>contradicted themselves in an effort to avoid paying me the $10
>>I am clearly due. I may not get my $10, but I've certainly
>>gotten my $10 worth of revenge by warning people about them.
> 
> 
> And wasted > $100 worth of your time and aggravation attempting to
> browbeat Toys-R-Us into giving you your $10. Not exactly a
> cost-effective use of your time.
> 
> But hey, at least you have a hobby you enjoy. :)
0
Arthur
1/3/2007 9:28:21 AM
Arthur Entlich <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> said in misc.consumers:

>What you may not fully comprehend nor appreciate is that this guy's 
>battle with Toys R Us may well save you a similar battle in the future 

I save myself such battles by never buying anything on the basis of a
rebate.

>Often, when one person fights this through the system at a larger 
>company, changes are made in how the system functions to resolve the 
>problem for the next set of people. 

Uh huh - if that were true, nobody would be having any problems with
rebates today, as millions of people have fought their way through
these same problems for years. The reality is these companies make
more money when you fail to collect your rebate, so the tougher they
can make it the better they like it. They have ZERO incentive to
change just because someone complains.

Now if everyone refused to buy items based on the after-rebate price,
you would see the whole Rube Goldberg rebate industry disappear
overnight, as it would no longer be profitable for the companies that
offer them.
0
Scott
1/3/2007 3:31:37 PM
Scott en Aztl�n wrote:
...
>
> Now if everyone refused to buy items based on the after-rebate price,
> you would see the whole Rube Goldberg rebate industry disappear
> overnight, as it would no longer be profitable for the companies that
> offer them.

    Well in time it will die out.  For those who are old enough to remember, 
there were once savings stamps.  You bought groceries (later other products) 
and you got stamps.  You pasted them into "books" and then when you had 
enough books, you brought them to a redemption center and "bought" products 
there.  They had Green Stamps, Buckeye stamps (Big Bear Stores in OSU land 
Ohio) and a number of others.


-- 
Joseph Meehan

 Dia 's Muire duit



0
Joseph
1/3/2007 9:27:11 PM
Joseph Meehan wrote:
> Scott en Aztl�n wrote:
> ..
>> Now if everyone refused to buy items based on the after-rebate price,
>> you would see the whole Rube Goldberg rebate industry disappear
>> overnight, as it would no longer be profitable for the companies that
>> offer them.
> 
>     Well in time it will die out.  For those who are old enough to remember, 
> there were once savings stamps.  You bought groceries (later other products) 
> and you got stamps.  You pasted them into "books" and then when you had 
> enough books, you brought them to a redemption center and "bought" products 
> there.  They had Green Stamps, Buckeye stamps (Big Bear Stores in OSU land 
> Ohio) and a number of others.
> 
> 

Highly unlikely it will die out soon.  The rebate 
people make too much money from rebates not sent 
in.  The states make a lot of money too since you 
pay sales tax on the total price before rebate.

Yep, remember the stamps, all kinds.  Boy what a 
pain in the butt, but the purpose was different 
from rebates.  Stamps were primarily to get you 
into a store that gave stamps and not for a 
particular product.  One got a benefit (assuming 
one saved and used the stamps) for shopping at 
particular stores.
0
George
1/3/2007 10:14:42 PM
George E. Cawthon wrote:
> Joseph Meehan wrote:
>> Scott en Aztl�n wrote:
>> ..
>>> Now if everyone refused to buy items based on the after-rebate
>>> price, you would see the whole Rube Goldberg rebate industry
>>> disappear overnight, as it would no longer be profitable for the
>>> companies that offer them.
>>
>>     Well in time it will die out.  For those who are old enough to
>> remember, there were once savings stamps.  You bought groceries
>> (later other products) and you got stamps.  You pasted them into
>> "books" and then when you had enough books, you brought them to a
>> redemption center and "bought" products there.  They had Green
>> Stamps, Buckeye stamps (Big Bear Stores in OSU land Ohio) and a
>> number of others.
>
> Highly unlikely it will die out soon.  The rebate
> people make too much money from rebates not sent
> in.  The states make a lot of money too since you
> pay sales tax on the total price before rebate.

    I agree it likely will be a long time.  The stamps too a long time to 
die.  These things come an go.  Remember  all the grocery stores having 
monthly dishes or flatware?  I seem to recall them having volumes of 
encyclopedias and towels as well.


>
> Yep, remember the stamps, all kinds.  Boy what a
> pain in the butt, but the purpose was different
> from rebates.  Stamps were primarily to get you
> into a store that gave stamps and not for a
> particular product.  One got a benefit (assuming
> one saved and used the stamps) for shopping at
> particular stores.

-- 
Joseph Meehan

 Dia 's Muire duit



0
Joseph
1/3/2007 11:51:11 PM
Joseph Meehan wrote:
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>> Joseph Meehan wrote:
>>> Scott en Aztl�n wrote:
>>> ..
>>>> Now if everyone refused to buy items based on the after-rebate
>>>> price, you would see the whole Rube Goldberg rebate industry
>>>> disappear overnight, as it would no longer be profitable for the
>>>> companies that offer them.
>>>     Well in time it will die out.  For those who are old enough to
>>> remember, there were once savings stamps.  You bought groceries
>>> (later other products) and you got stamps.  You pasted them into
>>> "books" and then when you had enough books, you brought them to a
>>> redemption center and "bought" products there.  They had Green
>>> Stamps, Buckeye stamps (Big Bear Stores in OSU land Ohio) and a
>>> number of others.
>> Highly unlikely it will die out soon.  The rebate
>> people make too much money from rebates not sent
>> in.  The states make a lot of money too since you
>> pay sales tax on the total price before rebate.
> 
>     I agree it likely will be a long time.  The stamps too a long time to 
> die.  These things come an go.  Remember  all the grocery stores having 
> monthly dishes or flatware?  I seem to recall them having volumes of 
> encyclopedias and towels as well.
> 

The grocery stores still have stuff, especially 
knives, skillets, and crockery.  My wife buys the 
skillets and some other stuff but no knives.

I think they will always have something since it 
is just a method of pulling people into the store. 
  See a good deal on something and wander around 
to  buy a bunch of stuff you don't need.
0
George
1/4/2007 5:38:00 AM
Scott en Aztl�n (scottenaztlan@yahoo.com) writes:
> Arthur Entlich <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> said in misc.consumers:
> 
>>What you may not fully comprehend nor appreciate is that this guy's 
>>battle with Toys R Us may well save you a similar battle in the future 
> 
> I save myself such battles by never buying anything on the basis of a
> rebate.
> 

That can make major purchases difficult.  Almost ell electronics are
price-fixed, with the selling price set by the manufacturer on pain of the
dealer losing his franchise to see this or that computer, etc.  So they
mainly march in lock-step within a $10 range, which I've sure you've noted
in comparing "sale" prices in the weekend ads.  When a store decides to
anhance busienss the only mechanism they have is get a special
dispensation from the manufacturer (Canon gives Office Max pretty good
one-week deals on their cameras, for instance) or to offer a store rebate
that does not go to the maker, but is paid by the store.  The only other
way is to "bundle" an obselescent model of something (like a monitor) that
they can get cheaply with a new computer and sell the resulting "bargain."

Brendan

>>Often, when one person fights this through the system at a larger 
>>company, changes are made in how the system functions to resolve the 
>>problem for the next set of people. 
> 
> Uh huh - if that were true, nobody would be having any problems with
> rebates today, as millions of people have fought their way through
> these same problems for years. The reality is these companies make
> more money when you fail to collect your rebate, so the tougher they
> can make it the better they like it. They have ZERO incentive to
> change just because someone complains.
> 
> Now if everyone refused to buy items based on the after-rebate price,
> you would see the whole Rube Goldberg rebate industry disappear
> overnight, as it would no longer be profitable for the companies that
> offer them.


0
ck183
1/4/2007 5:55:18 AM
George E. Cawthon wrote:
...
>
> The grocery stores still have stuff, especially
> knives, skillets, and crockery.  My wife buys the
> skillets and some other stuff but no knives.
>

    It is some one time special that you need to buy groceries and then you 
get the opportunity to buy this weeks part.  Maybe salad plates or soup 
spoons?


-- 
Joseph Meehan

 Dia 's Muire duit



0
Joseph
1/4/2007 12:26:15 PM
"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:459c416c$0$5187$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>    I agree it likely will be a long time.  The stamps too a long time to 
> die.  These things come an go.

Out here on the western (U.S.) coast, there's a large chain of 
department/grocery stores known as Fred Meyer.  In responses to so many other 
stores now providing "discount" cards (e.g., Albertsons, Safeway, etc.), Fred 
Meyers took a cue from the credit card companies and has a "cash back" 
"reward" -- after you spend something like $50, they send you a rebate check 
in the mail.

My thought has been that, this way, they don't tend to piss off customers who 
don't *want* a "discount" card that tracks their every purchase; on the 
surfaces the prices are the same for everyone.

>  Remember  all the grocery stores having monthly dishes or flatware?  I seem 
> to recall them having volumes of encyclopedias and towels as well.

These days they seem to have the occasional run of small appliances... one 
store near me was stocked with cheap DVD players next to the checkouts for the 
holidays.

---Joel Kolstad


0
Joel
1/4/2007 5:22:51 PM
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:47:37 -0500, Barry Watzman
<WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:

>Sorry, I don't believe you.  You see, I have eyes, and know what a check 
>looks like.  I also know what a UPC code looks like, and what MICR is 
>and what routing numbers and account numbers are.  I will never mistake 
>a postcard that is a valid check for junk mail.  And anyone who does 
>deserves to forfeit the check made payable to them.
>
>
>David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> Barry Watzman spake thus:
>> 
>>> M�n�ig�or �oddoM wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have seen this as well. The postcard check had to be cashed within 
>>>> 60 days and could not be cashed by a third party. This after taking 
>>>> about 5 months to get to me. And yes it looked like junkmail.
>>>
>>  > How can a postcard that is a legally valid check (Pay to the order of
>>  > ..... $xxx.xx) look like junk mail?
>> 
>> Believe us, it can; just another of the many weapons in the arsenal of 
>> the lying, scum-sucking retailers who use this phony-baloney practice to 
>> make more bux.
>> 
>> 

     Sorry to disagree with you Barry, but have you ever received one
of these checks?  I have, and yes, you should look over any mail
carfefully, but when you have a handful of junkmail, you have a
tendency to toss most of it.  This particular type of check is
designed to look like junk mail, not a check.  I almost tossed a few
of these myself, but really looking at it, I realized what it was.
     No, it's not a check like you normally see.  The front side is
addressed to you from some strange address that you don't recognize.
The back side has ads on it, and on the right half of it, it has in
small print, the normal check info (pay to....amount, etc.), and even
that is surrounded with ads.  If you don't read it carefully, you will
not see the check info.
     How many checks have you seen that have ads all over the front of
them?

Cooper
0
Cooper
1/4/2007 10:54:51 PM
     It's obvious that this is a sore subject with a lot of people.
First, for those that don't know, rebates were first used by the car
companies.  Back when Nixon was president, he imposed a wage and price
free on everything.  That meant that you could not raise the price of
anything.
     Car makers, wanting to compete with each other, wanted to lower
the price of their cars, but they were afraid that if they put them on
sale, the sale price might be frozen, and they would lose money, so
they came up with the idea of rebates.  With a rebate, they could keep
the sticker price of the car the same, but still offer them at a lower
price.
     Today, manufacturers use rebates to scam you.  Barry might not
think so, but the very concept of a rebate is a scam.  Every PR person
I've ever seen on TV, and who commented on rebates all say the same
thing.....they hope that the consumer won't apply for the rebate.
That is how they scam you.  No, hoping that consumers don't apply for
the rebate is not the general definition of a scam, but when you offer
something in such a way, so as to make it difficult to obtain, then
it's a scam.  They put out sale flyers with their products pictured
and big text showing the low price of $XXXX.xx*.....and at the bottom
of the flyer, the star says.....*with rebate.
     The government should outlaw rebates.  Just the fact that so many
people are being cheated, and are complaining, should be enough for
the government to step in and outlaw them.  Rebates serve no useful
purpose. 
      Noone, and I mean noone likes rebates.  Oh sure, the
manufacturers tell you that their polls show that the majority of
their customers like rebates.  Bull!  When they poll their customers,
they ask them, "Do you like getting a $50 rebate (or whatever the
amount is) on this product of ours?"  Why don't they ask them, "Do you
like getting a $50 rebate on this product of ours, or would you rather
us put it on sale?"  No one would be stupid enough to go for the
rebate when you could just buy it at the register for the sale price.
     That's the bottom line here.....SALE!....put the damn thing on
sale.  Screw rebates.  Why should I have to jump through hoops to buy
your product?  It has nothing to do with being lazy, it has to do with
catering to what your customers want, and they DON'T want rebates.  If
you can afford to sell the product for a low price to attract
customers, then put it on sale.  That's what people really want!
     Oh yeah, then they have the nerve to add, "Limit One Per
Household".  Gee, if there are five of us living in the house, who
gets the rebate?  If we all buy the same mp3 player, but there's only
one rebate allowed, I guess four of us are screwed, right?  Not so if
it was on sale.
    A question for Barry, whom I'm sure will respond to this.  You
said you were a marketing director, and were thinking of implementing
a rebate.  Why would you offer a rebate instead of putting it on sale?
What would be gained by using a rebate over using a sale?  Wouldn't a
sale be easier to implement?  Might the answer be that you know that
70-80% of the purchasers wouldn't apply for the rebate?  THAT is a
scam!

Cooper
0
Cooper
1/4/2007 11:27:12 PM
>>>     Well in time it will die out.  For those who are old enough to
>>> remember, there were once savings stamps.  You bought groceries
>>> (later other products) and you got stamps.  You pasted them into
>>> "books" and then when you had enough books, you brought them to a
>>> redemption center and "bought" products there.  They had Green
>>> Stamps, Buckeye stamps (Big Bear Stores in OSU land Ohio) and a
>>> number of others.
>
>>
>> Yep, remember the stamps, all kinds.  Boy what a
>> pain in the butt, but the purpose was different
>> from rebates.  Stamps were primarily to get you
>> into a store that gave stamps and not for a
>> particular product.  One got a benefit (assuming
>> one saved and used the stamps) for shopping at
>> particular stores.


     Yes, and are they still giving coupons on the backs of some
cigarette packs?  You got one coupon on each pack of cigarettes.  I
think it took 10,000 coupons to get a gift catalog.<g>
     I do remember looking in one of those catalogs, and you could get
a motorboat for 750,000 coupons.  I worked it out that if you smoked
two packs a day for ten years, it would only be 7,300 coupons.....100
years would be 73,000 coupons, so I guess you'd have to pass the
coupons down from one generation to the next, till you had
750,000.(they'd probably discontinue offering the coupons by then.)
For that many coupons, I think I'd opt for a coffin...<g>

Cooper
0
Cooper
1/4/2007 11:37:03 PM
Well, it appears you are refusing to buy the products as a result of the 
rebate, so maybe that, plus the complaints going to government agencies, 
and a few Class Actions will put an end to them... how much that will 
lower prices, if at all, is an unknown.

Rebates are in part about selective price points targeting different 
types of consumers.  I agree that they often have too many strings 
attached (mainly to the cheques, it seems, which is why they rarely get 
into people's mailboxes... those strings are just too strong and short...

Art

Scott en Aztl�n wrote:

> Arthur Entlich <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> said in misc.consumers:
> 
> 
>>What you may not fully comprehend nor appreciate is that this guy's 
>>battle with Toys R Us may well save you a similar battle in the future 
> 
> 
> I save myself such battles by never buying anything on the basis of a
> rebate.
> 
> 
>>Often, when one person fights this through the system at a larger 
>>company, changes are made in how the system functions to resolve the 
>>problem for the next set of people. 
> 
> 
> Uh huh - if that were true, nobody would be having any problems with
> rebates today, as millions of people have fought their way through
> these same problems for years. The reality is these companies make
> more money when you fail to collect your rebate, so the tougher they
> can make it the better they like it. They have ZERO incentive to
> change just because someone complains.
> 
> Now if everyone refused to buy items based on the after-rebate price,
> you would see the whole Rube Goldberg rebate industry disappear
> overnight, as it would no longer be profitable for the companies that
> offer them.
0
Arthur
1/5/2007 9:36:38 AM
"clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:rfng64-otf.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
> -hh wrote:
>> John wrote:
>>> There's no other way of phrasing it:  CANON RIPPED ME OFF EVEN THOUGH I
>>> FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES.
>>
>> Actually, it is the Redemption company who is Canon's representative
>> who is doing the "ripping offing".
>>
>> It would appear that their excuse was because they were able to "lose"
>> your UPC since you didn't physically attach it.
>
> I don't have to go back to the OP's article to know that he expressly
> said he *always* attaches the UPC to the rebate form with tape.

Me neither, nor do I need to look at his first response in this thread he 
started, in which he claimed he sent in a "copy" of the UPC. 


0
Matt
1/8/2007 2:27:51 AM
"Michael Black" <et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message 
news:en3cjf$9k3$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> Barry Watzman (WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com) writes:
>> An "instant rebate" isn't a rebate at all, it's just a sale price.  And
>> no doubt that it's better than a mail-in rebate of the same amount, but
>> you will NEVER find "instant rebates" that are the equivalent of the
>> larger mail-in rebates.  The rebate "system" depends on the fact that
>> only a minority of buyers will ever apply for the rebate.
>>
>>
> I'm glad you said that, because the whole "instant rebate" thing just
> seems a renaming of "sale prices" because of the current trend to a lot
> of real rebates.
>
> I can remember decades ago, "rebates" were not common and you'd have
> to buy six items to send off the box tops, or something similar, and
> you didn't get much back.  Yet, if you were lucky you'd know about
> such a rebate, and it might give you something back if it was something
> you actually were buying.
>
> It's only in recent years that they've become a major "marketing tool".
> And I think what irks many people is not the rebate thing, but the flyers
> that make the rebate part of the deal.  No longer is it a subtle matter of
> finding a coupon somewhere and thinking "I was going to buy that anyway,
> and getting a few dollars back would be neat".  Instead, you see a great
> price, and then the fine print says "after rebate".  It is a promotional
> tool, and the rebate becomes a far bigger part of the price and appeal
> than those old coupons you might find somewhere.  "That's on sale, I'll
> buy it.  Oh, I have to do a rebate".

I bought one product based on the rebate offered, got screwed on the rebate 
(oh, that product isn't eligible for rebate), and decided that I'd never buy 
a product again based on rebate.  That should be every one's ideal.


0
Matt
1/8/2007 2:36:12 AM

Matt Clara wrote:
> 
> "clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rfng64-otf.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
>
> > I don't have to go back to the OP's article to know that he expressly
> > said he *always* attaches the UPC to the rebate form with tape.
> 
> Me neither, nor do I need to look at his first response in this thread he
> started, in which he claimed he sent in a "copy" of the UPC.

Would you care to share that with the rest of us, since I can't
find it in this current thread. The first post in the current
incarnation of this thread (which was a reply to some old post
that neither my news server nor Google Groups seems to be able
to find) clearly states that the poster sent an original UPC
taped to the form.

FWIW however, I always STAPLE the UPC to the form, and where
there is room, I write "UPC" in big letters with a big arrow
pointing at it. It USUALLY works.

Bill
0
Bill
1/8/2007 2:39:47 AM


Please join my team in the fight against cancer.
http://www.grid.org/services/teams/team.htm?id=9184296B-D4ED-49A2-A173-AEB0DD18A6CE
"Bill" <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote in message 
news:45A1AEF4.F6C53436@prodigy.net...
>
>
> Matt Clara wrote:
>>
>> "clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:rfng64-otf.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
>>
>> > I don't have to go back to the OP's article to know that he expressly
>> > said he *always* attaches the UPC to the rebate form with tape.
>>
>> Me neither, nor do I need to look at his first response in this thread he
>> started, in which he claimed he sent in a "copy" of the UPC.
>
> Would you care to share that with the rest of us, since I can't
> find it in this current thread. The first post in the current
> incarnation of this thread (which was a reply to some old post
> that neither my news server nor Google Groups seems to be able
> to find) clearly states that the poster sent an original UPC
> taped to the form.
>
> FWIW however, I always STAPLE the UPC to the form, and where
> there is room, I write "UPC" in big letters with a big arrow
> pointing at it. It USUALLY works.
>
> Bill

This has been a huge thread and I haven't read all of it but...
Personally a mail-in rebate is a dealbreaker - period!
They are a bloody scam.

-- 
Regards.
Ken. 


0
Ken
1/8/2007 3:22:58 AM
In article <50drorF1ftpaoU1@mid.individual.net>,
Ken Davey <QYNLZMTZBOQZ@spammotel.com> wrote:

>This has been a huge thread and I haven't read all of it but...
>Personally a mail-in rebate is a dealbreaker - period!
>They are a bloody scam.

The last one I used was for 4 12-packs of Diet Coke for $10 with
a $10 rebate. That's one of the few I've gone for since the
4 for 10 was a good price all by itself.

0
ellis
1/8/2007 5:03:20 AM
"Bill" <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote in message 
news:45A1AEF4.F6C53436@prodigy.net...
>
>
> Matt Clara wrote:
>>
>> "clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:rfng64-otf.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
>>
>> > I don't have to go back to the OP's article to know that he expressly
>> > said he *always* attaches the UPC to the rebate form with tape.
>>
>> Me neither, nor do I need to look at his first response in this thread he
>> started, in which he claimed he sent in a "copy" of the UPC.
>
> Would you care to share that with the rest of us, since I can't
> find it in this current thread. The first post in the current
> incarnation of this thread (which was a reply to some old post
> that neither my news server nor Google Groups seems to be able
> to find) clearly states that the poster sent an original UPC
> taped to the form.
>

Yes it did, it also said: "Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my 
copy won't suffice."

So first he said he always tapes it in there, and then he said his copy 
won't suffice.  I won't make one claim or the other as to what he actually 
did, but there is some abiguity about it. 


0
Matt
1/10/2007 11:19:21 PM
"Matt Clara" (hey.wood.y@buzz.off) writes:

> Yes it did, it also said: "Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my 
> copy won't suffice."
> 
> So first he said he always tapes it in there, and then he said his copy 
> won't suffice.  I won't make one claim or the other as to what he actually 
> did, but there is some abiguity about it. 
> 
> 
This thread has been going on for so long, it's hard to remember.  But that
bit about "copy" may have been in reference to the state he was in,
since they refused the rebate claiming it included no UPC, but since
he sent the UPC in already, all he has is a copy of it.

In other words, he sent in the UPC originally, they claim they didn't get
it, and all he has is a copy of that UPC.

His mistake is in thinking that if they claimed there was no UPC with
the rebate form, they will automatically deny the copy now.  But right
now, he is fighting them for the rebate, and the copy is all he has
to work with.

  Michael


0
et472
1/11/2007 12:14:45 AM
Matt Clara wrote:
> "clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rfng64-otf.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
>> -hh wrote:
>>> John wrote:
>>>> There's no other way of phrasing it:  CANON RIPPED ME OFF EVEN
>>>> THOUGH I FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES.
>>>
>>> Actually, it is the Redemption company who is Canon's representative
>>> who is doing the "ripping offing".
>>>
>>> It would appear that their excuse was because they were able to
>>> "lose" your UPC since you didn't physically attach it.
>>
>> I don't have to go back to the OP's article to know that he expressly
>> said he *always* attaches the UPC to the rebate form with tape.
>
> Me neither, nor do I need to look at his first response in this
> thread he started, in which he claimed he sent in a "copy" of the UPC.

It's dumb to buy ANY product with a rebate attached if you expect to be able 
to use it.  Rebates are a marketing tactic that makes money on the confusing 
directions and descriptions of hte "how to" and most people will just forget 
about them rather than be enuogh of a pistol to make them pay.

I refuse to buy anything that has a rebate and I'm quite vocal about it in 
the stores.  If they want to lower the price for me, let them do it with the 
cash register.
   Also note:  You pay sales tax on the rebated money.  You get the rebate, 
but not the portion of sales tax that was paid; another marketing technique 
to increase sales.
   It makes almost as much sense as no payment until 2008; yeah, those are 
great deals!!

Avoid rebates.  Complain about them.

FWIW,
Pop`


0
Pop
1/11/2007 12:31:01 AM
Michael Black wrote:
> 
> "Matt Clara" (hey.wood.y@buzz.off) writes:
> 
> > Yes it did, it also said: "Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my
> > copy won't suffice."
> >
> > So first he said he always tapes it in there, and then he said his copy
> > won't suffice.  I won't make one claim or the other as to what he actually
> > did, but there is some abiguity about it.
> >
> >
> This thread has been going on for so long, it's hard to remember.  But that
> bit about "copy" may have been in reference to the state he was in,
> since they refused the rebate claiming it included no UPC, but since
> he sent the UPC in already, all he has is a copy of it.
> 
> In other words, he sent in the UPC originally, they claim they didn't get
> it, and all he has is a copy of that UPC.
> 
> His mistake is in thinking that if they claimed there was no UPC with
> the rebate form, they will automatically deny the copy now.  But right
> now, he is fighting them for the rebate, and the copy is all he has
> to work with.
> 
>   Michael

That is correct. The "copy won't suffice" was in regards to his
wanting to fix it ("No matter how hard I tried, Canon still
managed to screw me over.") but that a copy won't work (at least
that's the way I read it). While it is possible that the rebate
house would pull that, more likely is that they WILL take the
copy with a resubmission, either by mail or fax.

Obviously Matt missed where the original poster said prior to
that:

> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase
> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the
> envelope. 

Bill
0
Bill
1/11/2007 12:40:17 AM
Pop` wrote:
> 
> It's dumb to buy ANY product with a rebate attached if you expect to be able
> to use it.  Rebates are a marketing tactic that makes money on the confusing
> directions and descriptions of hte "how to" and most people will just forget
> about them rather than be enuogh of a pistol to make them pay.

It's dumb to make a broad generalization about all rebates being
bad.  At minimum, rebates that you can submit online (like
Staples, some of CompUSA's and Rite Aid) are excellent and
almost error (and fool) proof. I'll bet even you'd get paid.

> I refuse to buy anything that has a rebate and I'm quite vocal about it in
> the stores.  If they want to lower the price for me, let them do it with the
> cash register.

Good for you. More left for the rest of us who can follow
instructions and wait a couple of months sometimes a little
longer) for a great deal. What do the cashiers say when you tell
them that you're not buying it because of the rebate? Do they
even care? I'd bet even most managers could care less.

>    Also note:  You pay sales tax on the rebated money.  You get the rebate,
> but not the portion of sales tax that was paid; another marketing technique
> to increase sales.

What does that have to do with sales tax?? Yes, rebates inflate
sales figures.  They also inflate sales tax revenues. but that
is not a marketing technique.

>    It makes almost as much sense as no payment until 2008; yeah, those are
> great deals!!

It's an excellent deal if you don't pay anything to get it.
> 
> Avoid rebates.  Complain about them.
> 
> FWIW,
> Pop`

FWIW? Not much.

Bill
0
Bill
1/11/2007 12:46:53 AM
"Bill" <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote in message 
news:45A58775.C59F7D43@prodigy.net...
> Michael Black wrote:
>>
>> "Matt Clara" (hey.wood.y@buzz.off) writes:
>>
>> > Yes it did, it also said: "Since they want "an original" qualifying 
>> > UPC", my
>> > copy won't suffice."
>> >
>> > So first he said he always tapes it in there, and then he said his copy
>> > won't suffice.  I won't make one claim or the other as to what he 
>> > actually
>> > did, but there is some abiguity about it.
>> >
>> >
>> This thread has been going on for so long, it's hard to remember.  But 
>> that
>> bit about "copy" may have been in reference to the state he was in,
>> since they refused the rebate claiming it included no UPC, but since
>> he sent the UPC in already, all he has is a copy of it.
>>
>> In other words, he sent in the UPC originally, they claim they didn't get
>> it, and all he has is a copy of that UPC.
>>
>> His mistake is in thinking that if they claimed there was no UPC with
>> the rebate form, they will automatically deny the copy now.  But right
>> now, he is fighting them for the rebate, and the copy is all he has
>> to work with.
>>
>>   Michael
>
> That is correct. The "copy won't suffice" was in regards to his
> wanting to fix it ("No matter how hard I tried, Canon still
> managed to screw me over.") but that a copy won't work (at least
> that's the way I read it). While it is possible that the rebate
> house would pull that, more likely is that they WILL take the
> copy with a resubmission, either by mail or fax.
>
> Obviously Matt missed where the original poster said prior to
> that:

You guys can think what you'd like, obviously, but I'm quite sure I missed 
nothing.  You may be able to interpret what he's saying as you do, but it's 
not crystal clear that's what he meant--not even close to crystal clear. 
Thus it's ambiguous.   Period. 


0
Matt
1/11/2007 12:49:32 AM

Matt Clara wrote:
> 
> You guys can think what you'd like, obviously, but I'm quite sure I missed
> nothing.  You may be able to interpret what he's saying as you do, but it's
> not crystal clear that's what he meant--not even close to crystal clear.
> Thus it's ambiguous.   Period.

I'll assume you haven't done (m)any rebates, since if you had,
the initial mailing of the original following by saying that
they want the original but he doesn't have it (anymore) would
make perfect sense.

Bill
0
Bill
1/11/2007 3:07:12 AM
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:49:32 -0500, "Matt Clara" <hey.wood.y@buzz.off>
wrote:

>"Bill" <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote in message 
>news:45A58775.C59F7D43@prodigy.net...
>> Michael Black wrote:
>>>
>>> "Matt Clara" (hey.wood.y@buzz.off) writes:
>>>
>>> > Yes it did, it also said: "Since they want "an original" qualifying 
>>> > UPC", my
>>> > copy won't suffice."
>>> >
>>> > So first he said he always tapes it in there, and then he said his copy
>>> > won't suffice.  I won't make one claim or the other as to what he 
>>> > actually
>>> > did, but there is some abiguity about it.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> This thread has been going on for so long, it's hard to remember.  But 
>>> that
>>> bit about "copy" may have been in reference to the state he was in,
>>> since they refused the rebate claiming it included no UPC, but since
>>> he sent the UPC in already, all he has is a copy of it.
>>>
>>> In other words, he sent in the UPC originally, they claim they didn't get
>>> it, and all he has is a copy of that UPC.
>>>
>>> His mistake is in thinking that if they claimed there was no UPC with
>>> the rebate form, they will automatically deny the copy now.  But right
>>> now, he is fighting them for the rebate, and the copy is all he has
>>> to work with.
>>>
>>>   Michael
>>
>> That is correct. The "copy won't suffice" was in regards to his
>> wanting to fix it ("No matter how hard I tried, Canon still
>> managed to screw me over.") but that a copy won't work (at least
>> that's the way I read it). While it is possible that the rebate
>> house would pull that, more likely is that they WILL take the
>> copy with a resubmission, either by mail or fax.
>>
>> Obviously Matt missed where the original poster said prior to
>> that:
>
>You guys can think what you'd like, obviously, but I'm quite sure I missed 
>nothing.  You may be able to interpret what he's saying as you do, but it's 
>not crystal clear that's what he meant--not even close to crystal clear. 
>Thus it's ambiguous.   Period. 
>

     I've been keeping up with this thread, and I've also posted once
about my feelings toward rebates, and what the original poster said
was that he taped the UPC label to the rebate form.  When he checked
to see the status of his rebate, he was told that he had not sent them
the UPC label from the package.  Since he had already sent them the
UPC label from the package, and they said they never got it, the only
thing he had left was his photocopy of the UPC label that he made
before sending them the original.(I do that too).
     If they say they never got the label, how can you prove you sent
it to them?  They won't accept his photocopy because the instructions
state they will only accept the original.
     I've wondered about that myself.  They force you to send them the
original UPC label, and if they lose it, or they throw it away, you
can't re-submit the rebate claim, because they will only accept the
original label.  It's another GOTCHA scam, and since so many people
are getting ripped off, the government should ban rebates to protect
the consumer.
     If you want John's original post, here it is:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in
the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry,
we 
didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.

I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I
know 
I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so 
that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.

I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
the rebate form.

I checked on my rebate status just now.

Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included

Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.

Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.

Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember
this 
incident.

0
Talker
1/12/2007 2:56:59 AM
On the very small number of occasions when this happened to me (rebate 
center claimed I didn't send in the UPC label when I did), they have 
always accepted my "resubmission" of a copy of the UPC label with my 
statement that the original UPC label was, in fact, submitted with the 
original rebate application.


Talker wrote:

> 
>      I've been keeping up with this thread, and I've also posted once
> about my feelings toward rebates, and what the original poster said
> was that he taped the UPC label to the rebate form.  When he checked
> to see the status of his rebate, he was told that he had not sent them
> the UPC label from the package.  Since he had already sent them the
> UPC label from the package, and they said they never got it, the only
> thing he had left was his photocopy of the UPC label that he made
> before sending them the original.(I do that too).
>      If they say they never got the label, how can you prove you sent
> it to them?  They won't accept his photocopy because the instructions
> state they will only accept the original.
>      I've wondered about that myself.  They force you to send them the
> original UPC label, and if they lose it, or they throw it away, you
> can't re-submit the rebate claim, because they will only accept the
> original label.  It's another GOTCHA scam, and since so many people
> are getting ripped off, the government should ban rebates to protect
> the consumer.
>      If you want John's original post, here it is:
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in
> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry,
> we 
> didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
> 
> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I
> know 
> I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so 
> that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
> 
> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
> the rebate form.
> 
> I checked on my rebate status just now.
> 
> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
> 
> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
> 
> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
> 
> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember
> this 
> incident.
> 
0
Barry
1/12/2007 2:55:21 PM
Talker wrote:

<snip

> 
>      I've been keeping up with this thread, and I've also posted once
> about my feelings toward rebates, and what the original poster said
> was that he taped the UPC label to the rebate form.  When he checked
> to see the status of his rebate, he was told that he had not sent them
> the UPC label from the package.  Since he had already sent them the
> UPC label from the package, and they said they never got it, the only
> thing he had left was his photocopy of the UPC label that he made
> before sending them the original.(I do that too).


Hi...

Almost all of us have digital cameras now; take a picture of the rebate
form with the upc label attached, and the addressed stamped envelope
sitting beside it.

Just hold the pic in abeyance somewhere - then if and when there's
trouble you can print it for only a few cents and send them that.

Take care.

Ken
0
Ken
1/12/2007 11:38:57 PM
"Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
news:l_Uph.618821$5R2.518617@pd7urf3no...
> Talker wrote:
>
> <snip
>
>>
>>      I've been keeping up with this thread, and I've also posted once
>> about my feelings toward rebates, and what the original poster said
>> was that he taped the UPC label to the rebate form.  When he checked
>> to see the status of his rebate, he was told that he had not sent them
>> the UPC label from the package.  Since he had already sent them the
>> UPC label from the package, and they said they never got it, the only
>> thing he had left was his photocopy of the UPC label that he made
>> before sending them the original.(I do that too).
>
>
> Hi...
>
> Almost all of us have digital cameras now; take a picture of the rebate
> form with the upc label attached, and the addressed stamped envelope
> sitting beside it.
>
> Just hold the pic in abeyance somewhere - then if and when there's
> trouble you can print it for only a few cents and send them that.
>
> Take care.
>
> Ken

For that matter, since this is a Scanner newsgroup, I assume you have a 
flatbed scanner.

Just lay the documents on the scanner bed and save an image and print the 
image to hard copy and file the printed image for safe keeping.

Scan at 200 DPI in greyscale. (That is Fax quality). Scan in color at 200 
DPI if you want to.

-- 
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
-- 


0
CSM1
1/13/2007 12:15:15 AM
In article <4595B792.6D4D51C4@prodigy.net>,
Bill  <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Buck Turgidson wrote:
>> 
>> Reading this thread raised my blood pressure.  I have always suspected
>> rebates were a scam, and our Federal agencies don't seem to have much
>> interest in protecting us.
>> 
>> Not to start a political discussion, but why is our goverment for business
>> and not the people?
>
>There are a couple of companies in California who are known to
>be rebate scammers (6+ months to pay, don't pay until you go
>after them). They've done it for years, and to the best of my
>knowledge no government agency has attempted to go after them.
>And I don't think that the Virginia AG has gone after Circuit
>City for some of their shady practices, despite a large number
>of complaints. That's a real shame.
>
>Bill

Maybe.

But I bet that one thing they *are* is "good citizens",
in that they contribute lots of money to political parties,
thus helping to preserve the democracy they love so much.

David


0
dkcombs
1/28/2007 8:21:20 PM

David Combs wrote:
> In article <4595B792.6D4D51C4@prodigy.net>,
> Bill  <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote:
>   
>> Buck Turgidson wrote:
>>     
>>> Reading this thread raised my blood pressure.  I have always suspected
>>> rebates were a scam, and our Federal agencies don't seem to have much
>>> interest in protecting us.
>>>
>>> Not to start a political discussion, but why is our goverment for business
>>> and not the people?
>>>       
>> There are a couple of companies in California who are known to
>> be rebate scammers (6+ months to pay, don't pay until you go
>> after them). They've done it for years, and to the best of my
>> knowledge no government agency has attempted to go after them.
>> And I don't think that the Virginia AG has gone after Circuit
>> City for some of their shady practices, despite a large number
>> of complaints. That's a real shame.
>>
>> Bill
>>     
>
> Maybe.
>
> But I bet that one thing they *are* is "good citizens",
> in that they contribute lots of money to political parties,
> thus helping to preserve the democracy they love so much.
>
> David
>   

While our democracy does have problems in many areas and on many 
occassions we have the best system in the world.

Thank God for our founding fathers.

While because of our great country we have a bunch of relabelers who 
love screwing the idiots who love being screwed.  Now that is a match 
made in heaven.
>
>   
0
measekite
1/29/2007 8:05:42 PM
David Combs wrote:
> In article <4595B792.6D4D51C4@prodigy.net>,
> Bill  <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote:
> 
>>Buck Turgidson wrote:
>>
>>>Reading this thread raised my blood pressure.  I have always suspected
>>>rebates were a scam, and our Federal agencies don't seem to have much
>>>interest in protecting us.
>>>
>>>Not to start a political discussion, but why is our goverment for business
>>>and not the people?
>>
>>There are a couple of companies in California who are known to
>>be rebate scammers (6+ months to pay, don't pay until you go
>>after them). They've done it for years, and to the best of my
>>knowledge no government agency has attempted to go after them.
>>And I don't think that the Virginia AG has gone after Circuit
>>City for some of their shady practices, despite a large number
>>of complaints. That's a real shame.
>>
>>Bill
> 
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> But I bet that one thing they *are* is "good citizens",
> in that they contribute lots of money to political parties,
> thus helping to preserve the democracy they love so much.
> 
> David
> 
> 
Meashershithead, our resident idiot moron lying piece of shit, is most 
probably a paid asshole of the oem's.
Frank
0
Frank
1/29/2007 10:03:29 PM
John wrote:
> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we 
> didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
> 
> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know 
> I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so 
> that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
> 
> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
> the rebate form.
> 
> I checked on my rebate status just now.
> 
> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
> 
> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
> 
> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
> 
> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
> incident.
> 
> 

Maxtor hard drives screwed me out of a 40 dollar rebate a few years ago. 
I haven't bought another one since.

Partition Magic, a software program from Symantec Corp. screwed me out 
of a fifty dollar rebate. I haven't bought ANY Symantec software since 
and sold my copy of Partition magic for twenty dollars. That cost them a 
sale. I hope a software pirate bought it.

I'm eager to share my misfortunes with anyone who will listen. Word of 
mouth advertising will do more harm to these thieves than anything else.


mike
0
m
2/15/2007 4:49:19 AM

m II wrote:
> John wrote:
>> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
>> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending 
>> in the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation 
>> at least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or 
>> "Sorry, we didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
>>
>> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I 
>> know I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's 
>> the principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a 
>> rebate so that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>>
>> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
>> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
>> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
>> the rebate form.
>>
>> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>>
>> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>>
>> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>>
>> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>>
>> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember 
>> this incident.
>>
>>
>
> Maxtor hard drives screwed me out of a 40 dollar rebate a few years 
> ago. I haven't bought another one since.
>
> Partition Magic, a software program from Symantec Corp. screwed me out 
> of a fifty dollar rebate. I haven't bought ANY Symantec software since 
> and sold my copy of Partition magic for twenty dollars. That cost them 
> a sale. I hope a software pirate bought it.
>
> I'm eager to share my misfortunes with anyone who will listen. Word of 
> mouth advertising will do more harm to these thieves than anything else.

Oh Yeah

And one should only buy Factory ink for their printer to get the best 
results, lower risk of clogging the printhead and longer print life with 
less fading.
>
>
>
> mike
0
measekite
2/15/2007 6:03:29 AM
m II wrote:

> 
> I'm eager to share my misfortunes with anyone who will listen. Word of 
> mouth advertising will do more harm to these thieves than anything else.
> 
> 
> mike

Isn't that the truth! In this ng we all see what a distasteful and bad 
name that jackass loser moron (who also happens to be a complete 
idiot)has made out of the heretofore good name of canon.
Frank
0
Frank
2/15/2007 5:08:03 PM
>John wrote:

>> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>> 
>> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>> 
>> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>> 
>> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>> 
>> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
>> incident.

Don't give up so soon, thats what they want you to do.  In the same
situation, I have called  and said that the original UPC was included,
give me a fax number and I will fax a copy of my submission to you.

Every time, its "Opps, it was there after all" and I got the check.

-- 
Rich Greenberg  N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com  + 1 239 543 1353
Eastern time.  N6LRT  I speak for myself & my dogs only.    VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians  Owner:Chinook-L
Retired at the beach                                     Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
0
richgr
2/15/2007 5:08:33 PM
There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the 
time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already 
received) form the return amount.

Rich Greenberg wrote:
>> John wrote:
>>     
>
>   
>>> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>>>
>>> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>>>
>>> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>>>
>>> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>>>
>>> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
>>> incident.
>>>       
>
> Don't give up so soon, thats what they want you to do.  In the same
> situation, I have called  and said that the original UPC was included,
> give me a fax number and I will fax a copy of my submission to you.
>
> Every time, its "Opps, it was there after all" and I got the check.
>
>   
0
measekite
2/15/2007 8:11:09 PM
"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the
> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already
> received) form the return amount.

For once I agree with you.

Mary


> Rich Greenberg wrote:
> >> John wrote:
> >>
> >
> >
> >>> I checked on my rebate status just now.
> >>>
> >>> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
> >>>
> >>> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
> >>>
> >>> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
> >>>
> >>> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember
this
> >>> incident.
> >>>
> >
> > Don't give up so soon, thats what they want you to do.  In the same
> > situation, I have called  and said that the original UPC was included,
> > give me a fax number and I will fax a copy of my submission to you.
> >
> > Every time, its "Opps, it was there after all" and I got the check.
> >
> >

0
Mary
2/15/2007 11:33:33 PM
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:33:33 -0500, "Mary" <nospam@invalid.swl> wrote:

>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the
>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already
>> received) form the return amount.
>
>For once I agree with you.
>
>Mary

How can you agree with the idea that the government should tell
merchants how to sell their products?
I can certainly agree that laws to prevent fraud are good, but I can't
agree when laws are called for that would tell companies how they must
sell product, especially when it comes to pricing.

-- 
Anna Nicole Smith's family and 
friends converged on the late 
model's seaside mansion in the 
Bahamas on Monday. It's chaotic. 
Hundreds of people are waiting 
outside the mansion's security 
gate, and that's just the line 
for the paternity test.
0
Bill
2/16/2007 7:50:26 PM
"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
news:ak2ct2djprfr700ijsrt9ascmgjt67rlgi@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:33:33 -0500, "Mary" <nospam@invalid.swl> wrote:
>
> >"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
> >news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> >> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the
> >> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already
> >> received) form the return amount.
> >
> >For once I agree with you.
> >
> >Mary
>
> How can you agree with the idea that the government should tell
> merchants how to sell their products?
> I can certainly agree that laws to prevent fraud are good, but I can't
> agree when laws are called for that would tell companies how they must
> sell product, especially when it comes to pricing.
>
> -- 
Seems like a lot of people think of rebates as a simple reduction in price.
Sure it is but I think it's also a way for the company to sell a lot of
product before a new model comes out. They take a big hit but it's better
than pennies on the dollar from an overstock outfit. Also it may be a way to
generate capitol for another product and they need the money quickly. Mostly
though it's probably a way to increase the value of the company on paper,
for a period of time, which can affect the price of their stock. The value
of the company determines how much investment money they can bring in from
their stock. The law they want would probably eliminate the "sale"
completely.

Like Gary Miller, "I could be wrong".


0
Captain
2/16/2007 8:32:01 PM
Thus spake Arthur Entlich: 

> One more caveat... some fulfillment companies send cheques that look 
> like junkmail.  It is usually a plain white laser printed postcard. 
> Usually really flimsy, and it even has the postage and cancellation on 
> it when you get it.  The reverse side IS the cheque.  It's easy to 
> discard or lose this, so be careful to read those junkmail looking 
> postcards, they may be a cheque.

An old friend received a rebate check made out to her... sort of. They 
misspelled her name -- a faint attempt to avoid payment. Being the feisty gal 
she is, she endorsed the check, using the misspelled name, and wrote "Pay to 
the order of" and filled in her name. Signed and deposited it. It cleared, no 
problem. 

It would take some serious "hutzpah" in a legal department of some big corp 
to challenge that action, IMHO. 
-- 
John English

0
John
2/16/2007 8:58:55 PM
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:50:26 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:33:33 -0500, "Mary" <nospam@invalid.swl> wrote:
>
>>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>>news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the
>>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already
>>> received) form the return amount.
>>
>>For once I agree with you.
>>
>>Mary
>
>How can you agree with the idea that the government should tell
>merchants how to sell their products?
>I can certainly agree that laws to prevent fraud are good, but I can't
>agree when laws are called for that would tell companies how they must
>sell product, especially when it comes to pricing.


     What they are saying is that rebates should only be allowed if
they are instant rebates, and given at the time of purchase.
     Myself, I think they should outlaw rebates.  If a company wants
to offer it's products for a temporary low price, then they should put
them on sale, not offer rebates.  
     Heck, the governmnet has banned or outlawed many other practices
that were resulting in consumer fraud, and rebates are the largest
fraud around.  While there may be many companies that offer legit
rebates, there are enough companies defrauding the public to warrant
an outright ban on them.  From the responses here, and from people I
know, I'd say at least 95% of them have been cheated on a rebate.

Talker
0
Talker
2/16/2007 10:00:44 PM
"Talker" <Talker@thegood.com> wrote in message 
news:0k9ct2h8j3ahkb64mgdgit7meo6tnaiuhn@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:50:26 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:33:33 -0500, "Mary" <nospam@invalid.swl> wrote:
>>
>>>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>>>news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the
>>>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already
>>>> received) form the return amount.
>>>
>>>For once I agree with you.
>>>
>>>Mary
>>
>>How can you agree with the idea that the government should tell
>>merchants how to sell their products?
>>I can certainly agree that laws to prevent fraud are good, but I can't
>>agree when laws are called for that would tell companies how they must
>>sell product, especially when it comes to pricing.
>
>
>     What they are saying is that rebates should only be allowed if
> they are instant rebates, and given at the time of purchase.
>     Myself, I think they should outlaw rebates.  If a company wants
> to offer it's products for a temporary low price, then they should put
> them on sale, not offer rebates.
>     Heck, the governmnet has banned or outlawed many other practices
> that were resulting in consumer fraud, and rebates are the largest
> fraud around.  While there may be many companies that offer legit
> rebates, there are enough companies defrauding the public to warrant
> an outright ban on them.  From the responses here, and from people I
> know, I'd say at least 95% of them have been cheated on a rebate.
>
> Talker


Completely agree.  Why should any merchant be allowed to demand more money 
from the consumer than the final product price, with the proviso that the 
consumer can apply to get it back later?

I do not buy products that require main-in rebates, if at all possible. 
Half the time you don't get your check.  And, out of principle, I don't want 
to turn over more money than the final selling price, and have to wait for 
months to get it back.  The store can debit my payment card in seconds, but 
I have to wait months, plus do paperwork, in the HOPE that I'll eventually 
get my rebate back!

Best Buy deals with virtually everything on sale with rebates, and I do not 
shop there for that reason.  I buy my computers through my warehouse club 
(NO rebates--the price they list is the price I pay) and I end up paying 
less than Best Buy's rebate prices in most cases.

And the worst part about rebates is that you have to carefully read the fine 
print to determine how much you must shell out at the register.  Many of 
those deals involve multiple rebates.  Who has the time to bother with that 
nonsense?

It is an unfair practice and should be regulated or prohibited.  Customers 
should not have to jump through hoops to buy products, and the 
smoke-and-mirrors of rebates are just one more form of abuse. 


0
jeremy
2/16/2007 10:01:03 PM

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:33:33 -0500, "Mary" <nospam@invalid.swl> wrote:
>
>   
>> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>> news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>>     
>>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the
>>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already
>>> received) form the return amount.
>>>       
>> For once I agree with you.
>>
>> Mary
>>     
>
> How can you agree with the idea that the government should tell
> merchants how to sell their products?
>   

They have for years.  Did you ever hear of the Sherman Antitrust Act?  
It is the job of government to protect the consumer from the 
unscrupluous large corporations.
> I can certainly agree that laws to prevent fraud are good, but I can't
> agree when laws are called for that would tell companies how they must
> sell product, especially when it comes to pricing.
>   

Many rebates are fradulent.
0
measekite
2/16/2007 10:58:24 PM

Captain Midnight wrote:
> "Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
> news:ak2ct2djprfr700ijsrt9ascmgjt67rlgi@4ax.com...
>   
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:33:33 -0500, "Mary" <nospam@invalid.swl> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>>> news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>>>       
>>>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the
>>>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already
>>>> received) form the return amount.
>>>>         
>>> For once I agree with you.
>>>
>>> Mary
>>>       
>> How can you agree with the idea that the government should tell
>> merchants how to sell their products?
>> I can certainly agree that laws to prevent fraud are good, but I can't
>> agree when laws are called for that would tell companies how they must
>> sell product, especially when it comes to pricing.
>>
>> -- 
>>     
> Seems like a lot of people think of rebates as a simple reduction in price.
> Sure it is but I think it's also a way for the company to sell a lot of
> product before a new model comes out. They take a big hit but it's better
> than pennies on the dollar from an overstock outfit. Also it may be a way to
> generate capitol for another product and they need the money quickly. Mostly
> though it's probably a way to increase the value of the company on paper,
> for a period of time, which can affect the price of their stock. The value
> of the company determines how much investment money they can bring in from
> their stock. The law they want would probably eliminate the "sale"
> completely.
>
> Like Gary Miller, "I could be wrong".
>
>   

Yeah you are wrong.

If they want to offer a rebate for a temporary period of time to the 
customer then they can offer an instant rebate for purchases during that 
time at the point of sale.  Yes we need laws.
0
measekite
2/16/2007 11:00:25 PM

John E. wrote:
> Thus spake Arthur Entlich: 
>
>   
>> One more caveat... some fulfillment companies send cheques that look 
>> like junkmail.  It is usually a plain white laser printed postcard. 
>> Usually really flimsy, and it even has the postage and cancellation on 
>> it when you get it.  The reverse side IS the cheque.  It's easy to 
>> discard or lose this, so be careful to read those junkmail looking 
>> postcards, they may be a cheque.
>>     
>
> An old friend received a rebate check made out to her... sort of. They 
> misspelled her name -- a faint attempt to avoid payment. Being the feisty gal 
> she is, she endorsed the check, using the misspelled name, and wrote "Pay to 
> the order of" and filled in her name. Signed and deposited it. It cleared, no 
> problem. 
>
> It would take some serious "hutzpah" in a legal department of some big corp 
> to challenge that action, IMHO. 
>   

More reasons for goverment control
0
measekite
2/16/2007 11:02:35 PM
>They have for years.  Did you ever hear of the Sherman Antitrust Act?  
>It is the job of government to protect the consumer from the 
>unscrupluous large corporations.
>> I can certainly agree that laws to prevent fraud are good, but I can't
>> agree when laws are called for that would tell companies how they must
>> sell product, especially when it comes to pricing.
>>   
>
>Many rebates are fradulent.

In which case, they're already against the law, so no law-change is
needed.

0
Goedjn
2/16/2007 11:07:41 PM
"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
news:dIqBh.27489$yC5.14941@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
> Captain Midnight wrote:
> > "Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
> > news:ak2ct2djprfr700ijsrt9ascmgjt67rlgi@4ax.com...
> >
> >> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:33:33 -0500, "Mary" <nospam@invalid.swl> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> >>>
> >>>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the
> >>>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already
> >>>> received) form the return amount.
> >>>>
> >>> For once I agree with you.
> >>>
> >>> Mary
> >>>
> >> How can you agree with the idea that the government should tell
> >> merchants how to sell their products?
> >> I can certainly agree that laws to prevent fraud are good, but I can't
> >> agree when laws are called for that would tell companies how they must
> >> sell product, especially when it comes to pricing.
> >>
> >> -- 
> >>
> > Seems like a lot of people think of rebates as a simple reduction in
price.
> > Sure it is but I think it's also a way for the company to sell a lot of
> > product before a new model comes out. They take a big hit but it's
better
> > than pennies on the dollar from an overstock outfit. Also it may be a
way to
> > generate capitol for another product and they need the money quickly.
Mostly
> > though it's probably a way to increase the value of the company on
paper,
> > for a period of time, which can affect the price of their stock. The
value
> > of the company determines how much investment money they can bring in
from
> > their stock. The law they want would probably eliminate the "sale"
> > completely.
> >
> > Like Gary Miller, "I could be wrong".
> >
>
> Yeah you are wrong.
>
> If they want to offer a rebate for a temporary period of time to the
> customer then they can offer an instant rebate for purchases during that
> time at the point of sale.  Yes we need laws.

Repeating something doesn't make it true or logical.


0
Captain
2/17/2007 12:29:44 AM
Charter is now limiting x-posting to 4 groups.  Bummer.

m II wrote:

> John wrote:
>> I know that the institution of rebates is meant to rip you off so I'm 
>> quite anal about paying attention to the details and ALWAYS sending in 
>> the rebate with delivery confirmation.  The delivery confirmation at 
>> least minimizes the "Sorry, we never received your rebate" or "Sorry, we 
>> didn't receive your rebate in time" excuses.
>> 
>> I read the rebate forms several times looking for the "gotcha's". I know 
>> I go through way more trouble than I should for $20-$50 but it's the 
>> principle.  They make it as annoying as possible to claim a rebate so 
>> that most people won't bother. I'm the one that bothers.
>> 
>> I send in my rebate to Canon along with all the rebate form, purchase 
>> receipt and I cut out the UPC code from the box and put that in the 
>> envelope.  My new tactic is to use wide tape and tape the UPC code to 
>> the rebate form.

I always staple the UPC to the receipt and staple the whole mass of paper 
together.

>> I checked on my rebate status just now.
>> 
>> Error(s):    An original qualifying UPC was not included
>> 
>> Yep. No matter how hard I tried, Canon still managed to screw me over.
>> 
>> Since they want "an original" qualifying UPC", my copy won't suffice.
>> 
>> Canon, the next time I'm in the market for a product I'll remember this 
>> incident.

I had a similar problem, but it worked out OK.  It seems that the data entry 
droid had fed in the wrong offer number, so the UPC didn't match.  I got a 
rejection slip that made no sense (I hadn't bought that brand thingy from 
that store) so I called.  The phone-guy  figured out what happened and when 
I read out parts of the actual rebate slip (which I had OF COURSE copied) he 
  authorized the check on the spot and it came within a week.

> Maxtor hard drives screwed me out of a 40 dollar rebate a few years ago. 
> I haven't bought another one since.

Did you phone Canon or Maxtor?  Phoning works.  Sometimes they mail the 
check to the wrong address (dumb data entry droid again).

> Partition Magic, a software program from Symantec Corp. screwed me out 
> of a fifty dollar rebate. I haven't bought ANY Symantec software since 
> and sold my copy of Partition magic for twenty dollars. That cost them a 
> sale. I hope a software pirate bought it.
> 
> I'm eager to share my misfortunes with anyone who will listen. Word of 
> mouth advertising will do more harm to these thieves than anything else.

I bought something at Fry's last year.  When I contacted the company about 
my missing $5 rebate, they said I'd included the 'rebate receipt' instead of 
the actual regular receipt and denied my claim.  I took all my paperwork to 
Fry's, who called the company and sent me a $5 gift certificate when the 
company confirmed my story.

I want that company (KWorld in Irvine, CA) to go belly up really badly. 
They're apparently a world-wide company, with this particular office 
composed of cheesy sons of bitches.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
=====================================
Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled.
0
The
2/17/2007 3:12:28 AM
Mary wrote:

> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
> news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the
>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already
>> received) form the return amount.
> 
> For once I agree with you.

CompUSA's on-line submission (Staples too, and a few others) is really handy 
and has worked every time so far.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
=====================================
Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled.
0
The
2/17/2007 3:14:13 AM
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:58:24 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:33:33 -0500, "Mary" <nospam@invalid.swl> wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>>> news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>>>     
>>>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the
>>>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already
>>>> received) form the return amount.
>>>>       
>>> For once I agree with you.
>>>
>>> Mary
>>>     
>>
>> How can you agree with the idea that the government should tell
>> merchants how to sell their products?
>>   
>
>They have for years.  Did you ever hear of the Sherman Antitrust Act?  
>It is the job of government to protect the consumer from the 
>unscrupluous large corporations.

A rebate makes a company unscrupulous? How so?
You need to learn to seperate things you don't like from things that
are objectively wrong.
>> I can certainly agree that laws to prevent fraud are good, but I can't
>> agree when laws are called for that would tell companies how they must
>> sell product, especially when it comes to pricing.
>>   
>
>Many rebates are fradulent.

No they aren't. Some are hard to get, but that's a very different
thing.
Rebates are one of those things where the user must follow the rules
very carefully, something most people aren't used to.
And, in some cases, the number of rebates exceeds the expected number,
and things are slow.
But to claim fraud, you need proof of fraud. That *you* didn't get a
rebate doesn't mean fraud.

-- 
Anna Nicole Smith's family and 
friends converged on the late 
model's seaside mansion in the 
Bahamas on Monday. It's chaotic. 
Hundreds of people are waiting 
outside the mansion's security 
gate, and that's just the line 
for the paternity test.
0
Bill
2/17/2007 1:18:20 PM
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:58:55 -0800, John E. <incognito@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Thus spake Arthur Entlich: 
>
>> One more caveat... some fulfillment companies send cheques that look 
>> like junkmail.  It is usually a plain white laser printed postcard. 
>> Usually really flimsy, and it even has the postage and cancellation on 
>> it when you get it.  The reverse side IS the cheque.  It's easy to 
>> discard or lose this, so be careful to read those junkmail looking 
>> postcards, they may be a cheque.
>
>An old friend received a rebate check made out to her... sort of. They 
>misspelled her name -- a faint attempt to avoid payment. Being the feisty gal 
>she is, she endorsed the check, using the misspelled name, and wrote "Pay to 
>the order of" and filled in her name. Signed and deposited it. It cleared, no 
>problem. 

You have evidence, of course, of the attempt to avoid payment, as
opposed to a simple mistake?
>
>It would take some serious "hutzpah" in a legal department of some big corp 
>to challenge that action, IMHO. 

-- 
Anna Nicole Smith's family and 
friends converged on the late 
model's seaside mansion in the 
Bahamas on Monday. It's chaotic. 
Hundreds of people are waiting 
outside the mansion's security 
gate, and that's just the line 
for the paternity test.
0
Bill
2/17/2007 1:19:35 PM
measekite wrote:
> 
> 
> Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:33:33 -0500, "Mary" <nospam@invalid.swl> wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>>> news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>>>    
>>>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the
>>>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already
>>>> received) form the return amount.
>>>>       
>>> For once I agree with you.
>>>
>>> Mary
>>>     
>>
>> How can you agree with the idea that the government should tell
>> merchants how to sell their products?
>>   
> 
> They have for years.  Did you ever hear of the Sherman Antitrust Act?  
> It is the job of government to protect the consumer from the 
> unscrupluous large corporations.

Kinda like Microsoft, eh? Determined to having engaged in monopolistic 
practices not only in US courts but abroad as well, the consequences to 
the company amounted to less than a slap on the wrist.

>> I can certainly agree that laws to prevent fraud are good, but I can't
>> agree when laws are called for that would tell companies how they must
>> sell product, especially when it comes to pricing.
>>   
> 
> Many rebates are fradulent.

Exactly what is your factual evidence for such an accusation? I'm sure 
the FBI and the SEC would be interested in hearing about it, as well as 
the equivalent agencies in other countries. If you actually *have* 
evidence of fraud and you're sitting on it, isn't that as bad as 
committing the fraud yourself?

In my experience, when people waggle their fingers in the air and shout 
"There oughta be a law!" there usually are several that already address 
the situation.

TJ

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
TJ
2/17/2007 2:09:51 PM
An "instant rebate" is not a rebate, it's a price reduction, or a sale 
price.  So you are suggesting outlawing rebates.  Sorry, I can't support 
that.  I would like to see some regulations passed covering rebate 
practices, but they need to be reasonable from the sides of both the 
manufacturer / merchant and the buyer.  There is nothing inherintly 
wrong, in principle, with mail-in rebates as long as they are honestly 
administered, as most (but not all) are.


measekite wrote:
> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the 
> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already 
> received) form the return amount.
> 
0
Barry
2/17/2007 2:47:06 PM

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:58:24 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
> wrote:
>
>   
>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>     
>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:33:33 -0500, "Mary" <nospam@invalid.swl> wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the
>>>>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already
>>>>> received) form the return amount.
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> For once I agree with you.
>>>>
>>>> Mary
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> How can you agree with the idea that the government should tell
>>> merchants how to sell their products?
>>>   
>>>       
>> They have for years.  Did you ever hear of the Sherman Antitrust Act?  
>> It is the job of government to protect the consumer from the 
>> unscrupluous large corporations.
>>     
>
> A rebate makes a company unscrupulous? How so?
> You need to learn to seperate things you don't like from things that
> are objectively wrong.
>   
>>> I can certainly agree that laws to prevent fraud are good, but I can't
>>> agree when laws are called for that would tell companies how they must
>>> sell product, especially when it comes to pricing.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Many rebates are fradulent.
>>     
>
> No they aren't. Some are hard to get, but that's a very different
> thing.
>   

It is the intent of the company who instruct their rebate handlers to 
scrutinize every rebate and send out as few as possible.  They set it up 
so the rebate company makes more money by sending out fewer rebates.
> Rebates are one of those things where the user must follow the rules
> very carefully, something most people aren't used to.
> And, in some cases, the number of rebates exceeds the expected number,
> and things are slow.
> But to claim fraud, you need proof of fraud. That *you* didn't get a
> rebate doesn't mean fraud.
>
>   
0
measekite
2/17/2007 4:40:40 PM

Barry Watzman wrote:
> An "instant rebate" is not a rebate, it's a price reduction, or a sale 
> price.

It is not a price reduction.  It may be similar a sales price, the 
difference is that a rebate can be for an extended period of time.  Also 
many stores will adjust previously purchased goods to a sales price 
within a 30 day period.  Also a sales price is sponsored by a retailer 
and is usually local to that retailer but a rebate is sponsored by a mfg 
and it usually but not always applies to all retailers.


> So you are suggesting outlawing rebates.  Sorry, I can't support 
> that.  I would like to see some regulations passed covering rebate 
> practices, but they need to be reasonable from the sides of both the 
> manufacturer / merchant and the buyer.  There is nothing inherintly 
> wrong, in principle, with mail-in rebates as long as they are honestly 
> administered, as most (but not all) are.
>
>
> measekite wrote:
>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the 
>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already 
>> received) form the return amount.
>>
0
measekite
2/17/2007 4:45:08 PM
Barry Watzman wrote:
> An "instant rebate" is not a rebate, it's a price reduction, or a sale 
> price.  So you are suggesting outlawing rebates.  Sorry, I can't support 
> that.  I would like to see some regulations passed covering rebate 
> practices, but they need to be reasonable from the sides of both the 
> manufacturer / merchant and the buyer.  There is nothing inherintly 
> wrong, in principle, with mail-in rebates as long as they are honestly 
> administered, as most (but not all) are.
> 
> 
> measekite wrote:
> 
>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the 
>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already 
>> received) form the return amount.
>>

Exactly. "Instant rebate" is an oxymoron. It is simply a mark down in 
price. Advertised "Instant rebates" are nothing more than a marketing 
gimmick.
Frank
0
Frank
2/17/2007 5:14:08 PM
"The Real Bev" <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3quBh.262$iV1.227@newsfe06.lga...
> Mary wrote:
>
> > "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
> > news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> >> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the
> >> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already
> >> received) form the return amount.
> >
> > For once I agree with you.
>
> CompUSA's on-line submission (Staples too, and a few others) is really
handy
> and has worked every time so far.

Yes, thats a bit of a different situation than mail in rebates.I've had a
couple of Staples online rebates and got my rebate OK. But many of Staples
rebates are not online submissions though I have to say I have had no
problems receiving a mail-in rebate with Staples. I mostly avoid mail-in
rebates. I think it is safe to say that most people find it much more
convenient and satisfying to get instant rebates or reductions or whatever
you want to call it, at the cash, rather than having to complete a form and
proof and other stuff  and mailing it to the rebate company with often have
a long wait to get a check in the mail. Its a hassle. On the few occasions I
submit mail- in rebates I keep a copy of every single thing I send to the
rebate company and I am ready to send proof if they ask.

Mary


-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
Mary
2/17/2007 6:23:47 PM
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:47:06 -0500, Barry Watzman
<WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:

>An "instant rebate" is not a rebate, it's a price reduction, or a sale 
>price.  So you are suggesting outlawing rebates.  Sorry, I can't support 
>that.  I would like to see some regulations passed covering rebate 
>practices, but they need to be reasonable from the sides of both the 
>manufacturer / merchant and the buyer.  There is nothing inherintly 
>wrong, in principle, with mail-in rebates as long as they are honestly 
>administered, as most (but not all) are.
>
>
>measekite wrote:
>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the 
>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already 
>> received) form the return amount.
>> 

     Sorry Barry, but the fact that there is fraud occuring is enough
to warrant outlawing rebates.  Heck, if 1/10 of one percent of the
population is being cheated in some way, the goverment steps in and
bans or outlaws a product or service.  With 95% of the population
being cheated at least once on a rebate, then the government NEEDS to
step in and outlaw them.
     There is no logical reason from a consumers standpoint to have
rebates.  Rebates favor the company, not the consumer.  My time is
valuable and I don't want to waste it filling out rebate forms for
rebates that I may or may not receive.
     I guess you think it would be okay if every manufacturer
instituted rebates, right?  Okay, so if they did, then I guess you
wouldn't mind going to the food store any paying $200 for groceries,
or $150 after sending in 45 rebates....one for each product that you
bought, right?  How long would it take you to fill out and send in all
45 rebates....not to mention the postage costs?  
     Add to that, the fact that if you didn't receive 20 of the
rebates, then I guess you'd have to call each company to ask for the
rebate, like someone mentioned, to see why you didn't get it.  If it's
like other rebates, they ALL want the original receipt, and having
only one for the entire grocery list, I guess they'd be okay to refuse
to give you the rebate.  They know you won't be able to give each of
them the original receipt, so they can refuse your rebate
submission.....THAT'S fraud, plain and simple.
     Everywhere you shop, they offer rebates, so it's not uncommon to
file 3 or 4 rebates a week, so that after three months, (the normal
waiting period to receive a rebate), you'd have 30-40 rebates that you
are waiting for.  How ridiculous is that?
     Outlaw rebates and bring back the good old fashioned sale.
THAT'S what consumers want!

Talker
0
Talker
2/17/2007 7:27:06 PM
In article <x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, boyhowdy wrote:
>There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the 
>time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already 
>received) form the return amount.

It isn't going to happen. And even if Congress passed such a law
I suspect it would be found unconstitutional.

You wanna tear up the Constitution for rebates? I don't think so!

Far better to act with your own wallet. Don't buy products with
rebate offers. Wait for a regular sale. Buy a competing product.
Buy from another store.

Tell every business that you do business with that you hate
rebates and won't swallow them.

Major retailers are already tiring of the complaints and some
have already announced their intent to abolish mail-in rebates
completely. Your voice can help that process along.

Happily, I do believe consumers are starting to win this
particular battle.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
2/17/2007 7:29:31 PM
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:14:08 -0800, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:

>Barry Watzman wrote:
>> An "instant rebate" is not a rebate, it's a price reduction, or a sale 
>> price.  So you are suggesting outlawing rebates.  Sorry, I can't support 
>> that.  I would like to see some regulations passed covering rebate 
>> practices, but they need to be reasonable from the sides of both the 
>> manufacturer / merchant and the buyer.  There is nothing inherintly 
>> wrong, in principle, with mail-in rebates as long as they are honestly 
>> administered, as most (but not all) are.
>> 
>> 
>> measekite wrote:
>> 
>>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the 
>>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already 
>>> received) form the return amount.
>>>
>
>Exactly. "Instant rebate" is an oxymoron. It is simply a mark down in 
>price. Advertised "Instant rebates" are nothing more than a marketing 
>gimmick.
>Frank

Like when you get a $20 "instant rebate" on a $50 router being sold
for $80.
0
Sam
2/17/2007 8:38:57 PM
It has been well-established here and in many other forums that rebate
schemes are inherently scams.   There is  NO logical justification for a
rebate scheme.


IF a seller wants to sell a product at a lower price, the  seller will
charge you the lower price at the check out counter.    IF he requires you
to jump through silly hoops to get your "discount", then he is truly hoping
that you won't jump the hoops and the price remains the regular price.

Rebate schemes are a scam,  short and simple.


--James--




0
James
2/17/2007 8:44:06 PM
In article <er7l2r1lg0l8004malch@nntp.sonic.net>, malch@malch.com 
says...
> In article <x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, boyhowdy wrote:
> >There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the 
> >time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already 
> >received) form the return amount.
> 
> It isn't going to happen. And even if Congress passed such a law
> I suspect it would be found unconstitutional.

On what grounds?

> You wanna tear up the Constitution for rebates? I don't think so!

Don't see it.  The FTC makes such rules all the time.
 
> Far better to act with your own wallet. Don't buy products with
> rebate offers. Wait for a regular sale. Buy a competing product.
> Buy from another store.

I agree 100%.  Why should the government do anything the consumers 
can do with far more impact.  Don't like the terms of the sale; 
simply don't buy.

> Tell every business that you do business with that you hate
> rebates and won't swallow them.

Vote with feet.
 
> Major retailers are already tiring of the complaints and some
> have already announced their intent to abolish mail-in rebates
> completely. Your voice can help that process along.

Money talks louder.
 
> Happily, I do believe consumers are starting to win this
> particular battle.

I hope you're right.  I'm not as confident as you though.  There 
are entirely too many whiners who are unable to do anything for 
themselves.  They need the government to protect them from 
themselves.

-- 
  Keith
0
krw
2/17/2007 9:44:35 PM
Bullshit.

Like the fact that there are accidents occuring are enough to warrant 
doing away with automobiles or airplanes.

Crime occurs in all walks of life.  We don't close down the stock 
markets because there have been instances of securities fraud.  Or stop 
selling real estate because of various real estate scams (or stop 
building homes because a few homebuilders are unscrupulous, or even 
fraudulent).

Your logic makes no sense at all.



Talker wrote:

> 
>      Sorry Barry, but the fact that there is fraud occuring is enough
> to warrant outlawing rebates.  Heck, if 1/10 of one percent of the
> population is being cheated in some way, the goverment steps in and
> bans or outlaws a product or service.  With 95% of the population
> being cheated at least once on a rebate, then the government NEEDS to
> step in and outlaw them.
>      There is no logical reason from a consumers standpoint to have
> rebates.  Rebates favor the company, not the consumer.  My time is
> valuable and I don't want to waste it filling out rebate forms for
> rebates that I may or may not receive.
>      I guess you think it would be okay if every manufacturer
> instituted rebates, right?  Okay, so if they did, then I guess you
> wouldn't mind going to the food store any paying $200 for groceries,
> or $150 after sending in 45 rebates....one for each product that you
> bought, right?  How long would it take you to fill out and send in all
> 45 rebates....not to mention the postage costs?  
>      Add to that, the fact that if you didn't receive 20 of the
> rebates, then I guess you'd have to call each company to ask for the
> rebate, like someone mentioned, to see why you didn't get it.  If it's
> like other rebates, they ALL want the original receipt, and having
> only one for the entire grocery list, I guess they'd be okay to refuse
> to give you the rebate.  They know you won't be able to give each of
> them the original receipt, so they can refuse your rebate
> submission.....THAT'S fraud, plain and simple.
>      Everywhere you shop, they offer rebates, so it's not uncommon to
> file 3 or 4 rebates a week, so that after three months, (the normal
> waiting period to receive a rebate), you'd have 30-40 rebates that you
> are waiting for.  How ridiculous is that?
>      Outlaw rebates and bring back the good old fashioned sale.
> THAT'S what consumers want!
> 
> Talker
0
Barry
2/17/2007 9:50:26 PM
Rebates are "INHERENTY scams"???

Bullshit.  No such thing has been established.

A few are, no argument.  Most are completely legitimate.  I do about 
200+ rebates per year.  I have to take some follow up action on less 
than 10%, and the number that I actually fail to get is in the range of 
2% or so.


James wrote:
> It has been well-established here and in many other forums that rebate
> schemes are inherently scams.   There is  NO logical justification for a
> rebate scheme.
> 
> 
> IF a seller wants to sell a product at a lower price, the  seller will
> charge you the lower price at the check out counter.    IF he requires you
> to jump through silly hoops to get your "discount", then he is truly hoping
> that you won't jump the hoops and the price remains the regular price.
> 
> Rebate schemes are a scam,  short and simple.
> 
> 
> --James--
> 
> 
> 
> 
0
Barry
2/17/2007 9:53:12 PM
"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:45d778a6$0$17381$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Bullshit.
>
> Like the fact that there are accidents occuring are enough to warrant 
> doing away with automobiles or airplanes.
>
> Crime occurs in all walks of life.  We don't close down the stock markets 
> because there have been instances of securities fraud.  Or stop selling 
> real estate because of various real estate scams (or stop building homes 
> because a few homebuilders are unscrupulous, or even fraudulent).
>
> Your logic makes no sense at all.
>
>
>
> Talker wrote:
>
>>
>>      Sorry Barry, but the fact that there is fraud occuring is enough
>> to warrant outlawing rebates.  Heck, if 1/10 of one percent of the
>> population is being cheated in some way, the goverment steps in and
>> bans or outlaws a product or service.  With 95% of the population
>> being cheated at least once on a rebate, then the government NEEDS to
>> step in and outlaw them.
>>      There is no logical reason from a consumers standpoint to have
>> rebates.  Rebates favor the company, not the consumer.  My time is
>> valuable and I don't want to waste it filling out rebate forms for
>> rebates that I may or may not receive.
>>      I guess you think it would be okay if every manufacturer
>> instituted rebates, right?  Okay, so if they did, then I guess you
>> wouldn't mind going to the food store any paying $200 for groceries,
>> or $150 after sending in 45 rebates....one for each product that you
>> bought, right?  How long would it take you to fill out and send in all
>> 45 rebates....not to mention the postage costs?  Add to that, the fact 
>> that if you didn't receive 20 of the
>> rebates, then I guess you'd have to call each company to ask for the
>> rebate, like someone mentioned, to see why you didn't get it.  If it's
>> like other rebates, they ALL want the original receipt, and having
>> only one for the entire grocery list, I guess they'd be okay to refuse
>> to give you the rebate.  They know you won't be able to give each of
>> them the original receipt, so they can refuse your rebate
>> submission.....THAT'S fraud, plain and simple.
>>      Everywhere you shop, they offer rebates, so it's not uncommon to
>> file 3 or 4 rebates a week, so that after three months, (the normal
>> waiting period to receive a rebate), you'd have 30-40 rebates that you
>> are waiting for.  How ridiculous is that?
>>      Outlaw rebates and bring back the good old fashioned sale.
>> THAT'S what consumers want!
>>
>> Talker

Sales allow the store to create traffic in their retail location - rebates 
allow manufacturers to create traffic to their specific product...stores 
take the loss on sale items in hopes that you'll but other items at the 
regular price while you're there - manufacturers take the loss on rebate 
items and don't care where you buy the item.

As far as rebates being scams or fraud - get over it. If you can't follow 
the directions to redeem the item, that's your fault. Most retailers will 
give you another receipt specifically for the rebate, so if you're buying 
two or three items with rebate offers, they'll give you the appropriate 
number of receipts. If you can't figure out what the UPC code is, ask 
someone - I'm sure they can help you out.

It's really not that difficult. So what if you have to make a phone call to 
track the rebate. Is your life that busy that you can't manage that task? If 
that's the case, don't apply for the rebate in the first place and save 
yourself the aggravation. 


0
john
2/17/2007 10:07:24 PM
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:40:40 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:58:24 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>     
>>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:33:33 -0500, "Mary" <nospam@invalid.swl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>       
>>>>> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>     
>>>>>         
>>>>>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the
>>>>>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already
>>>>>> received) form the return amount.
>>>>>>       
>>>>>>           
>>>>> For once I agree with you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mary
>>>>>     
>>>>>         
>>>> How can you agree with the idea that the government should tell
>>>> merchants how to sell their products?
>>>>   
>>>>       
>>> They have for years.  Did you ever hear of the Sherman Antitrust Act?  
>>> It is the job of government to protect the consumer from the 
>>> unscrupluous large corporations.
>>>     
>>
>> A rebate makes a company unscrupulous? How so?
>> You need to learn to seperate things you don't like from things that
>> are objectively wrong.
>>   
>>>> I can certainly agree that laws to prevent fraud are good, but I can't
>>>> agree when laws are called for that would tell companies how they must
>>>> sell product, especially when it comes to pricing.
>>>>   
>>>>       
>>> Many rebates are fradulent.
>>>     
>>
>> No they aren't. Some are hard to get, but that's a very different
>> thing.
>>   
>
>It is the intent of the company who instruct their rebate handlers to 
>scrutinize every rebate and send out as few as possible.  They set it up 
>so the rebate company makes more money by sending out fewer rebates.

I anxiously await your proof of such claims.
My observation is that rebates, unlike most other things people take
part in, actually make you read and follow the directions; this is
what trips up most who don't get their rebates. They are used to
others making it easy for them.
And since a rebate is totally voluntary on the part of the company,
they can make any rules they want to, as long as they are legal. (And,
for those who want laws, fraud is already illegal.)
And, since a rebate is also voluntary on the part of the consumer, the
consumer is free to not buy items with a rebate. 

-- 
Anna Nicole Smith's family and 
friends converged on the late 
model's seaside mansion in the 
Bahamas on Monday. It's chaotic. 
Hundreds of people are waiting 
outside the mansion's security 
gate, and that's just the line 
for the paternity test.
0
Bill
2/17/2007 10:58:29 PM
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:45:08 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
wrote:

>Barry Watzman wrote:
>> An "instant rebate" is not a rebate, it's a price reduction, or a sale 
>> price.
>
>It is not a price reduction.  It may be similar a sales price, the 
>difference is that a rebate can be for an extended period of time.  Also 
>many stores will adjust previously purchased goods to a sales price 
>within a 30 day period.  Also a sales price is sponsored by a retailer 
>and is usually local to that retailer but a rebate is sponsored by a mfg 
>and it usually but not always applies to all retailers.

Your understanding of sales is wrong.
To say that all sales are local to a particular retailer flies in the
face of reality. Many manufacturers offer sale prices; just watch TV
to see many of them. Sales can be for any time those offering e sales
want them to be; 1 day, a week, a month, six months, until stock is
gone, whatever.

-- 
Anna Nicole Smith's family and 
friends converged on the late 
model's seaside mansion in the 
Bahamas on Monday. It's chaotic. 
Hundreds of people are waiting 
outside the mansion's security 
gate, and that's just the line 
for the paternity test.
0
Bill
2/17/2007 11:02:17 PM
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:44:06 -0500, "James" <jnipperxxx@nospamfdn.com>
wrote:

>It has been well-established here and in many other forums that rebate
>schemes are inherently scams.   There is  NO logical justification for a
>rebate scheme.

Hardly.
It has been *claimed* here that rebates are inherently scams.
I really enjoy hearing (or reading) people who have no idea of how
retailing works.
If *you* can't get your rebates, so sorry. *I* have no problems with
getting my rebates.
I wonder what the difference is there.

-- 
Anna Nicole Smith's family and 
friends converged on the late 
model's seaside mansion in the 
Bahamas on Monday. It's chaotic. 
Hundreds of people are waiting 
outside the mansion's security 
gate, and that's just the line 
for the paternity test.
0
Bill
2/17/2007 11:05:13 PM

Talker wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:47:06 -0500, Barry Watzman
> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> An "instant rebate" is not a rebate, it's a price reduction, or a sale 
>> price.  So you are suggesting outlawing rebates.  Sorry, I can't support 
>> that.  I would like to see some regulations passed covering rebate 
>> practices, but they need to be reasonable from the sides of both the 
>> manufacturer / merchant and the buyer.  There is nothing inherintly 
>> wrong, in principle, with mail-in rebates as long as they are honestly 
>> administered, as most (but not all) are.
>>
>>
>> measekite wrote:
>>     
>>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the 
>>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already 
>>> received) form the return amount.
>>>
>>>       
>
>      Sorry Barry, but the fact that there is fraud occuring is enough
> to warrant outlawing rebates.  Heck, if 1/10 of one percent of the
> population is being cheated in some way, the goverment steps in and
> bans or outlaws a product or service.  With 95% of the population
> being cheated at least once on a rebate, then the government NEEDS to
> step in and outlaw them.
>      There is no logical reason from a consumers standpoint to have
> rebates.  Rebates favor the company, not the consumer.  My time is
> valuable and I don't want to waste it filling out rebate forms for
> rebates that I may or may not receive.
>      I guess you think it would be okay if every manufacturer
> instituted rebates, right?  Okay, so if they did, then I guess you
> wouldn't mind going to the food store any paying $200 for groceries,
> or $150 after sending in 45 rebates....one for each product that you
> bought, right?  How long would it take you to fill out and send in all
> 45 rebates....not to mention the postage costs?

Do you really know what you are saying?

Just tell the grocer to ring each item up separately and then you have 
45 original receipts.  Better yet buy 100,000 items each rung up 
separately and then get 100,000 receipts.  Then hire someone to do the 
rebates and phone call.  You can outsource the work to India and get a 
better price. 
>   
>      Add to that, the fact that if you didn't receive 20 of the
> rebates, then I guess you'd have to call each company to ask for the
> rebate, like someone mentioned, to see why you didn't get it.  If it's
> like other rebates, they ALL want the original receipt, and having
> only one for the entire grocery list, I guess they'd be okay to refuse
> to give you the rebate.  They know you won't be able to give each of
> them the original receipt, so they can refuse your rebate
> submission.....THAT'S fraud, plain and simple.
>      Everywhere you shop, they offer rebates, so it's not uncommon to
> file 3 or 4 rebates a week, so that after three months, (the normal
> waiting period to receive a rebate), you'd have 30-40 rebates that you
> are waiting for.  How ridiculous is that?
>      Outlaw rebates and bring back the good old fashioned sale.
> THAT'S what consumers want!
>
> Talker
>   
0
measekite
2/17/2007 11:50:28 PM
"Mary" <nottin@invalid.dlm> wrote in message 
news:45d73b9f$0$16387$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "The Real Bev" <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3quBh.262$iV1.227@newsfe06.lga...
>> Mary wrote:
>>
>> > "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>> > news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
(snip)
> Yes, thats a bit of a different situation than mail in rebates.I've had a
> couple of Staples online rebates and got my rebate OK. But many of Staples
> rebates are not online submissions though I have to say I have had no
> problems receiving a mail-in rebate with Staples. I mostly avoid mail-in
> rebates. I think it is safe to say that most people find it much more
> convenient and satisfying to get instant rebates or reductions or whatever
> you want to call it, at the cash, rather than having to complete a form 
> and
> proof and other stuff  and mailing it to the rebate company with often 
> have
> a long wait to get a check in the mail. Its a hassle. On the few occasions 
> I
> submit mail- in rebates I keep a copy of every single thing I send to the
> rebate company and I am ready to send proof if they ask.
>
> Mary
>
Easier said than done if you don't have a xerox machine or flatbed scanner 
at home. (My employers consider using the company machine a big no-no, and a 
rebate ain't worth getting fired over.) Requires a special trip to someplace 
that has a coin-op one, or a quicky-print place. Basically not worth it, 
time and gas wise, unless the rebate is substantial. I avoid rebates in most 
cases, and when I do get a mail-off one, just take my chances.

Just how many months has this Thread That Won't Die been going on, anyway?

aem sends...



0
aemeijers
2/18/2007 12:12:26 AM
In article <MPG.20414137c6558f19989fa9@news.individual.net>, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>In article <er7l2r1lg0l8004malch@nntp.sonic.net>, malch@malch.com 
>says...
>> In article <x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, boyhowdy wrote:
>> >There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the 
>> >time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already 
>> >received) form the return amount.
>> 
>> It isn't going to happen. And even if Congress passed such a law
>> I suspect it would be found unconstitutional.
>
>On what grounds?

Well, for starters, although Congress has the right to
regulate inter-State trade, it has no right to regulate
intra-State trade.

In addition, with some notable exceptions Congress has
no right to regulate the selling price of a product
or service. Discounts are a matter for the buyer and
seller. Ditto for "delayed" discounts or rebates. Of
course, if the seller fails to deliver on an advertised
promise, they can be prosecuted for false advertising,
maybe fraud and maybe more, depending on jurisdiction.
The buyer (or party suffering the harm) can also take
civil action for breach of contract and seek appropriate
remedies.

>> Major retailers are already tiring of the complaints and some
>> have already announced their intent to abolish mail-in rebates
>> completely. Your voice can help that process along.
>
>Money talks louder.

Complaints translate into money -- time spent handling
the complaints, loss of repeat business, negative word
of mouth, damage to brand etc.

>> Happily, I do believe consumers are starting to win this
>> particular battle.
>
>I hope you're right.  I'm not as confident as you though.  There 
>are entirely too many whiners who are unable to do anything for 
>themselves.  They need the government to protect them from 
>themselves.

Whiners may want the government to protect them; that
doesn't mean the government should.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
2/18/2007 12:25:39 AM
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:12:26 GMT, <aemeijers@att.net> wrote:


>Just how many months has this Thread That Won't Die been going on, anyway?
>
>aem sends...

Just a little bit longer, thanks to you (and me)...
0
Hep
2/18/2007 1:08:20 AM
It's really plain and simple, but some folks here try to complicate it, and
claim it is fancy "retailing."

In truth , it is a scam, and a racket.   Once again,   IF  (and only  IF)
the seller wants to give you a cheaper price, they will do it at the cash
register.

Anything short of this is inherently a scam.   It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to figure this out, it is truly simple.

--James--


0
James
2/18/2007 1:21:11 AM
In article <er86e331u0ek002malch@nntp.sonic.net>, malch@malch.com 
says...
> In article <MPG.20414137c6558f19989fa9@news.individual.net>, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> >In article <er7l2r1lg0l8004malch@nntp.sonic.net>, malch@malch.com 
> >says...
> >> In article <x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, boyhowdy wrote:
> >> >There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the 
> >> >time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already 
> >> >received) form the return amount.
> >> 
> >> It isn't going to happen. And even if Congress passed such a law
> >> I suspect it would be found unconstitutional.
> >
> >On what grounds?
> 
> Well, for starters, although Congress has the right to
> regulate inter-State trade, it has no right to regulate
> intra-State trade.

If ay two of the buyer, seller, manufacturer, or rebate redemption 
companies are in different states it is interstate commerce.

> In addition, with some notable exceptions Congress has
> no right to regulate the selling price of a product
> or service. Discounts are a matter for the buyer and
> seller. Ditto for "delayed" discounts or rebates. Of
> course, if the seller fails to deliver on an advertised
> promise, they can be prosecuted for false advertising,
> maybe fraud and maybe more, depending on jurisdiction.
> The buyer (or party suffering the harm) can also take
> civil action for breach of contract and seek appropriate
> remedies.

1) Not a constitutional issue.

2) No one is regulating the price, only the limits of contracts 
(which the Fed does all the time).
> 
> >> Major retailers are already tiring of the complaints and some
> >> have already announced their intent to abolish mail-in rebates
> >> completely. Your voice can help that process along.
> >
> >Money talks louder.
> 
> Complaints translate into money -- time spent handling
> the complaints, loss of repeat business, negative word
> of mouth, damage to brand etc.

Money talks.  Bullshit walks.

> >> Happily, I do believe consumers are starting to win this
> >> particular battle.
> >
> >I hope you're right.  I'm not as confident as you though.  There 
> >are entirely too many whiners who are unable to do anything for 
> >themselves.  They need the government to protect them from 
> >themselves.
> 
> Whiners may want the government to protect them; that
> doesn't mean the government should.

Agreed, though there is nothing in the constitution preventing such 
abominations.

-- 
  Keith
0
krw
2/18/2007 1:29:16 AM
Talker wrote:

> Everywhere you shop, they offer rebates, so it's not uncommon to
> file 3 or 4 rebates a week, so that after three months, (the normal
> waiting period to receive a rebate), you'd have 30-40 rebates that you
> are waiting for.  How ridiculous is that?
>      Outlaw rebates and bring back the good old fashioned sale.
> THAT'S what consumers want!

What makes you think that the government gives half a shit about what 
consumers want?  Remember, sales tax gets charged on the pre-rebate price -- 
if rebates are outlawed, government loses money.  You think they'll let that 
happen?  HAH!

-- 
Cheers,
Bev
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
If it weren't for pain, we wouldn't have any fun at all.
0
The
2/18/2007 2:35:31 AM
"The Real Bev" <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:KXOBh.63$053.45@newsfe02.lga...
> Talker wrote:
>
>> Everywhere you shop, they offer rebates, so it's not uncommon to
>> file 3 or 4 rebates a week, so that after three months, (the normal
>> waiting period to receive a rebate), you'd have 30-40 rebates that you
>> are waiting for.  How ridiculous is that?
>>      Outlaw rebates and bring back the good old fashioned sale.
>> THAT'S what consumers want!
>
> What makes you think that the government gives half a shit about what 
> consumers want?  Remember, sales tax gets charged on the pre-rebate 
> price -- 
> if rebates are outlawed, government loses money.  You think they'll let 
> that happen?  HAH!
>
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Bev
> oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> If it weren't for pain, we wouldn't have any fun at all.

Just avoid buying under those circumstances, whenever possible, and be sure 
to TELL the merchant why they are losing the sale! 


0
jeremy
2/18/2007 2:37:49 AM

James wrote:
> It has been well-established here and in many other forums that rebate
> schemes are inherently scams.   There is  NO logical justification for a
> rebate scheme.
>   

I hate rebates but the above is false.  Here is why.  Company A has a 
product that is being sold for $100.  Sales are lagging and the company 
realized that they price the product too high.  If they lower the price 
(take MS Vista for example) then they risk getting many customers pissed 
off.  So they have a long long rebate or a few short ones on and off so 
they are holding the fact that the price is really the same.

Or they can keep the price the same (charging what the traffic will 
bear) but in some very competitive markets they have a rebate.
>
> IF a seller wants to sell a product at a lower price, the  seller will
> charge you the lower price at the check out counter.    IF he requires you
> to jump through silly hoops to get your "discount", then he is truly hoping
> that you won't jump the hoops and the price remains the regular price.
>
> Rebate schemes are a scam,  short and simple.
>
>
> --James--
>
>
>
>
>   
0
measekite
2/18/2007 2:56:34 AM
Malcolm Hoar wrote:

> Well, for starters, although Congress has the right to
> regulate inter-State trade, it has no right to regulate
> intra-State trade.
> 
> In addition, with some notable exceptions Congress has
> no right to regulate the selling price of a product
> or service. Discounts are a matter for the buyer and
> seller. Ditto for "delayed" discounts or rebates. Of
> course, if the seller fails to deliver on an advertised
> promise, they can be prosecuted for false advertising,
> maybe fraud and maybe more, depending on jurisdiction.
> The buyer (or party suffering the harm) can also take
> civil action for breach of contract and seek appropriate
> remedies.
> 
Must be you never heard of the wage/price controls of the early '70s, an 
attempt during the Nixon Administration to control inflation rates. I 
remember them. I was stuck as an E3 in the Army for nearly a year longer 
than I should have been because of a promotion freeze that was part of 
the same thing. The controls didn't work, of course, because prices and 
wages rose once again when the regulations were relaxed. But, the 
Constitutionality of the action wasn't questioned, IIRC.

TJ

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
TJ
2/18/2007 3:03:20 AM
"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message 
news:CfPBh.76890$qO4.49190@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
> James wrote:
>> It has been well-established here and in many other forums that rebate
>> schemes are inherently scams.   There is  NO logical justification for a
>> rebate scheme.
>>
>
> I hate rebates but the above is false.  Here is why.  Company A has a 
> product that is being sold for $100.  Sales are lagging and the company 
> realized that they price the product too high.  If they lower the price 
> (take MS Vista for example) then they risk getting many customers pissed 
> off.  So they have a long long rebate or a few short ones on and off so 
> they are holding the fact that the price is really the same.
>
> Or they can keep the price the same (charging what the traffic will bear) 
> but in some very competitive markets they have a rebate.
>>
>> IF a seller wants to sell a product at a lower price, the  seller will
>> charge you the lower price at the check out counter.    IF he requires 
>> you
>> to jump through silly hoops to get your "discount", then he is truly 
>> hoping
>> that you won't jump the hoops and the price remains the regular price.
>>
>> Rebate schemes are a scam,  short and simple.
>>
>>
>> --James--

Your reasoning is flawed - period. A sale price at the register means that 
the retailer takes the loss. A rebate allows a customer to save money while 
the retailer still gets the full price at the register. How is that a scam, 
Einstein?


0
john
2/18/2007 3:03:49 AM

john cuthbertson wrote:
> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message 
> news:CfPBh.76890$qO4.49190@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>   
>> James wrote:
>>     
>>> It has been well-established here and in many other forums that rebate
>>> schemes are inherently scams.   There is  NO logical justification for a
>>> rebate scheme.
>>>
>>>       
>> I hate rebates but the above is false.  Here is why.  Company A has a 
>> product that is being sold for $100.  Sales are lagging and the company 
>> realized that they price the product too high.  If they lower the price 
>> (take MS Vista for example) then they risk getting many customers pissed 
>> off.  So they have a long long rebate or a few short ones on and off so 
>> they are holding the fact that the price is really the same.
>>
>> Or they can keep the price the same (charging what the traffic will bear) 
>> but in some very competitive markets they have a rebate.
>>     
>>> IF a seller wants to sell a product at a lower price, the  seller will
>>> charge you the lower price at the check out counter.    IF he requires 
>>> you
>>> to jump through silly hoops to get your "discount", then he is truly 
>>> hoping
>>> that you won't jump the hoops and the price remains the regular price.
>>>
>>> Rebate schemes are a scam,  short and simple.
>>>
>>>
>>> --James--
>>>       
>
> Your reasoning is flawed - period. A sale price at the register means that 
> the retailer takes the loss.

That is a maybe.  Some sales at the retail level are subsidized by the 
mfg via the use of advertising money.  And special discounts are given 
to the specific retailer.
>  A rebate allows a customer to save money while 
> the retailer still gets the full price at the register. How is that a scam, 
> Einstein?
>
>
>   
0
measekite
2/18/2007 3:09:23 AM
In article <MPG.204175f62463f04c989fad@news.individual.net>, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>> Well, for starters, although Congress has the right to
>> regulate inter-State trade, it has no right to regulate
>> intra-State trade.
>
>If ay two of the buyer, seller, manufacturer, or rebate redemption 
>companies are in different states it is interstate commerce.

Yes, in general terms but it's not quite as simple as that.

>> In addition, with some notable exceptions Congress has
>> no right to regulate the selling price of a product
>> or service. Discounts are a matter for the buyer and
>> seller. Ditto for "delayed" discounts or rebates. Of
>> course, if the seller fails to deliver on an advertised
>> promise, they can be prosecuted for false advertising,
>> maybe fraud and maybe more, depending on jurisdiction.
>> The buyer (or party suffering the harm) can also take
>> civil action for breach of contract and seek appropriate
>> remedies.
>
>1) Not a constitutional issue.

Ummmmm, the question of what Congress is, and is not,
permitted to regulate is absolutely a constitutional 
issue. Congressional powers are defined by the 
constitution and only by the constitution.

>2) No one is regulating the price, only the limits of contracts 

And the United States Supreme Court has held that the 
"right to free contract" was implicit in the due process 
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

>(which the Fed does all the time).

Nonsense.

A Federal prohibition of mail-in rebates would never pass
constitutional muster and it isn't going to happen period.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
2/18/2007 3:45:09 AM
jeremy wrote:

> "The Real Bev" <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Talker wrote:
>> 
>>> Everywhere you shop, they offer rebates, so it's not uncommon to file
>>> 3 or 4 rebates a week, so that after three months, (the normal 
>>> waiting period to receive a rebate), you'd have 30-40 rebates that
>>> you are waiting for.  How ridiculous is that? Outlaw rebates and
>>> bring back the good old fashioned sale. THAT'S what consumers want!
>> 
>> What makes you think that the government gives half a shit about what 
>> consumers want?  Remember, sales tax gets charged on the pre-rebate 
>> price -- if rebates are outlawed, government loses money.  You think
>> they'll let that happen?  HAH!
> 
> Just avoid buying under those circumstances, whenever possible, and be
> sure to TELL the merchant why they are losing the sale!

Why would I go to CompUSA, say, just to tell the manager that I'm not going
to buy the advertised special that brought me to the store just because it
offers a rebate which I should have known?

I've had minimal problems with rebates.  I figure that the people who are
too dumb to fill in the forms properly are paying me to do it correctly --
always nice when stupidity carries its own punishment.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"I'm sorry I ever invented the Electoral College."
                                 Al Gore 11/08/00
0
The
2/18/2007 3:51:24 AM
<aemeijers@att.net> wrote in message
news:KRMBh.19300$5j1.7580@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Mary" <nottin@invalid.dlm> wrote in message
> news:45d73b9f$0$16387$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> > "The Real Bev" <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3quBh.262$iV1.227@newsfe06.lga...
> >> Mary wrote:
> >>
> >> > "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> (snip)
> > Yes, thats a bit of a different situation than mail in rebates.I've had
a
> > couple of Staples online rebates and got my rebate OK. But many of
Staples
> > rebates are not online submissions though I have to say I have had no
> > problems receiving a mail-in rebate with Staples. I mostly avoid mail-in
> > rebates. I think it is safe to say that most people find it much more
> > convenient and satisfying to get instant rebates or reductions or
whatever
> > you want to call it, at the cash, rather than having to complete a form
> > and
> > proof and other stuff  and mailing it to the rebate company with often
> > have
> > a long wait to get a check in the mail. Its a hassle. On the few
occasions
> > I
> > submit mail- in rebates I keep a copy of every single thing I send to
the
> > rebate company and I am ready to send proof if they ask.
> >
> > Mary
> >
> Easier said than done if you don't have a xerox machine or flatbed scanner
> at home. (My employers consider using the company machine a big no-no, and
a
> rebate ain't worth getting fired over.) Requires a special trip to
someplace
> that has a coin-op one, or a quicky-print place. Basically not worth it,
> time and gas wise, unless the rebate is substantial. I avoid rebates in
most
> cases, and when I do get a mail-off one, just take my chances.

I don't have a copier but have had a flatbed scanner for years. They are not
very expensive compared to other computer parts. Many people now have
all-in-one printers which include scanners and copiers. But if  you need to
make a special trip to make copies of what you need, then yes, its more
trouble, and may not be worth it unless you think the rebate amount is worth
it.

> Just how many months has this Thread That Won't Die been going on, anyway?

Not that long. People can always block out the thread in their news reader
if they don't want to
see it.

Mary


-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
Mary
2/18/2007 4:17:19 AM
<aemeijers@att.net> wrote in message
news:KRMBh.19300$5j1.7580@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Mary" <nottin@invalid.dlm> wrote in message
> news:45d73b9f$0$16387$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> > "The Real Bev" <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3quBh.262$iV1.227@newsfe06.lga...
> >> Mary wrote:
> >>
> >> > "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> (snip)
> > Yes, thats a bit of a different situation than mail in rebates.I've had
a
> > couple of Staples online rebates and got my rebate OK. But many of
Staples
> > rebates are not online submissions though I have to say I have had no
> > problems receiving a mail-in rebate with Staples. I mostly avoid mail-in
> > rebates. I think it is safe to say that most people find it much more
> > convenient and satisfying to get instant rebates or reductions or
whatever
> > you want to call it, at the cash, rather than having to complete a form
> > and
> > proof and other stuff  and mailing it to the rebate company with often
> > have
> > a long wait to get a check in the mail. Its a hassle. On the few
occasions
> > I
> > submit mail- in rebates I keep a copy of every single thing I send to
the
> > rebate company and I am ready to send proof if they ask.
> >
> > Mary
> >
> Easier said than done if you don't have a xerox machine or flatbed scanner
> at home. (My employers consider using the company machine a big no-no, and
a
> rebate ain't worth getting fired over.) Requires a special trip to
someplace
> that has a coin-op one, or a quicky-print place. Basically not worth it,
> time and gas wise, unless the rebate is substantial. I avoid rebates in
most
> cases, and when I do get a mail-off one, just take my chances.

I don't have a copier but have had a flatbed scanner for years. They are not
very expensive compared to other computer parts. Many people now have
all-in-one printers which include scanners and copiers. But if  you need to
make a special trip to make copies of what you need, then yes, its more
trouble, and may not be worth it unless you think the rebate amount is worth
it.

> Just how many months has this Thread That Won't Die been going on, anyway?

Not that long. People can always block out the thread in their news reader
if they don't want to
see it.

Mary


-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
Mary
2/18/2007 4:17:30 AM
"The Real Bev" <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:13QBh.474$Ng6.412@newsfe04.lga...
>
> Why would I go to CompUSA, say, just to tell the manager that I'm not 
> going
> to buy the advertised special that brought me to the store just because it
> offers a rebate which I should have known?
>
> I've had minimal problems with rebates.  I figure that the people who are
> too dumb to fill in the forms properly are paying me to do it correctly --
> always nice when stupidity carries its own punishment.


I would not go to a store if I knew they imposed rebates, but if I were in 
one, and I declined a purchase because of a required rebate, I'd tell them 
why.

Your comment about people being "too dumb" to file forms properly is 
insulting and inaccurate.  Many of us have experienced not getting rebates 
that were properly filed.

I choose not to go through the aggravation of sending in copies of receipts 
and proofs-of-purchase, just to get back money that I should not have had to 
part with in the first place.  Perhaps you have more time to fool with that 
nonsense.  Not I. 


0
jeremy
2/18/2007 5:18:01 AM
"jeremy" (jeremy@nospam.com) writes:
> "The Real Bev" <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:13QBh.474$Ng6.412@newsfe04.lga...
>>
>> Why would I go to CompUSA, say, just to tell the manager that I'm not 
>> going
>> to buy the advertised special that brought me to the store just because it
>> offers a rebate which I should have known?
>>
>> I've had minimal problems with rebates.  I figure that the people who are
>> too dumb to fill in the forms properly are paying me to do it correctly --
>> always nice when stupidity carries its own punishment.
> 
> 
> I would not go to a store if I knew they imposed rebates, but if I were in 
> one, and I declined a purchase because of a required rebate, I'd tell them 
> why.
> 
Nobody imposes rebates on the consumer, nobody requires that you get
the rebate.

It's an optional thing, that you can decide to pursue if you want to
save some money.

And if you don't, then you get the item at the regular price.

You should be buying the item, if it was something you intended to buy,
and then make an issue of how you refuse to do the rebate.  Thus you
have skipped the optional rebate process, yet made it clear that
you aren't one of the people who simply can't be bothered to do rebates.

It's kind of like spoiling a ballot in an election.  Usually they don't
get counted, so you might as well stay home.  But if you spoil the ballot,
at least it shows that you aren't too lazy to go and vote.


> 
> I choose not to go through the aggravation of sending in copies of receipts 
> and proofs-of-purchase, just to get back money that I should not have had to 
> part with in the first place.  Perhaps you have more time to fool with that 
> nonsense.  Not I. 
> 
> 
But the money isn't your's until you do the rebate.  They haven't offered
the item on sale, they have offered you the optional rebate.  If you take
them up on it, then you get a lower price.  If you don't, then you lose
that money you would have gotten in a rebate.

It's only by your rules that you think it's money you shouldn't have had
to part with in the first place.  IN reality, it's money you would have
to part with, because the cost of the item would remain the same.  It's
only by doing the optional rebate that you get a lower price.

  Michael


0
et472
2/18/2007 5:47:41 AM
"Mary" (nottin@invalid.dlm) writes:

>> Just how many months has this Thread That Won't Die been going on, anyway?
> 
> Not that long. People can always block out the thread in their news reader
> if they don't want to
> see it.
> 
That's not the issue.  The issue is that the original post was massively
cross-posted, and after it seemed to have died, someone decided to post
a reply, which means the same things are being argued as when the thread
first started.  

The thread started on December 28th, which is long enough.

   Michael

0
et472
2/18/2007 5:52:24 AM
"Michael Black" <et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:er8pio$bc8$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> "Mary" (nottin@invalid.dlm) writes:
>
> >> Just how many months has this Thread That Won't Die been going on,
anyway?
> >
> > Not that long. People can always block out the thread in their news
reader
> > if they don't want to
> > see it.
> >
> That's not the issue.  The issue is that the original post was massively
> cross-posted, and after it seemed to have died, someone decided to post
> a reply, which means the same things are being argued as when the thread
> first started.
>
> The thread started on December 28th, which is long enough.

Then filter it out.

Mary


-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
Mary
2/18/2007 6:38:47 AM
Michael Black wrote:
> "Mary" (nottin@invalid.dlm) writes:
> 
> 
>>>Just how many months has this Thread That Won't Die been going on, anyway?
>>
>>Not that long. People can always block out the thread in their news reader
>>if they don't want to
>>see it.
>>
> 
> That's not the issue.  The issue is that the original post was massively
> cross-posted, and after it seemed to have died, someone decided to post
> a reply, which means the same things are being argued as when the thread
> first started.  
> 
> The thread started on December 28th, which is long enough.
> 
>    Michael
> 
Thread drift is the nature of all ng's.
Frank
0
Frank
2/18/2007 6:43:03 AM
jeremy wrote:

> "The Real Bev" <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Why would I go to CompUSA, say, just to tell the manager that I'm not 
>> going to buy the advertised special that brought me to the store just
>> because it offers a rebate which I should have known?
>> 
>> I've had minimal problems with rebates.  I figure that the people who
>> are too dumb to fill in the forms properly are paying me to do it
>> correctly -- always nice when stupidity carries its own punishment.
> 
> I would not go to a store if I knew they imposed rebates, but if I were
> in one, and I declined a purchase because of a required rebate, I'd tell
> them why.

I don't shop unless I know what I'm shopping for and how much it costs
before and/or after any rebate.  You just go to a store expecting to buy
something but not knowing what the price might be?

> Your comment about people being "too dumb" to file forms properly is 
> insulting and inaccurate.  Many of us have experienced not getting
> rebates that were properly filed.

Many people ARE too dumb to file forms properly.  You may not be.  I only 
know that I've had very little trouble with rebates over the decade(s) I've 
been dealing with them.  Yeah, they're a nuisance, but nobody else is going 
to pay me $50-$100/hour.

> I choose not to go through the aggravation of sending in copies of
> receipts and proofs-of-purchase, just to get back money that I should not
> have had to part with in the first place.  Perhaps you have more time to
> fool with that nonsense.  Not I.

There are definite advantages to being retired.  Perhaps taking advantage of 
rebates is one reason I was able to retire early.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Don't you wish there were a knob on the TV to turn up the
  intelligence? There's one marked "brightness", but it
  doesn't work."                               -- Gallagher
0
The
2/18/2007 6:44:51 AM

The Real Bev wrote:
> jeremy wrote:
>
>> "The Real Bev" <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why would I go to CompUSA, say, just to tell the manager that I'm 
>>> not going to buy the advertised special that brought me to the store 
>>> just
>>> because it offers a rebate which I should have known?
>>>
>>> I've had minimal problems with rebates.  I figure that the people who
>>> are too dumb to fill in the forms properly are paying me to do it
>>> correctly -- always nice when stupidity carries its own punishment.
>>
>> I would not go to a store if I knew they imposed rebates, but if I were
>> in one, and I declined a purchase because of a required rebate, I'd tell
>> them why.
>
> I don't shop unless I know what I'm shopping for and how much it costs
> before and/or after any rebate.  You just go to a store expecting to buy
> something but not knowing what the price might be?
>
>> Your comment about people being "too dumb" to file forms properly is 
>> insulting and inaccurate.  Many of us have experienced not getting
>> rebates that were properly filed.
>
> Many people ARE too dumb to file forms properly.  You may not be.  I 
> only know that I've had very little trouble with rebates over the 
> decade(s) I've been dealing with them.  Yeah, they're a nuisance, but 
> nobody else is going to pay me $50-$100/hour.

I guess you do not make very much money.
>
>> I choose not to go through the aggravation of sending in copies of
>> receipts and proofs-of-purchase, just to get back money that I should 
>> not
>> have had to part with in the first place.  Perhaps you have more time to
>> fool with that nonsense.  Not I.
>
> There are definite advantages to being retired.  Perhaps taking 
> advantage of rebates is one reason I was able to retire early.
>
0
measekite
2/18/2007 10:13:48 AM
In article <er8i452600g0002malch@nntp.sonic.net>, malch@malch.com 
says...
> In article <MPG.204175f62463f04c989fad@news.individual.net>, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> 
> >> Well, for starters, although Congress has the right to
> >> regulate inter-State trade, it has no right to regulate
> >> intra-State trade.
> >
> >If ay two of the buyer, seller, manufacturer, or rebate redemption 
> >companies are in different states it is interstate commerce.
> 
> Yes, in general terms but it's not quite as simple as that.

Please do explain!
> 
> >> In addition, with some notable exceptions Congress has
> >> no right to regulate the selling price of a product
> >> or service. Discounts are a matter for the buyer and
> >> seller. Ditto for "delayed" discounts or rebates. Of
> >> course, if the seller fails to deliver on an advertised
> >> promise, they can be prosecuted for false advertising,
> >> maybe fraud and maybe more, depending on jurisdiction.
> >> The buyer (or party suffering the harm) can also take
> >> civil action for breach of contract and seek appropriate
> >> remedies.
> >
> >1) Not a constitutional issue.
> 
> Ummmmm, the question of what Congress is, and is not,
> permitted to regulate is absolutely a constitutional 
> issue. Congressional powers are defined by the 
> constitution and only by the constitution.

I've already shot down your "interstate commerce" argument.  Care 
to try again?

> >2) No one is regulating the price, only the limits of contracts 
> 
> And the United States Supreme Court has held that the 
> "right to free contract" was implicit in the due process 
> clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

You cannot contract away your life or limb.
 
> >(which the Fed does all the time).
> 
> Nonsense.

It's not nonsense. There are already many retail marketing laws and 
regulations on the books.  Hell, mail-in rebates could even be 
covered under postal regulations.

> A Federal prohibition of mail-in rebates would never pass
> constitutional muster and it isn't going to happen period.

You keep saying that but have nothing to back your opinion up with.

-- 
  Keith
0
krw
2/18/2007 2:39:54 PM
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:21:11 -0500, "James" <jnipperxxx@nospamfdn.com>
wrote:

>It's really plain and simple, but some folks here try to complicate it, and
>claim it is fancy "retailing."
>
>In truth , it is a scam, and a racket.   Once again,   IF  (and only  IF)
>the seller wants to give you a cheaper price, they will do it at the cash
>register.
>
>Anything short of this is inherently a scam.   It doesn't take a rocket
>scientist to figure this out, it is truly simple.
>
>--James--
>

Then explain it.
If it's a scam, as you claim, then explain how the scam works.
You say it isn't hard to figure it out, you claim you have figured it
out, so explain it.
Please.

-- 
Anna Nicole Smith's family and 
friends converged on the late 
model's seaside mansion in the 
Bahamas on Monday. It's chaotic. 
Hundreds of people are waiting 
outside the mansion's security 
gate, and that's just the line 
for the paternity test.
0
Bill
2/18/2007 3:44:14 PM
The Courts of some states are determining this, regardless of your 
belief that merchants should decide how to sell product.  Basically, 
some states have decided that the retailer is responsible for the 
rebate, since they have the contract with the end user.

So, if a rebate isn't forthcoming, the end user can demand the rebate 
from the retailer.  Since retailers do not wish to become the middle man 
between the fulfillment company and the client, some are beginning  to 
demand that either the rebates stop or that they have full control over 
them.  The manufacturers are beginning to see retailers stating they do 
not want product with fulfillment company rebates.

So, although the Court aren't telling anyone what to do, they are giving 
the power to the end client to collect on rebates that do not arrive
and since the retailers get stuck in a lose-lose situation, they want a 
better method of paying off rebates, so that if they are to be made 
libel, they also want control of the money.

Art


Bill Funk wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:33:33 -0500, "Mary" <nospam@invalid.swl> wrote:
> 
> 
>>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>>news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>>>There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the
>>>time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already
>>>received) form the return amount.
>>
>>For once I agree with you.
>>
>>Mary
> 
> 
> How can you agree with the idea that the government should tell
> merchants how to sell their products?
> I can certainly agree that laws to prevent fraud are good, but I can't
> agree when laws are called for that would tell companies how they must
> sell product, especially when it comes to pricing.
> 
0
Arthur
2/18/2007 4:13:18 PM
Most banks do not even check the body and figure of cheques (Canadian 
spelling) anymore, so I really doubt if anyone would have cared is she 
just cashed or deposited it as is.  The banks have decided that it is a 
better risk benefit to save the time and personnel and pay for the 
occasional fraudulent deposit, than to check out each item for correct 
spelling or other details.

Art

John E. wrote:

> Thus spake Arthur Entlich: 
> 
> 
>>One more caveat... some fulfillment companies send cheques that look 
>>like junkmail.  It is usually a plain white laser printed postcard. 
>>Usually really flimsy, and it even has the postage and cancellation on 
>>it when you get it.  The reverse side IS the cheque.  It's easy to 
>>discard or lose this, so be careful to read those junkmail looking 
>>postcards, they may be a cheque.
> 
> 
> An old friend received a rebate check made out to her... sort of. They 
> misspelled her name -- a faint attempt to avoid payment. Being the feisty gal 
> she is, she endorsed the check, using the misspelled name, and wrote "Pay to 
> the order of" and filled in her name. Signed and deposited it. It cleared, no 
> problem. 
> 
> It would take some serious "hutzpah" in a legal department of some big corp 
> to challenge that action, IMHO. 
0
Arthur
2/18/2007 4:18:45 PM
Read some of the Attorney Generals' reports on rebate fraud.  They now 
often compose the number one complaint to the US Postal Fraud division 
and to many of the state consumer fraud offices.  There has been action 
against numerous manufacturers and fulfillment houses for proven 
fraudulent activity.

Yes, some are due to errors on the part of the public, and some are 
indeed "slow" (although they do contain a contract and should be 
fulfilled within their stated period), but many are also not fulfilled 
as promised, and are indeed the result of outright fraudulent practices.

Art

Bill Funk wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:58:24 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:33:33 -0500, "Mary" <nospam@invalid.swl> wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>    
>>>>
>>>>>There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the
>>>>>time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already
>>>>>received) form the return amount.
>>>>>      
>>>>
>>>>For once I agree with you.
>>>>
>>>>Mary
>>>>    
>>>
>>>How can you agree with the idea that the government should tell
>>>merchants how to sell their products?
>>>  
>>
>>They have for years.  Did you ever hear of the Sherman Antitrust Act?  
>>It is the job of government to protect the consumer from the 
>>unscrupluous large corporations.
> 
> 
> A rebate makes a company unscrupulous? How so?
> You need to learn to seperate things you don't like from things that
> are objectively wrong.
> 
>>>I can certainly agree that laws to prevent fraud are good, but I can't
>>>agree when laws are called for that would tell companies how they must
>>>sell product, especially when it comes to pricing.
>>>  
>>
>>Many rebates are fradulent.
> 
> 
> No they aren't. Some are hard to get, but that's a very different
> thing.
> Rebates are one of those things where the user must follow the rules
> very carefully, something most people aren't used to.
> And, in some cases, the number of rebates exceeds the expected number,
> and things are slow.
> But to claim fraud, you need proof of fraud. That *you* didn't get a
> rebate doesn't mean fraud.
> 
0
Arthur
2/18/2007 4:31:41 PM
Imagine if government law enforcement had to deal with 2% of all the 
rebates applied for?  That would make for a very costly ordeal that was 
depleting taxpayers considerable money while not advantageous to 
government directly.  That might just inspire lawmakers to legislate 
certain changes that might require retailers to take on the 
responsibility for their clients' issues.

Art

Barry Watzman wrote:

> Rebates are "INHERENTY scams"???
> 
> Bullshit.  No such thing has been established.
> 
> A few are, no argument.  Most are completely legitimate.  I do about 
> 200+ rebates per year.  I have to take some follow up action on less 
> than 10%, and the number that I actually fail to get is in the range of 
> 2% or so.
> 
> 
> James wrote:
> 
>> It has been well-established here and in many other forums that rebate
>> schemes are inherently scams.   There is  NO logical justification for a
>> rebate scheme.
>>
>>
>> IF a seller wants to sell a product at a lower price, the  seller will
>> charge you the lower price at the check out counter.    IF he requires 
>> you
>> to jump through silly hoops to get your "discount", then he is truly 
>> hoping
>> that you won't jump the hoops and the price remains the regular price.
>>
>> Rebate schemes are a scam,  short and simple.
>>
>>
>> --James--
>>
>>
>>
>>
0
Arthur
2/18/2007 4:45:43 PM
Someone here asked me to explain again.  Well, I have done this twice, so
(maybe)  this is the last time.  Read each word  (it  IS  in English) and
you will fully understand.  I can't explain it any better, or in any other
language:

------------------


>
>
>> It has been well-established here and in many other forums that rebate
>> schemes are inherently scams.   There is  NO logical justification for a
>> rebate scheme.
>>
>>
>> IF a seller wants to sell a product at a lower price, the  seller will
>> charge you the lower price at the check out counter.    IF he requires
>> you
>> to jump through silly hoops to get your "discount", then he is truly
>> hoping
>> that you won't jump the hoops and the price remains the regular price.
>>
>> Rebate schemes are a scam,  short and simple.
>>
>>
>> --James--


0
James
2/18/2007 4:51:12 PM
Mary wrote:

> 
> I don't have a copier but have had a flatbed scanner for years. They are not
> very expensive compared to other computer parts. Many people now have
> all-in-one printers which include scanners and copiers. But if  you need to
> make a special trip to make copies of what you need, then yes, its more
> trouble, and may not be worth it unless you think the rebate amount is worth
> it.
> 
I've had a flatbed scanner for years, too - at least five. Bought it
online from Office Max for $20 - after rebate. Got free shipping, too.
And I *did* get the rebate, without hassle or delay beyond that stated
on the form.

TJ


-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
TJ
2/18/2007 5:01:02 PM
I have engaged in several hundred rebates over the last several years. 
I have had dozen which, although accomplished exactly as required, have 
required considerable intervention to be paid.  I should not have to 
waste the time involved to pursue and collect these.  I should not have 
to "loan" these companies my money for months on end awaiting payment 
for months beyond the limits they set.

Your implication is that people who do not receive their rebates without 
a fight are incapable of properly following directions, or some other 
logical sequence of events which will lead to proper rebates on time. 
I'm sure, with the many convoluted requirements that mere mortal humans 
may indeed make errors, but I've been at this game long enough to know 
the pitfalls, and the problems I have encounter have nothing to do with 
how the rebate was handled on my end.

Call the reasons the rebates aren't fulfilled properly sloppy, call it 
error prone, or call it fraud, the end result is the same, the company 
does not fulfill its side of the contract, and if legislation is the 
best manner to resolve this, then so be it.

Art

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:44:06 -0500, "James" <jnipperxxx@nospamfdn.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>It has been well-established here and in many other forums that rebate
>>schemes are inherently scams.   There is  NO logical justification for a
>>rebate scheme.
> 
> 
> Hardly.
> It has been *claimed* here that rebates are inherently scams.
> I really enjoy hearing (or reading) people who have no idea of how
> retailing works.
> If *you* can't get your rebates, so sorry. *I* have no problems with
> getting my rebates.
> I wonder what the difference is there.
> 
0
Arthur
2/18/2007 5:05:56 PM
The Real Bev wrote:
> jeremy wrote:
> 
>> "The Real Bev" <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why would I go to CompUSA, say, just to tell the manager that I'm not 
>>> going to buy the advertised special that brought me to the store just
>>> because it offers a rebate which I should have known?
>>>
>>> I've had minimal problems with rebates.  I figure that the people who
>>> are too dumb to fill in the forms properly are paying me to do it
>>> correctly -- always nice when stupidity carries its own punishment.
>>
>> I would not go to a store if I knew they imposed rebates, but if I were
>> in one, and I declined a purchase because of a required rebate, I'd tell
>> them why.
> 
> I don't shop unless I know what I'm shopping for and how much it costs
> before and/or after any rebate.  You just go to a store expecting to buy
> something but not knowing what the price might be?
> 
>> Your comment about people being "too dumb" to file forms properly is 
>> insulting and inaccurate.  Many of us have experienced not getting
>> rebates that were properly filed.
> 
> Many people ARE too dumb to file forms properly.  You may not be.  I 
> only know that I've had very little trouble with rebates over the 
> decade(s) I've been dealing with them.  Yeah, they're a nuisance, but 
> nobody else is going to pay me $50-$100/hour.
> 
>> I choose not to go through the aggravation of sending in copies of
>> receipts and proofs-of-purchase, just to get back money that I should not
>> have had to part with in the first place.  Perhaps you have more time to
>> fool with that nonsense.  Not I.
> 
> There are definite advantages to being retired.  Perhaps taking 
> advantage of rebates is one reason I was able to retire early.
> 
I'm with you, Bev. I'm self-employed, and I don't get paid that kind of 
money, either. I bought a second hard drive for my computer a couple of 
years ago. CompUSA sold it to me on sale online for $80, as I remember. 
I was offered a deal whereby if I sent them my name and address (so they 
knew where to send the check - understandable), a copy of my receipt (to 
prove I bought the drive during the offer, entirely understandable), and 
a UPC code off the box (to prove I bought the model the deal was offered 
on, again understandable), they'd send me a check for $50 - after a 
six-week delay for processing. So I spent 2-3 minutes filling out a form 
with my name and address, and another 5 minutes or less cutting the UPC 
code from the box, and maybe another minute making a copy of my receipt. 
Another 5 minutes addressing a 1-cent envelope, stuffing it, and 
affixing a 37-cent stamp, and maybe another walking with it to my 
mailbox. 15 minutes of my leisure time and 38 cents-worth of materials 
for a $50 return. By my calculations, that works out to $198.48/hour - 
*for my leisure time.* It cut into my TV-watching time a bit, but it was 
well worth it, IMHO.

I didn't *have* to take the deal. I could have paid the full sale price 
and watched that 15 minutes of TV, while ranting on the newsgroups about 
the unfairness of rebate "scams." But if you ask me, I'd have been 
pretty stupid to do so.

I've only had one rebate refused, and another that I got only after 
inquiring about its lateness. None of the other 100 or so have been a 
problem. But then, I take the time to read the requirements before 
making the purchase, to be sure I can follow them.

TJ

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
TJ
2/18/2007 5:45:04 PM
In article <MPG.20422f2ae987fc41989fae@news.individual.net>, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>In article <er8i452600g0002malch@nntp.sonic.net>, malch@malch.com 
>says...
>> In article <MPG.204175f62463f04c989fad@news.individual.net>, krw
> <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>> 
>> >> Well, for starters, although Congress has the right to
>> >> regulate inter-State trade, it has no right to regulate
>> >> intra-State trade.
>> >
>> >If ay two of the buyer, seller, manufacturer, or rebate redemption 
>> >companies are in different states it is interstate commerce.
>> 
>> Yes, in general terms but it's not quite as simple as that.
>
>Please do explain!

If it's not a manufacturer rebate, it doesn't matter
what state the manufacturer resides.

>> >> In addition, with some notable exceptions Congress has
>> >> no right to regulate the selling price of a product
>> >> or service. Discounts are a matter for the buyer and
>> >> seller. Ditto for "delayed" discounts or rebates. Of
>> >> course, if the seller fails to deliver on an advertised
>> >> promise, they can be prosecuted for false advertising,
>> >> maybe fraud and maybe more, depending on jurisdiction.
>> >> The buyer (or party suffering the harm) can also take
>> >> civil action for breach of contract and seek appropriate
>> >> remedies.
>> >
>> >1) Not a constitutional issue.
>> 
>> Ummmmm, the question of what Congress is, and is not,
>> permitted to regulate is absolutely a constitutional 
>> issue. Congressional powers are defined by the 
>> constitution and only by the constitution.
>
>I've already shot down your "interstate commerce" argument.  Care 
>to try again?

You haven't shot down squat. You claimed Congressional
powers to regulate such contracts was "not a constitutional
issue" thus demonstrating virtually no understanding of the 
US legal and governmental system.

>> >2) No one is regulating the price, only the limits of contracts 
>> 
>> And the United States Supreme Court has held that the 
>> "right to free contract" was implicit in the due process 
>> clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
>
>You cannot contract away your life or limb.

What does that have to do with it?

Obviously, you disagree with the Supreme Court on the
main issue. 

>> >(which the Fed does all the time).
>> 
>> Nonsense.
>
>It's not nonsense. There are already many retail marketing laws and 
>regulations on the books.  Hell, mail-in rebates could even be 
>covered under postal regulations.

The vast majority of consumer and retail laws apply at
the state level. At no time have I questioned the right
of individual states to regulate commerce in such ways.
However, quite a few state laws of that kind have been 
successfully challenged on constitutional grounds.

>> A Federal prohibition of mail-in rebates would never pass
>> constitutional muster and it isn't going to happen period.
>
>You keep saying that but have nothing to back your opinion up with.

Just some Supreme Court decisions that you wave away with
with a rather pathetic strawman.


-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
2/18/2007 5:52:15 PM
In article <UH%Bh.1035549$R63.362686@pd7urf1no>, Arthur Entlich <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote:

>Call the reasons the rebates aren't fulfilled properly sloppy, call it 
>error prone, or call it fraud, the end result is the same, the company 
>does not fulfill its side of the contract, and if legislation is the 
>best manner to resolve this, then so be it.

Legislation is almost never the best manner to address non-performance
in contracts. Some folks feel it's appropriate in the case of 
regulated monopolies like utilities, but that isn't the case here.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
2/18/2007 6:06:10 PM
Barry Watzman wrote:
> [...] So you are suggesting outlawing rebates.  Sorry, I can't support
> that.  I would like to see some regulations passed covering rebate 
> practices, but they need to be reasonable from the sides of both the 
> manufacturer / merchant and the buyer. 

I'd propose regulation of practices to the point that rebates would
be impractical. First, every advertisement involving a rebate offer
would have to show all the terms of the rebate at the same size as
any mention of after-rebate price or savings.

> There is nothing inherintly 
> wrong, in principle, with mail-in rebates as long as they are honestly 
> administered, as most (but not all) are.

Rebates are inherently wrong. They offer the rebate with the intent
of not paying it to many of the people who accept the offer. The
fact that in most cases they can argue it is the customers fault does
not excuse the bad-faith offer.

The dishonesty in rebate fulfillment is mostly in the form of
deliberate incompetence. They profit from their own mistake of
not paying your rebate, so they design thier system to makes mistakes.
Think about it: how often do companies mess up and not *bill* you?


-- 
--Bryan
0
Bryan
2/18/2007 6:37:34 PM
Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>> If ay two of the buyer, seller, manufacturer, or rebate redemption 
>> companies are in different states it is interstate commerce.
> 
> Yes, in general terms but it's not quite as simple as that.

Don't be fooled by the complexity. There's no question that
the vast majority of rebates are interstate commerce under
the law. The FTC is already doing some regulation.

>> 1) Not a constitutional issue.
> 
> Ummmmm, the question of what Congress is, and is not,
> permitted to regulate is absolutely a constitutional 
> issue. Congressional powers are defined by the 
> constitution and only by the constitution.

But we've already established that regulating interstate
commerce is one of the explicit powers of the federal
government.


>> 2) No one is regulating the price, only the limits of contracts 
> 
> And the United States Supreme Court has held that the 
> "right to free contract" was implicit in the due process 
> clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

That was Lochner v. New York of 1905, but later decisions
reversed it, notably West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937).


> Nonsense.
> 
> A Federal prohibition of mail-in rebates would never pass
> constitutional muster and it isn't going to happen period.

The happening is doubtful, but your constitutional
arguments are silliness.

A full prohibition is not usually how these things are done.
Hmmm... how about a tax: If you sell three million units
during a rebate period and pay one million rebates, you owe
the government two million times the rebate amount, plus all
the interest earned by holding the money.


-- 
--Bryan
0
Bryan
2/18/2007 6:59:15 PM
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:31:41 GMT, Arthur Entlich
<e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote:

>Read some of the Attorney Generals' reports on rebate fraud.  They now 
>often compose the number one complaint to the US Postal Fraud division 
>and to many of the state consumer fraud offices.  There has been action 
>against numerous manufacturers and fulfillment houses for proven 
>fraudulent activity.
>
>Yes, some are due to errors on the part of the public, and some are 
>indeed "slow" (although they do contain a contract and should be 
>fulfilled within their stated period), but many are also not fulfilled 
>as promised, and are indeed the result of outright fraudulent practices.
>
>Art

I would not characterize the relatively small number of fraudulant
schemes as "many."
"Some" would be much better.
But a law against rebates, when fraud is already illegal?

-- 
Anna Nicole Smith's family and 
friends converged on the late 
model's seaside mansion in the 
Bahamas on Monday. It's chaotic. 
Hundreds of people are waiting 
outside the mansion's security 
gate, and that's just the line 
for the paternity test.
0
Bill
2/18/2007 7:11:08 PM
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:51:12 -0500, "James" <jnipperxxx@nospamfdn.com>
wrote:

>Someone here asked me to explain again.  Well, I have done this twice, so
>(maybe)  this is the last time.  Read each word  (it  IS  in English) and
>you will fully understand.  I can't explain it any better, or in any other
>language:

So, where's the scam?
Again, that *you* don't get the rebate, while others do, doesn't
equate to a scam. 
>
>------------------
>
>
>>
>>
>>> It has been well-established here and in many other forums that rebate
>>> schemes are inherently scams.   There is  NO logical justification for a
>>> rebate scheme.
>>>
>>>
>>> IF a seller wants to sell a product at a lower price, the  seller will
>>> charge you the lower price at the check out counter.    IF he requires
>>> you
>>> to jump through silly hoops to get your "discount", then he is truly
>>> hoping
>>> that you won't jump the hoops and the price remains the regular price.
>>>
>>> Rebate schemes are a scam,  short and simple.
>>>
>>>
>>> --James--
>

-- 
Anna Nicole Smith's family and 
friends converged on the late 
model's seaside mansion in the 
Bahamas on Monday. It's chaotic. 
Hundreds of people are waiting 
outside the mansion's security 
gate, and that's just the line 
for the paternity test.
0
Bill
2/18/2007 7:13:17 PM
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:05:56 GMT, Arthur Entlich
<e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote:

>I have engaged in several hundred rebates over the last several years. 
>I have had dozen which, although accomplished exactly as required, have 
>required considerable intervention to be paid.  I should not have to 
>waste the time involved to pursue and collect these.  I should not have 
>to "loan" these companies my money for months on end awaiting payment 
>for months beyond the limits they set.
>
>Your implication is that people who do not receive their rebates without 
>a fight are incapable of properly following directions, or some other 
>logical sequence of events which will lead to proper rebates on time. 
>I'm sure, with the many convoluted requirements that mere mortal humans 
>may indeed make errors, but I've been at this game long enough to know 
>the pitfalls, and the problems I have encounter have nothing to do with 
>how the rebate was handled on my end.
>
>Call the reasons the rebates aren't fulfilled properly sloppy, call it 
>error prone, or call it fraud, the end result is the same, the company 
>does not fulfill its side of the contract, and if legislation is the 
>best manner to resolve this, then so be it.
>
>Art

There are already laws for this. More won't help.
If you really don't like rebates, your choice is simple: don't
participate. I have not yet been forced to participate in a rebate.

Consumers should *never* make a purchase based on a rebate.

-- 
Anna Nicole Smith's family and 
friends converged on the late 
model's seaside mansion in the 
Bahamas on Monday. It's chaotic. 
Hundreds of people are waiting 
outside the mansion's security 
gate, and that's just the line 
for the paternity test.
0
Bill
2/18/2007 7:15:39 PM
In article <era3of2m60g4002malch@nntp.sonic.net>, malch@malch.com 
says...
> In article <MPG.20422f2ae987fc41989fae@news.individual.net>, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> >In article <er8i452600g0002malch@nntp.sonic.net>, malch@malch.com 
> >says...
> >> In article <MPG.204175f62463f04c989fad@news.individual.net>, krw
> > <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >> Well, for starters, although Congress has the right to
> >> >> regulate inter-State trade, it has no right to regulate
> >> >> intra-State trade.
> >> >
> >> >If ay two of the buyer, seller, manufacturer, or rebate redemption 
> >> >companies are in different states it is interstate commerce.
> >> 
> >> Yes, in general terms but it's not quite as simple as that.
> >
> >Please do explain!
> 
> If it's not a manufacturer rebate, it doesn't matter
> what state the manufacturer resides.

If.  You still have at least three other players, not to mention 
that most of these deals are available in more than one state 
(interstate commerce).

> >> >> In addition, with some notable exceptions Congress has
> >> >> no right to regulate the selling price of a product
> >> >> or service. Discounts are a matter for the buyer and
> >> >> seller. Ditto for "delayed" discounts or rebates. Of
> >> >> course, if the seller fails to deliver on an advertised
> >> >> promise, they can be prosecuted for false advertising,
> >> >> maybe fraud and maybe more, depending on jurisdiction.
> >> >> The buyer (or party suffering the harm) can also take
> >> >> civil action for breach of contract and seek appropriate
> >> >> remedies.
> >> >
> >> >1) Not a constitutional issue.
> >> 
> >> Ummmmm, the question of what Congress is, and is not,
> >> permitted to regulate is absolutely a constitutional 
> >> issue. Congressional powers are defined by the 
> >> constitution and only by the constitution.
> >
> >I've already shot down your "interstate commerce" argument.  Care 
> >to try again?
> 
> You haven't shot down squat. You claimed Congressional
> powers to regulate such contracts was "not a constitutional
> issue" thus demonstrating virtually no understanding of the 
> US legal and governmental system.

I have.  Show me where the Constution says anything about rebates.  
You've so far just dug up the "Interstate Commerce" clause, which 
clearly doesn't apply (most of these deals are available in more 
than one state).
> 
> >> >2) No one is regulating the price, only the limits of contracts 
> >> 
> >> And the United States Supreme Court has held that the 
> >> "right to free contract" was implicit in the due process 
> >> clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> >
> >You cannot contract away your life or limb.
> 
> What does that have to do with it?

Proves that there are indeed limitations on contract law.

> Obviously, you disagree with the Supreme Court on the
> main issue. 

Obviously you haven't a clue.
 
> >> >(which the Fed does all the time).
> >> 
> >> Nonsense.
> >
> >It's not nonsense. There are already many retail marketing laws and 
> >regulations on the books.  Hell, mail-in rebates could even be 
> >covered under postal regulations.
> 
> The vast majority of consumer and retail laws apply at
> the state level. At no time have I questioned the right
> of individual states to regulate commerce in such ways.
> However, quite a few state laws of that kind have been 
> successfully challenged on constitutional grounds.

Oh, the FTC has no power over retail?  Get real!
 
> >> A Federal prohibition of mail-in rebates would never pass
> >> constitutional muster and it isn't going to happen period.
> >
> >You keep saying that but have nothing to back your opinion up with.
> 
> Just some Supreme Court decisions that you wave away with
> with a rather pathetic strawman.

You've shown nothing of the kind.  Lotsa words, repeated; no proof 
whatsoever.

-- 
  Keith
0
krw
2/18/2007 7:34:52 PM
Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> krw wrote:
>> Please do explain!
> 
> If it's not a manufacturer rebate, it doesn't matter
> what state the manufacturer resides.

Where have you been for the last several decades? The federal
government has a number of avenues to regulating this. Try
to mail in that rebate using only state services.


>> I've already shot down your "interstate commerce" argument.  Care 
>> to try again?
> 
> You haven't shot down squat. You claimed Congressional
> powers to regulate such contracts was "not a constitutional
> issue" thus demonstrating virtually no understanding of the 
> US legal and governmental system.

No, you lost the reasoning. Your musings on how they don't
have the power "to regulate the selling price of a product
or service..." was what krw called "not a constitutional
issue".


>> You cannot contract away your life or limb.
> 
> What does that have to do with it?
> 
> Obviously, you disagree with the Supreme Court on the main issue. 

Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.


>> It's not nonsense. There are already many retail marketing laws and 
>> regulations on the books.  Hell, mail-in rebates could even be 
>> covered under postal regulations.
> 
> The vast majority of consumer and retail laws apply at
> the state level. At no time have I questioned the right
> of individual states to regulate commerce in such ways.
> However, quite a few state laws of that kind have been 
> successfully challenged on constitutional grounds.
> 
>>> A Federal prohibition of mail-in rebates would never pass
>>> constitutional muster and it isn't going to happen period.
>> You keep saying that but have nothing to back your opinion up with.
> 
> Just some Supreme Court decisions that you wave away with
> with a rather pathetic strawman.

Of which you have cited... uh, maybe I missed some of your posts,
but in this discussion I count zero. You were right that the
Supreme Court found a "right to free contract", but that was
about a hundred years ago, and they reversed it about seventy
years ago.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York


-- 
--Bryan
0
Bryan
2/18/2007 7:35:33 PM
krw wrote:
>  malch@malch.com [Malcolm Hoar] says...
>> Whiners may want the government to protect them; that
>> doesn't mean the government should.
> 
> Agreed, though there is nothing in the constitution preventing such 
> abominations.

There's a kind of bad-faith contract at issue here. The vendor
has statistical analysis showing that most people will not in
fact collect on the rebate. They deliberately construct the
offer to make people think they will get a rebate that most
will not. Though the vendor may intend to fulfill the literal
terms of the agreements, the contract is still in bad faith,
constructed with the intent to deceive.


-- 
--Bryan
0
Bryan
2/18/2007 7:49:04 PM
At that price it is probably a piece of trash

TJ wrote:
> Mary wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't have a copier but have had a flatbed scanner for years. They 
>> are not
>> very expensive compared to other computer parts. Many people now have
>> all-in-one printers which include scanners and copiers. But if  you 
>> need to
>> make a special trip to make copies of what you need, then yes, its more
>> trouble, and may not be worth it unless you think the rebate amount 
>> is worth
>> it.
>>
> I've had a flatbed scanner for years, too - at least five. Bought it
> online from Office Max for $20 - after rebate. Got free shipping, too.
> And I *did* get the rebate, without hassle or delay beyond that stated
> on the form.
>
> TJ
>
>
0
measekite
2/18/2007 7:49:32 PM

TJ wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> jeremy wrote:
>>
>>> "The Real Bev" <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why would I go to CompUSA, say, just to tell the manager that I'm 
>>>> not going to buy the advertised special that brought me to the 
>>>> store just
>>>> because it offers a rebate which I should have known?
>>>>
>>>> I've had minimal problems with rebates.  I figure that the people who
>>>> are too dumb to fill in the forms properly are paying me to do it
>>>> correctly -- always nice when stupidity carries its own punishment.
>>>
>>> I would not go to a store if I knew they imposed rebates, but if I were
>>> in one, and I declined a purchase because of a required rebate, I'd 
>>> tell
>>> them why.
>>
>> I don't shop unless I know what I'm shopping for and how much it costs
>> before and/or after any rebate.  You just go to a store expecting to buy
>> something but not knowing what the price might be?
>>
>>> Your comment about people being "too dumb" to file forms properly is 
>>> insulting and inaccurate.  Many of us have experienced not getting
>>> rebates that were properly filed.
>>
>> Many people ARE too dumb to file forms properly.  You may not be.  I 
>> only know that I've had very little trouble with rebates over the 
>> decade(s) I've been dealing with them.  Yeah, they're a nuisance, but 
>> nobody else is going to pay me $50-$100/hour.
>>
>>> I choose not to go through the aggravation of sending in copies of
>>> receipts and proofs-of-purchase, just to get back money that I 
>>> should not
>>> have had to part with in the first place.  Perhaps you have more 
>>> time to
>>> fool with that nonsense.  Not I.
>>
>> There are definite advantages to being retired.  Perhaps taking 
>> advantage of rebates is one reason I was able to retire early.
>>
> I'm with you, Bev. I'm self-employed, and I don't get paid that kind 
> of money, either. I bought a second hard drive for my computer a 
> couple of years ago. 

One knows the value of their data
> CompUSA sold it to me on sale online for $80, 

I bought a new one for $100.00
> as I remember. I was offered a deal whereby if I sent them my name and 
> address (so they knew where to send the check - understandable), a 
> copy of my receipt (to prove I bought the drive during the offer, 
> entirely understandable), and a UPC code off the box (to prove I 
> bought the model the deal was offered on, again understandable), 
> they'd send me a check for $50 - after a six-week delay for 
> processing. So I spent 2-3 minutes filling out a form with my name and 
> address, and another 5 minutes or less cutting the UPC code from the 
> box, and maybe another minute making a copy of my receipt. Another 5 
> minutes addressing a 1-cent envelope, stuffing it, and affixing a 
> 37-cent stamp, and maybe another walking with it to my mailbox. 15 
> minutes of my leisure time and 38 cents-worth of materials for a $50 
> return. By my calculations, that works out to $198.48/hour - *for my 
> leisure time.* It cut into my TV-watching time a bit, but it was well 
> worth it, IMHO.

Not if your time is not worth anything.  But you know so then you go 
ahead and spend your make believe savings on refilling an ink cart.
>
> I didn't *have* to take the deal. I could have paid the full sale 
> price and watched that 15 minutes of TV, while ranting on the 
> newsgroups about the unfairness of rebate "scams." But if you ask me, 
> I'd have been pretty stupid to do so.
>
> I've only had one rebate refused, and another that I got only after 
> inquiring about its lateness. None of the other 100 or so have been a 
> problem. But then, I take the time to read the requirements before 
> making the purchase, to be sure I can follow them.
>
> TJ
>
0
measekite
2/18/2007 7:53:15 PM

Bryan Olson wrote:
> Barry Watzman wrote:
>> [...] So you are suggesting outlawing rebates.  Sorry, I can't support
>> that.  I would like to see some regulations passed covering rebate 
>> practices, but they need to be reasonable from the sides of both the 
>> manufacturer / merchant and the buyer. 
>
> I'd propose regulation of practices to the point that rebates would
> be impractical. First, every advertisement involving a rebate offer
> would have to show all the terms of the rebate at the same size as
> any mention of after-rebate price or savings.

Great Idea
>
>> There is nothing inherintly wrong, in principle, with mail-in rebates 
>> as long as they are honestly administered, as most (but not all) are.
>
> Rebates are inherently wrong. They offer the rebate with the intent
> of not paying it to many of the people who accept the offer. The
> fact that in most cases they can argue it is the customers fault does
> not excuse the bad-faith offer.

Absolutely
>
> The dishonesty in rebate fulfillment is mostly in the form of
> deliberate incompetence. 

Yep
> They profit from their own mistake of
> not paying your rebate, so they design thier system to makes mistakes.
> Think about it: how often do companies mess up and not *bill* you?

Absolutely
>
>
0
measekite
2/18/2007 7:55:14 PM
In article <6m1Ch.6361$MN.1502@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, Bryan Olson <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> wrote:
>Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>> krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>> If ay two of the buyer, seller, manufacturer, or rebate redemption 
>>> companies are in different states it is interstate commerce.
>> 
>> Yes, in general terms but it's not quite as simple as that.
>
>Don't be fooled by the complexity. There's no question that
>the vast majority of rebates are interstate commerce under
>the law. The FTC is already doing some regulation.

Yes, but the trade can easily change that if there's a
reason to do so.

>>> 1) Not a constitutional issue.
>> 
>> Ummmmm, the question of what Congress is, and is not,
>> permitted to regulate is absolutely a constitutional 
>> issue. Congressional powers are defined by the 
>> constitution and only by the constitution.
>
>But we've already established that regulating interstate
>commerce is one of the explicit powers of the federal
>government.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean Congress has the power to
pass any regulation it feels like. In fact, when it
"meddles" with inter-state commerce, it it frequently
overturned by the Supremes.

>>> 2) No one is regulating the price, only the limits of contracts 
>> 
>> And the United States Supreme Court has held that the 
>> "right to free contract" was implicit in the due process 
>> clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
>
>That was Lochner v. New York of 1905, but later decisions
>reversed it, notably West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937).

It reversed some of the specific findings but it absolutely 
did not reverse the more fundamental notion of "right to free 
contract".

>> Nonsense.
>> 
>> A Federal prohibition of mail-in rebates would never pass
>> constitutional muster and it isn't going to happen period.
>
>The happening is doubtful, but your constitutional
>arguments are silliness.

Not at all. Buyers and sellers have the right to enter
into contracts freely and without excessive government
interference. Obviously, the government can and does
place some restrictions -- the sale of drugs, guns and
other items is regulated. But Congress needs to show a
real public interest and the standard is very high. The
fact that some rebates are bordering on fraudulent just
isn't going to cut it. In this thread, we've seen many
people state that rebates "work for them".

>A full prohibition is not usually how these things are done.

Agreed. Barriers could be errected to make rebate schemes
less attractive. However, even that would be quite tricky
at the Federal level. The States have a lot more options.

>Hmmm... how about a tax: If you sell three million units
>during a rebate period and pay one million rebates, you owe
>the government two million times the rebate amount, plus all
>the interest earned by holding the money.

Be careful what you wish for. That would rapidly translate
into a national sales tax.

Restrictions on the advertising of rebates really belong
under State jurisdiction, not Federal.

It might be possible to create some disincentives 
through the regulations dealing with the accounting
of such transactions. But I suspect that will be
easily swept aside by some fierce lobbying by the
corporate interests.

Personally, I think rebates suck. But the market can
and most likely will deal with it a lot more effectively
than the Federal Government. The Feds can help and indeed
thay have done so with the ruling that "he who advertises
the rebate can be held liable for paying it". i.e. if
the manufacturer fails to honor a (manufacturer's) rebate
the retailer can be forced to pay if they advertised the
rebate at the point of sale.


-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
2/18/2007 7:58:25 PM
"Bryan Olson" <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> wrote in message 
news:P42Ch.6365$MN.2507@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> krw wrote:
>>  malch@malch.com [Malcolm Hoar] says...
>>> Whiners may want the government to protect them; that
>>> doesn't mean the government should.
>>
>> Agreed, though there is nothing in the constitution preventing such 
>> abominations.
>
> There's a kind of bad-faith contract at issue here. The vendor
> has statistical analysis showing that most people will not in
> fact collect on the rebate. They deliberately construct the
> offer to make people think they will get a rebate that most
> will not. Though the vendor may intend to fulfill the literal
> terms of the agreements, the contract is still in bad faith,
> constructed with the intent to deceive.
>
>
> -- 
> --Bryan

I'm sorry, but I don't see the 'bad-faith contract' angle. If statistics 
show that most people won't collect, that could be for a variety of reasons 
including (but not limited to) non-participation.

What is 'bad-faith' about "you have until this date to send in your receipt 
along with the UPC code and we'll send you a check"? 


0
john
2/18/2007 8:20:41 PM
In article <MPG.204274691c0fb97989fb5@news.individual.net>, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>> If it's not a manufacturer rebate, it doesn't matter
>> what state the manufacturer resides.
>
>If.  You still have at least three other players, not to mention 
>that most of these deals are available in more than one state 
>(interstate commerce).

Availability of rebates in multiple states does not in itself
create interstate commerce.

>> You haven't shot down squat. You claimed Congressional
>> powers to regulate such contracts was "not a constitutional
>> issue" thus demonstrating virtually no understanding of the 
>> US legal and governmental system.
>
>I have.  Show me where the Constution says anything about rebates.  

It doesn't and everyone already knows that.

It does place prohibitions on "Laws impairing the Obligation
of Contracts".

>You've so far just dug up the "Interstate Commerce" clause, which 
>clearly doesn't apply (most of these deals are available in more 
>than one state).
>> 
>> >> >2) No one is regulating the price, only the limits of contracts 
>> >> 
>> >> And the United States Supreme Court has held that the 
>> >> "right to free contract" was implicit in the due process 
>> >> clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
>> >
>> >You cannot contract away your life or limb.
>> 
>> What does that have to do with it?
>
>Proves that there are indeed limitations on contract law.

Sure, that didn't need proving. There are limitations on
free speach too but that doesn't mean Congress can enact any
limitation it feels like.

>> The vast majority of consumer and retail laws apply at
>> the state level. At no time have I questioned the right
>> of individual states to regulate commerce in such ways.
>> However, quite a few state laws of that kind have been 
>> successfully challenged on constitutional grounds.
>
>Oh, the FTC has no power over retail?  Get real!

Read what I wrote. It is accurate.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
2/18/2007 8:27:31 PM
There is no bad faith as long as everyone CAN get the rebate and the 
rebate is fulfilled according to the terms presented in the rebate offer.

And there is no deception, either.


Bryan Olson wrote:
> krw wrote:
>>  malch@malch.com [Malcolm Hoar] says...
>>> Whiners may want the government to protect them; that
>>> doesn't mean the government should.
>>
>> Agreed, though there is nothing in the constitution preventing such 
>> abominations.
> 
> There's a kind of bad-faith contract at issue here. The vendor
> has statistical analysis showing that most people will not in
> fact collect on the rebate. They deliberately construct the
> offer to make people think they will get a rebate that most
> will not. Though the vendor may intend to fulfill the literal
> terms of the agreements, the contract is still in bad faith,
> constructed with the intent to deceive.
> 
> 
0
Barry
2/18/2007 8:28:38 PM
In article <9U1Ch.15521$O02.8827@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, Bryan Olson <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> wrote:
>Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>> krw wrote:
>>> Please do explain!
>> 
>> If it's not a manufacturer rebate, it doesn't matter
>> what state the manufacturer resides.
>
>Where have you been for the last several decades? The federal
>government has a number of avenues to regulating this. Try
>to mail in that rebate using only state services.

Just because the rebate is submitted and fulfilled via the
USPS does not mean the Feds can regulate every aspect of the
contents of those letters.

>>> I've already shot down your "interstate commerce" argument.  Care 
>>> to try again?
>> 
>> You haven't shot down squat. You claimed Congressional
>> powers to regulate such contracts was "not a constitutional
>> issue" thus demonstrating virtually no understanding of the 
>> US legal and governmental system.
>
>No, you lost the reasoning. Your musings on how they don't
>have the power "to regulate the selling price of a product
>or service..." was what krw called "not a constitutional
>issue".

But it is, without doubt, a constitutional issue.

Besides mail-in rebates are effectivly nothing more than
a price issue involving a deferred discount.

>Of which you have cited... uh, maybe I missed some of your posts,
>but in this discussion I count zero. You were right that the
>Supreme Court found a "right to free contract", but that was
>about a hundred years ago, and they reversed it about seventy
>years ago.
>
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York

They reversed some specifics of that case and even granted
more power to regulate. But the more fundamental right to
free contract remains to this day.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
2/18/2007 8:34:28 PM
john cuthbertson wrote:
> "Bryan Olson" <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> wrote in message 
> news:P42Ch.6365$MN.2507@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>> krw wrote:
>>>  malch@malch.com [Malcolm Hoar] says...
>>>> Whiners may want the government to protect them; that
>>>> doesn't mean the government should.
>>> Agreed, though there is nothing in the constitution preventing such 
>>> abominations.

>> There's a kind of bad-faith contract at issue here. The vendor
>> has statistical analysis showing that most people will not in
>> fact collect on the rebate. They deliberately construct the
>> offer to make people think they will get a rebate that most
>> will not. Though the vendor may intend to fulfill the literal
>> terms of the agreements, the contract is still in bad faith,
>> constructed with the intent to deceive.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't see the 'bad-faith contract' angle. If statistics 
> show that most people won't collect, that could be for a variety of reasons 
> including (but not limited to) non-participation.

If the customers had no intent to particpate in the rebate, then
there is no plausible reason why rebates would increase sales,
and no reason for vendors to offer them. Rebates work *because*
they deceive, and the vendors know it.

> What is 'bad-faith' about "you have until this date to send in your
> receipt along with the UPC code and we'll send you a check"? 

Look at the ads: what they state is a fictitious final price, not
the terms of the contract. Even if the ads fully disclosed the deal,
what is bad faith is that the offer is deliberately written so that
many more people will think they will collect on the rebate than
actually will.


-- 
--Bryan
0
Bryan
2/18/2007 8:40:40 PM
Malcolm Hoar had written:

||| Just some Supreme Court decisions that you wave away with
||| with a rather pathetic strawman.

Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> Bryan Olson  wrote:
>> Of which you have cited... uh, maybe I missed some of your posts,
>> but in this discussion I count zero. You were right that the
>> Supreme Court found a "right to free contract", but that was
>> about a hundred years ago, and they reversed it about seventy
>> years ago.
>>
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York
> 
> They reversed some specifics of that case and even granted
> more power to regulate. But the more fundamental right to
> free contract remains to this day.

Because you say so? I still count you as citing zero of these
"Supreme Court decisions that you wave away"? What standing
decisions do you think stop the federal government for
abolishing mail-in rebates as we know them?


-- 
--Bryan

0
Bryan
2/18/2007 8:47:00 PM
Barry Watzman wrote:
> There is no bad faith as long as everyone CAN get the rebate and the 
> rebate is fulfilled according to the terms presented in the rebate offer.
> 
> And there is no deception, either.

Nonsense. Rebate offers only work for the vendors because they fool
many people into thinking they'll collect when they will not. The
offer is deliberately written and presented to do just that.


-- 
--Bryan
0
Bryan
2/18/2007 8:50:19 PM
a scam is a scam is a scam is a scam......................


0
James
2/18/2007 9:13:58 PM
measekite wrote:
> TJ wrote:
>>
>> I've had a flatbed scanner for years, too - at least five. Bought it
>> online from Office Max for $20 - after rebate. Got free shipping, too.
>> And I *did* get the rebate, without hassle or delay beyond that stated
>> on the form.
>>
>> TJ
 >
 > At that price it is probably a piece of trash

Obviously not since it's still working after 5 years. You don't need a 
really high resolution scanner if all you're using it for is scanning 
documents.

Bill
0
Bill
2/18/2007 9:23:15 PM
Bill wrote:
> measekite wrote:
>> TJ wrote:
>>>
>>> I've had a flatbed scanner for years, too - at least five. Bought it
>>> online from Office Max for $20 - after rebate. Got free shipping, too.
>>> And I *did* get the rebate, without hassle or delay beyond that stated
>>> on the form.
>>>
>>> TJ
>  >
>  > At that price it is probably a piece of trash
> 
> Obviously not since it's still working after 5 years. You don't need a 
> really high resolution scanner if all you're using it for is scanning 
> documents.
> 
> Bill

I'm not concerned with Measekite's opinion. I've dealt with him before 
in the printer newsgroup, heard everything he has to say, ad nauseum. 
Google his name, if you wish to know more. IMHO, however, it wouldn't be 
worth the bandwidth.

My scanner is a Visioneer OneTouch 7600 USB. It's a letter/A4 scanner, 
with a native resolution of 600 dpi. The software will interpolate to 
1200 dpi using Windows 98. It does still work just fine, though I don't 
use it much any more. Mandriva Linux doesn't support it, or any of the 
scanners that use the A3 chipset. That is the only reason I don't use it 
much anymore. I wish it *was* supported. Measekite will no doubt 
consider it a piece of junk because it doesn't do slides or something. 
So what? That's not what I bought it for.

I also have the scanner on an HP PSC 2110 that I've had now for three 
years. That IS supported by Linux, through drivers supplied by HP. Its 
native resolution is also 600 dpi. I see little difference in the output 
of the two scanners, so I use the HP because I use Linux far more than 
Windows.

TJ

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
TJ
2/18/2007 10:02:19 PM
measekite wrote:
> 
> 
> TJ wrote:
>
>> I'm with you, Bev. I'm self-employed, and I don't get paid that kind 
>> of money, either. I bought a second hard drive for my computer a 
>> couple of years ago. 
> 
> One knows the value of their data
>> CompUSA sold it to me on sale online for $80, 
> 
> I bought a new one for $100.00

Goody for you. This one was new, too. Rebates aren't offered on used 
merchandise.

>> as I remember. I was offered a deal whereby if I sent them my name and 
>> address (so they knew where to send the check - understandable), a 
>> copy of my receipt (to prove I bought the drive during the offer, 
>> entirely understandable), and a UPC code off the box (to prove I 
>> bought the model the deal was offered on, again understandable), 
>> they'd send me a check for $50 - after a six-week delay for 
>> processing. So I spent 2-3 minutes filling out a form with my name and 
>> address, and another 5 minutes or less cutting the UPC code from the 
>> box, and maybe another minute making a copy of my receipt. Another 5 
>> minutes addressing a 1-cent envelope, stuffing it, and affixing a 
>> 37-cent stamp, and maybe another walking with it to my mailbox. 15 
>> minutes of my leisure time and 38 cents-worth of materials for a $50 
>> return. By my calculations, that works out to $198.48/hour - *for my 
>> leisure time.* It cut into my TV-watching time a bit, but it was well 
>> worth it, IMHO.
> 
> Not if your time is not worth anything.  But you know so then you go 
> ahead and spend your make believe savings on refilling an ink cart.

I don't understand that statement. It *wasn't* worth $200 if my time 
isn't worth anything, or the $200 wasn't well worth it if my time isn't 
worth anything? It would seem to me that if I consider my time to be 
worth nothing normally, $200/hour would be even *more* valuable to me.

If someone is paying you over $200/hour during your leisure time to 
watch TV, more power to you. It explains a lot about your posts. It's 
not happening with me, I can tell you that. I work hard for every dollar 
I get. If I can get $50 for 15 minutes of little effort, and it's legal, 
I'm gonna take advantage of it. Remember what I said:

>>
>> I didn't *have* to take the deal. I could have paid the full sale 
>> price and watched that 15 minutes of TV, while ranting on the 
>> newsgroups about the unfairness of rebate "scams." But if you ask me, 
>> I'd have been pretty stupid to do so.
>>

TJ

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
TJ
2/18/2007 10:15:03 PM
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:50:26 -0500, Barry Watzman
<WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:

>Bullshit.
>
>Like the fact that there are accidents occuring are enough to warrant 
>doing away with automobiles or airplanes.
>
>Crime occurs in all walks of life.  We don't close down the stock 
>markets because there have been instances of securities fraud.  Or stop 
>selling real estate because of various real estate scams (or stop 
>building homes because a few homebuilders are unscrupulous, or even 
>fraudulent).
>
>Your logic makes no sense at all.
>
>

     Really?  In the state of Maryland, people were being cheated out
of their homes over something called "ground rent".  It affected maybe
..5% of the homeowners.  The state just passed legislation to ban
ground rents.
     Don't give me this "bullshit" either.  You must work in sales or
marketing, since every comment you made defends scams, frauds and
anything else that benefits companies.
     Your analogy to cars and airplanes is what's bullshit.  There is
no personal injury involved with scams, just financial loss.  Anything
that is deemed dangerous with cars and planes IS regulated (seatbelts.
airbags, impact absorbing steering columns, just to name a few.)
     Get your head out of your rear end Barry, and look at the numbers
being posted in here. Just ask how many people have been cheated on
rebates, or how many people want rebates to be banned, and you'll get
your answer.  The numbers are epidemic, and because of such, rebates
need to be eliminated.

Talker
     
>
>Talker wrote:
>
>> 
>>      Sorry Barry, but the fact that there is fraud occuring is enough
>> to warrant outlawing rebates.  Heck, if 1/10 of one percent of the
>> population is being cheated in some way, the goverment steps in and
>> bans or outlaws a product or service.  With 95% of the population
>> being cheated at least once on a rebate, then the government NEEDS to
>> step in and outlaw them.
>>      There is no logical reason from a consumers standpoint to have
>> rebates.  Rebates favor the company, not the consumer.  My time is
>> valuable and I don't want to waste it filling out rebate forms for
>> rebates that I may or may not receive.
>>      I guess you think it would be okay if every manufacturer
>> instituted rebates, right?  Okay, so if they did, then I guess you
>> wouldn't mind going to the food store any paying $200 for groceries,
>> or $150 after sending in 45 rebates....one for each product that you
>> bought, right?  How long would it take you to fill out and send in all
>> 45 rebates....not to mention the postage costs?  
>>      Add to that, the fact that if you didn't receive 20 of the
>> rebates, then I guess you'd have to call each company to ask for the
>> rebate, like someone mentioned, to see why you didn't get it.  If it's
>> like other rebates, they ALL want the original receipt, and having
>> only one for the entire grocery list, I guess they'd be okay to refuse
>> to give you the rebate.  They know you won't be able to give each of
>> them the original receipt, so they can refuse your rebate
>> submission.....THAT'S fraud, plain and simple.
>>      Everywhere you shop, they offer rebates, so it's not uncommon to
>> file 3 or 4 rebates a week, so that after three months, (the normal
>> waiting period to receive a rebate), you'd have 30-40 rebates that you
>> are waiting for.  How ridiculous is that?
>>      Outlaw rebates and bring back the good old fashioned sale.
>> THAT'S what consumers want!
>> 
>> Talker

0
Talker
2/18/2007 10:20:01 PM
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:07:24 -0800, "john cuthbertson"
<cuthb@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message 
>news:45d778a6$0$17381$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> Like the fact that there are accidents occuring are enough to warrant 
>> doing away with automobiles or airplanes.
>>
>> Crime occurs in all walks of life.  We don't close down the stock markets 
>> because there have been instances of securities fraud.  Or stop selling 
>> real estate because of various real estate scams (or stop building homes 
>> because a few homebuilders are unscrupulous, or even fraudulent).
>>
>> Your logic makes no sense at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> Talker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>      Sorry Barry, but the fact that there is fraud occuring is enough
>>> to warrant outlawing rebates.  Heck, if 1/10 of one percent of the
>>> population is being cheated in some way, the goverment steps in and
>>> bans or outlaws a product or service.  With 95% of the population
>>> being cheated at least once on a rebate, then the government NEEDS to
>>> step in and outlaw them.
>>>      There is no logical reason from a consumers standpoint to have
>>> rebates.  Rebates favor the company, not the consumer.  My time is
>>> valuable and I don't want to waste it filling out rebate forms for
>>> rebates that I may or may not receive.
>>>      I guess you think it would be okay if every manufacturer
>>> instituted rebates, right?  Okay, so if they did, then I guess you
>>> wouldn't mind going to the food store any paying $200 for groceries,
>>> or $150 after sending in 45 rebates....one for each product that you
>>> bought, right?  How long would it take you to fill out and send in all
>>> 45 rebates....not to mention the postage costs?  Add to that, the fact 
>>> that if you didn't receive 20 of the
>>> rebates, then I guess you'd have to call each company to ask for the
>>> rebate, like someone mentioned, to see why you didn't get it.  If it's
>>> like other rebates, they ALL want the original receipt, and having
>>> only one for the entire grocery list, I guess they'd be okay to refuse
>>> to give you the rebate.  They know you won't be able to give each of
>>> them the original receipt, so they can refuse your rebate
>>> submission.....THAT'S fraud, plain and simple.
>>>      Everywhere you shop, they offer rebates, so it's not uncommon to
>>> file 3 or 4 rebates a week, so that after three months, (the normal
>>> waiting period to receive a rebate), you'd have 30-40 rebates that you
>>> are waiting for.  How ridiculous is that?
>>>      Outlaw rebates and bring back the good old fashioned sale.
>>> THAT'S what consumers want!
>>>
>>> Talker
>
>Sales allow the store to create traffic in their retail location - rebates 
>allow manufacturers to create traffic to their specific product...stores 
>take the loss on sale items in hopes that you'll but other items at the 
>regular price while you're there - manufacturers take the loss on rebate 
>items and don't care where you buy the item.
>
>As far as rebates being scams or fraud - get over it. If you can't follow 
>the directions to redeem the item, that's your fault. Most retailers will 
>give you another receipt specifically for the rebate, so if you're buying 
>two or three items with rebate offers, they'll give you the appropriate 
>number of receipts. If you can't figure out what the UPC code is, ask 
>someone - I'm sure they can help you out.
>
>It's really not that difficult. So what if you have to make a phone call to 
>track the rebate. Is your life that busy that you can't manage that task? If 
>that's the case, don't apply for the rebate in the first place and save 
>yourself the aggravation. 
>

     Your whole first paragraph is a crock.  What's the difference if
the manufacturer puts their product on sale or offers you a rebate?
The store isn't losing money, the manufacturer is.  Sure, in some
cases the sale is sponsered by the store, but it's mostly the
manufacturers offering the sale.  Every time I've asked a store about
why a product is on sale now, but not last week, they tell me it's
because the manufacturer decided to put it on sale, not the store, so
your whole first paragraph is off base.  
     Didn't you read another poster's comments on rebate receipts?  I
also had that problem.  You buy three items in one store, and you get
one receipt.  Some stores will give you a rebate receipt for each
item, but the rebate offer states ..."Only the original receipt..."
and they refuse to accept the rebate receipt.  That's a scam.
     You ask about making "A" phone call?  What is that, one phone
call for each item?  Why should any consumer have to waste their time
calling any manufacturer over a rebate?  How long did it take you to
actually take to someone about the rebate, 5 minutes?...10
minutes....30 minutes?  And you call this acceptable?
     Did you parents have to do that when you were growing up? Oh no,
that's right they didn't have rebates they had "Sales"!  Have you ever
heard of a sale?  Rebates by their very nature are scams.  The company
hopes that you won't send them in (the last line in your post)...you
won't include the required documents....you won't get it in before it
expires.....it gets "lost" in the mail, whatever.  The whole idea is
to not pay you the rebate.
     Ask anyone which they perfer, rebates or sales, and you won't
find ONE person who would select a rebate over a sale.
     How about you....would you prefer to jump through the hoops to
get your rebates, or would you rather just have the item be on sale?

Talker
0
Talker
2/18/2007 10:37:56 PM
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 23:50:28 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Talker wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:47:06 -0500, Barry Watzman
>> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> An "instant rebate" is not a rebate, it's a price reduction, or a sale 
>>> price.  So you are suggesting outlawing rebates.  Sorry, I can't support 
>>> that.  I would like to see some regulations passed covering rebate 
>>> practices, but they need to be reasonable from the sides of both the 
>>> manufacturer / merchant and the buyer.  There is nothing inherintly 
>>> wrong, in principle, with mail-in rebates as long as they are honestly 
>>> administered, as most (but not all) are.
>>>
>>>
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>     
>>>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the 
>>>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already 
>>>> received) form the return amount.
>>>>
>>>>       
>>
>>      Sorry Barry, but the fact that there is fraud occuring is enough
>> to warrant outlawing rebates.  Heck, if 1/10 of one percent of the
>> population is being cheated in some way, the goverment steps in and
>> bans or outlaws a product or service.  With 95% of the population
>> being cheated at least once on a rebate, then the government NEEDS to
>> step in and outlaw them.
>>      There is no logical reason from a consumers standpoint to have
>> rebates.  Rebates favor the company, not the consumer.  My time is
>> valuable and I don't want to waste it filling out rebate forms for
>> rebates that I may or may not receive.
>>      I guess you think it would be okay if every manufacturer
>> instituted rebates, right?  Okay, so if they did, then I guess you
>> wouldn't mind going to the food store any paying $200 for groceries,
>> or $150 after sending in 45 rebates....one for each product that you
>> bought, right?  How long would it take you to fill out and send in all
>> 45 rebates....not to mention the postage costs?
>
>Do you really know what you are saying?
>
>Just tell the grocer to ring each item up separately and then you have 
>45 original receipts.  Better yet buy 100,000 items each rung up 
>separately and then get 100,000 receipts.  Then hire someone to do the 
>rebates and phone call.  You can outsource the work to India and get a 
>better price. 
>>   
>>     
     I see so you don't mind hiring someone to apply for rebates that
could very easily have been avoided if they had placed the items on
sale instead, right?  How much are you willing to spend for this
service?  You don't mind spending hour after hour cutting out this
label, filling out that form, etc. for each rebate that you have.  I
suppose if you had 100,000 forms, that wouldn't bother you either,
right?
     I don't think you know what you are saying....

Talker
0
Talker
2/18/2007 10:42:39 PM
     I agree that this topic has been around a bit too long, so I have
an idea.  It probably won't appease both sides on this issue, but I
think it will offer some insight into the dislike for rebates.
     Take a vote, just for the heck of it.  Would you rather have
rebates, or have the item placed on sale?
     Just reply Sale or Rebate.

Talker
0
Talker
2/18/2007 11:04:34 PM
TJ (TJ@invalid.invalid) writes:
> Mary wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I don't have a copier but have had a flatbed scanner for years. They are not
>> very expensive compared to other computer parts. Many people now have
>> all-in-one printers which include scanners and copiers. But if  you need to
>> make a special trip to make copies of what you need, then yes, its more
>> trouble, and may not be worth it unless you think the rebate amount is worth
>> it.
>> 
> I've had a flatbed scanner for years, too - at least five. Bought it
> online from Office Max for $20 - after rebate. Got free shipping, too.
> And I *did* get the rebate, without hassle or delay beyond that stated
> on the form.
> 
And even today, I've yet to see a scanner for $20, unless it's a used
scanner at a garage sale.

Which says quite a bit about rebates.

  Michael

0
et472
2/18/2007 11:15:07 PM
In article <8X2Ch.15541$O02.14711@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, Bryan Olson <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> wrote:
>Malcolm Hoar had written:
>
>||| Just some Supreme Court decisions that you wave away with
>||| with a rather pathetic strawman.
>
>Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>> Bryan Olson  wrote:
>>> Of which you have cited... uh, maybe I missed some of your posts,
>>> but in this discussion I count zero. You were right that the
>>> Supreme Court found a "right to free contract", but that was
>>> about a hundred years ago, and they reversed it about seventy
>>> years ago.
>>>
>>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York
>> 
>> They reversed some specifics of that case and even granted
>> more power to regulate. But the more fundamental right to
>> free contract remains to this day.
>
>Because you say so? I still count you as citing zero of these
>"Supreme Court decisions that you wave away"? What standing
>decisions do you think stop the federal government for
>abolishing mail-in rebates as we know them?

The Supreme Court has upheld the notion of contractual freedon
countless times. Similarly, it has ruled against interference
in commerce except where there's a very substantial justification
for an exception. These notions should come as no suprise to
anyone familiar with a free society.

The question is whether there are sufficent grounds to erode
those freedoms in the case of rebates. In my view, it doesn't
come close. In fact, it's so far of the mark, I doubt Congress
would even try to waste everyone's time passing such a measure.

Can you think of a Federal Law that prohibits something like
mail-in rebates? I can't. There have been some laws passed to
deal with some other deceptive practices but they've mainly
regulated suitable disclosures to help ensure that consumers
can make _informed_ choices.

Rebate scams that intentionally seek to mislead should be
stamped on. But that's a task for the executive branch
using the existing fraud and other statutes. Similarly
for those schemes that unreasonably frustrate the consumer
in obtaining the rebate.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
2/18/2007 11:37:41 PM
Bill wrote:
> measekite wrote:
> 
>> TJ wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I've had a flatbed scanner for years, too - at least five. Bought it
>>> online from Office Max for $20 - after rebate. Got free shipping, too.
>>> And I *did* get the rebate, without hassle or delay beyond that stated
>>> on the form.
>>>
>>> TJ
> 
>  >
>  > At that price it is probably a piece of trash
> 
> Obviously not since it's still working after 5 years. You don't need a 
> really high resolution scanner if all you're using it for is scanning 
> documents.
> 
> Bill

Bill, meashershithead would buy a bag of shit if it were priced high 
enough! :-)
Frank
0
Frank
2/19/2007 12:16:23 AM

0
James
2/19/2007 12:34:52 AM
Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> Malcolm Hoar had written:
>>> They reversed some specifics of that case and even granted
>>> more power to regulate. But the more fundamental right to
>>> free contract remains to this day.

>> Because you say so? I still count you as citing zero of these
>> "Supreme Court decisions that you wave away"? What standing
>> decisions do you think stop the federal government for
>> abolishing mail-in rebates as we know them?
> 
> The Supreme Court has upheld the notion of contractual freedon
> countless times. 

And it has upheld laws that restrict the terms of contracts many
times. You brought Supreme Court decisions here and accused another
of waving them off. What decisions?

> Similarly, it has ruled against interference
> in commerce except where there's a very substantial justification
> for an exception. These notions should come as no suprise to
> anyone familiar with a free society.
> 
> The question is whether there are sufficent grounds to erode
> those freedoms in the case of rebates. In my view, it doesn't
> come close. In fact, it's so far of the mark, I doubt Congress
> would even try to waste everyone's time passing such a measure.

I ask for the Supreme Court decisions you mean, and you respond
with your own doubts.


> Can you think of a Federal Law that prohibits something like
> mail-in rebates? I can't.

Can you think of a case that struck down a law prohibiting
something like mail-in rebates?

> There have been some laws passed to
> deal with some other deceptive practices but they've mainly
> regulated suitable disclosures to help ensure that consumers
> can make _informed_ choices.

And there are many laws passed that go beyond informing and
mandate certain terms. Look at 15 USC Section 1601. There are
certainly many provisions about disclosure, but there are also
mandated terms. The issuer of a credit card may want offer
just a 30 day period for challenging invalid charges, but that
is not legal.


> Rebate scams that intentionally seek to mislead should be
> stamped on. But that's a task for the executive branch
> using the existing fraud and other statutes. Similarly
> for those schemes that unreasonably frustrate the consumer
> in obtaining the rebate.

Specification of certain terms that are deceptive or
unreasonably frustrating is a fine issue for the legislator
or regulatory bodies to which the legislator delegates the
authority.


-- 
--Bryan

0
Bryan
2/19/2007 12:57:23 AM
Talker wrote:

>      I don't think you know what you are saying....
> 
> Talker

You sure a hell got that one right!
Meashershithead is a known idiot and a real loser.
Kill file his stuck-on-stupid and be done with him.
Frank
0
Frank
2/19/2007 2:36:17 AM
And a non-scam is a non-scam is a non-scam


James wrote:
> a scam is a scam is a scam is a scam......................
> 
> 
0
Barry
2/19/2007 2:44:13 AM
Re: "Get your head out of your rear end Barry, and look at the numbers 
being posted in here."

Forget the "numbers being posted here", I do over 200 rebates per year, 
and that's down from probably twice that a few years ago.  I benefit 
greatly from rebates because I get mine.  If you are too lazy, careless 
or stupid to properly get yours, that's not my problem.  But don't tell 
me that deals that work exactly as advertised more than 97% of the time 
are a scam.  That is just bullshit.
0
Barry
2/19/2007 2:46:48 AM
Barry Watzman wrote:
> And a non-scam is a non-scam is a non-scam
> 
> 
> James wrote:
>> a scam is a scam is a scam is a scam......................
>>
>>
And a rose by any other name...

TJ

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
TJ
2/19/2007 3:52:11 AM
"TJ" <TJ@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:45d87b49$0$16292$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Mary wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't have a copier but have had a flatbed scanner for years. They are
not
> > very expensive compared to other computer parts. Many people now have
> > all-in-one printers which include scanners and copiers. But if  you need
to
> > make a special trip to make copies of what you need, then yes, its more
> > trouble, and may not be worth it unless you think the rebate amount is
worth
> > it.
> >
> I've had a flatbed scanner for years, too - at least five. Bought it
> online from Office Max for $20 - after rebate. Got free shipping, too.
> And I *did* get the rebate, without hassle or delay beyond that stated
> on the form.

I paid  a lot more for my scanner which I bought about 4-5 years ago. You
got a good deal. I'm in Canada. We don't get as many rebates here as US
people get, or as good prices. I paid $70.00 US (so you can compare) for my
scanner which is a Canon.

Mary


-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
Mary
2/19/2007 4:01:08 AM
"TJ" <TJ@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:45d87b49$0$16292$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Mary wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't have a copier but have had a flatbed scanner for years. They are
not
> > very expensive compared to other computer parts. Many people now have
> > all-in-one printers which include scanners and copiers. But if  you need
to
> > make a special trip to make copies of what you need, then yes, its more
> > trouble, and may not be worth it unless you think the rebate amount is
worth
> > it.
> >
> I've had a flatbed scanner for years, too - at least five. Bought it
> online from Office Max for $20 - after rebate. Got free shipping, too.
> And I *did* get the rebate, without hassle or delay beyond that stated
> on the form.

What make is the scanner? It must be ok if it still works.

Mary


-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
Mary
2/19/2007 4:02:42 AM
>  If the rebate
> house promises a vendor only xx% will be fulfilled, often
> they have to eat anything above that amount.

Are you just guessing about a contract between a rebate house and a
vendor or do you have some particular knowledge? I don't know how such
arrangements work, myself.

--
   (||)   Nehmo   (||)



0
Nehmo
2/19/2007 4:19:41 AM
In article <TB6Ch.29314$yC5.11425@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, Bryan Olson 
<fakeaddress@nowhere.org> wrote:
>Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>> Bryan Olson wrote:
>>> Malcolm Hoar had written:
>>>> They reversed some specifics of that case and even granted
>>>> more power to regulate. But the more fundamental right to
>>>> free contract remains to this day.
>
>>> Because you say so? I still count you as citing zero of these
>>> "Supreme Court decisions that you wave away"? What standing
>>> decisions do you think stop the federal government for
>>> abolishing mail-in rebates as we know them?
>> 
>> The Supreme Court has upheld the notion of contractual freedon
>> countless times. 
>
>And it has upheld laws that restrict the terms of contracts many
>times. 

Yes and the Court has acknowledged the liberty of contract even
in those cases where it found reasonable grounds for imposing
some regulation.

>You brought Supreme Court decisions here and accused another
>of waving them off. 

Not exactly. I said a Federal prohibition of mail-in rebates
would be unconstitutional.

>What decisions?

In NEBBIA v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502 (1934) the
Court wrote:

"Under our form of government the use of property and the making of 
contracts are normally matters of private and not of public concern. 
The general rule is that both shall be free of governmental interference."

>> Can you think of a Federal Law that prohibits something like
>> mail-in rebates? I can't.
>
>Can you think of a case that struck down a law prohibiting
>something like mail-in rebates?

Of course not. I have already stated that I can't think of a 
Federal law prohibiting something like mail-in rebates. It 
follows that I can't think of one that was struck down.

Apparently, you can't think of any other similar law being
passed either. You might want to think about why nobody is
coming up with an example of a law on which the prohibition of
rebates might be modelled. Hint: it might have something to
do with the constitution.

Once again, can you think of a Federal law that is somewhat
similar to a prohibition of mail-in rebates?

>> There have been some laws passed to
>> deal with some other deceptive practices but they've mainly
>> regulated suitable disclosures to help ensure that consumers
>> can make _informed_ choices.
>
>And there are many laws passed that go beyond informing and
>mandate certain terms. Look at 15 USC Section 1601. There are
>certainly many provisions about disclosure, but there are also
>mandated terms. The issuer of a credit card may want offer
>just a 30 day period for challenging invalid charges, but that
>is not legal.

Sure. I haven't disputed the power of Congress to make some
limited regulations. They have done so in the case of credit
cards, other credit agreements, debt collection and more.

However, last time I checked, the credit card and debt
collection industries were doing very nicely thank you.
Congress enacted a few regulations, but they did not
prohibit credit cards or debt collection activities.
I say they won't and can't.

The FTC has published a few rules and guidelines regarding
mail-in rebates too. They have not yet even attempted to
abolish them. I say they won't and can't.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
2/19/2007 5:19:20 AM
Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> You brought Supreme Court decisions here and accused another
>> of waving them off. 
> 
> Not exactly. 

You wrote, "Just some Supreme Court decisions that you wave
away with with a rather pathetic strawman"  Exactly.

> I said a Federal prohibition of mail-in rebates
> would be unconstitutional.
> 
>> What decisions?
> 
> In NEBBIA v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502 (1934) the
> Court wrote:
> 
> "Under our form of government the use of property and the making of 
> contracts are normally matters of private and not of public concern. 
> The general rule is that both shall be free of governmental interference."

You stopped reading too soon:

   Under our form of government the use of property and the
   making of contracts are normally matters of private and not
   of public concern. The general rule is that both shall be
   free of governmental interference. But neither property
   rights nor contract rights are absolute; for government
   cannot exist if the citizen may at will use his property to
   the detriment of his fellows, or exercise his freedom of
   contract to work them harm. Equally fundamental with the
   private right is that of the public to regulate it in the
   common interest.

And they laid out the criteria for upholding or rejecting a law:

   The Fifth Amendment, in the field of federal activity, and
   the Fourteenth, as respects state action, do not prohibit
   governmental regulation for the public welfare. They merely
   condition the exertion of the admitted power, by securing
   that the end shall be accomplished by methods consistent
   with due process. And the guaranty of due process, as has
   often been held, demands only that the law shall not be
   unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that the means
   selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the
   object sought to be attained.

Here's a clue: a citation on your side would include the court
saying that a law is unconstitutional.


> Apparently, you can't think of any other similar law being
> passed either. 

Your kidding yourself. There are all kinds of laws on what
companies can offer consumers and what their obligations are.

> You might want to think about why nobody is
> coming up with an example of a law on which the prohibition of
> rebates might be modelled. 

Actually my tax idea was modeled on laws on abandoned funds.
In the rebate deal, you only get back your money if you apply
in a particular form, in a particular time window; otherwise
the company keeps the money. Financial institutions cannot
do that, no matter what they put in an account agreement.

[...]
> The FTC has published a few rules and guidelines regarding
> mail-in rebates too. They have not yet even attempted to
> abolish them. I say they won't and can't.

They could abolish mail-in rebates as we know them through
perfectly legitimate legislation or delegated rule-making.


-- 
--Bryan
0
Bryan
2/19/2007 7:17:44 AM
Bryan Olson wrote:
> Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>
>> Apparently, you can't think of any other similar law being
>> passed either. 
> 
> Your kidding yourself. There are all kinds of laws on what
> companies can offer consumers and what their obligations are.
> 
>> You might want to think about why nobody is
>> coming up with an example of a law on which the prohibition of
>> rebates might be modelled. 
> 
> Actually my tax idea was modeled on laws on abandoned funds.
> In the rebate deal, you only get back your money if you apply
> in a particular form, in a particular time window; otherwise
> the company keeps the money. Financial institutions cannot
> do that, no matter what they put in an account agreement.
> 
> [...]
>> The FTC has published a few rules and guidelines regarding
>> mail-in rebates too. They have not yet even attempted to
>> abolish them. I say they won't and can't.
> 
> They could abolish mail-in rebates as we know them through
> perfectly legitimate legislation or delegated rule-making.
> 
> 
I'm not a lawyer, so I can't debate the finer points of law with you 
two. However, I will bring up this example:

Before the US Federal government stepped in, it used to be that 
companies offering mail-in sweepstakes entries (You may have already WON 
$10 million!) imposed complicated hoops for entrants that didn't want to 
make purchases, even though there was a "no purchase necessary" 
regulation on them. Special forms were offered for non-purchasers, forms 
that were difficult to find and even more difficult to fill out to 
strictly follow the tiny-print "Official Rules." And if the "rules" 
weren't followed to the letter, the entry was denied. Many consumers 
decided all sweepstakes were fraudulent, even though most weren't at 
all. Sound familiar?

I don't know which agency stepped in, whether a new law was passed or an 
old one applied, but I do know that mail-in sweepstakes entries now have 
guidelines as to what they can and can't require of non-purchasers 
versus purchasers. And now, entering a sweepstakes, if I so desire, is 
as easy if I don't make a purchase as it is if I do.

If the US government does step in on mail-in rebates, I suspect they'll 
use the sweepstakes regulations as a model. I don't think they'll 
abolish rebates. I don't think they should be abolished. But I do think 
the rebate-offerer can be regulated as to the requirements imposed on 
the rebate-seeker without harming the businesses or economy. Come to 
think of it, it seems to me that I've heard that the subject has been 
discussed in the Halls of Congress already. I haven't heard of anything 
coming of it yet, but such are the ways of US politics.

TJ

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
TJ
2/19/2007 2:29:06 PM
The reason specialized laws are written can be for quite a few reasons:

(the IE:s below are not necessarily legislation in practice, but are 
being used as hypothetical legal incidences that could be redesigned.


1) Jurisdictional considerations are sometimes better defined by case 
specific issues

IE: a rebate across state lines may be dealt with the the Postal Fraud 
Division, or the FBI, etc. Or Rebates of a specific value or resulting 
in a certain number of complaints move to Federal jurisdiction rather 
than state

2) The exact nature of the crime is spelled out in more detailed terms, 
so that it doesn't require each case be brought to Court or fought on 
grounds or precedence

IE: Rebate fraud is to be considered a criminal rather than civil 
matter, or after one documented email or phone contact by the consumer 
validating the rebate request was sent, the company has 30 days to 
respond with the rebate as contacted and otherwise will be punishable 
with specific consequences or remedies

3) The general law does not spell out the specifics of what breaches the 
law.

IE: Rebates cannot carry an open ended date or no date, nor can the 
contract allow for rebates that are paid out beyond 60 days for receipt 
by the rebate company or the fulfillment house they use.

4) The specific law may indicate which party or parties can be fined, or 
must act to resolve the matter

IE: The retailer and the manufacturer and his agent (the fulfillment 
house) will be cumulatively fines for a breach in the law.

5) A statute of limitations may be legislated specific to these 
circumstances

IE: if no request or indication is made to fulfill a rebate which was 
not received within 6 months of the original mailing date limit, the 
consumer loses his right to demand a remedy...

Laws are, or should be living efforts at structuring fairness and 
justice, or clear mandates.  Neither large corporations nor consumers 
should be able to use loopholes in the law to abuse or manipulate the 
law against the other, or be able to dodge a reasonable remedy.  By 
specializing a law it can both make it easier to obtain justice or to 
inform those why will have to function under it.  It can also serve to 
warn or make aware of issues within their business practices or type of 
business.

Art

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:05:56 GMT, Arthur Entlich
> <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I have engaged in several hundred rebates over the last several years. 
>>I have had dozen which, although accomplished exactly as required, have 
>>required considerable intervention to be paid.  I should not have to 
>>waste the time involved to pursue and collect these.  I should not have 
>>to "loan" these companies my money for months on end awaiting payment 
>>for months beyond the limits they set.
>>
>>Your implication is that people who do not receive their rebates without 
>>a fight are incapable of properly following directions, or some other 
>>logical sequence of events which will lead to proper rebates on time. 
>>I'm sure, with the many convoluted requirements that mere mortal humans 
>>may indeed make errors, but I've been at this game long enough to know 
>>the pitfalls, and the problems I have encounter have nothing to do with 
>>how the rebate was handled on my end.
>>
>>Call the reasons the rebates aren't fulfilled properly sloppy, call it 
>>error prone, or call it fraud, the end result is the same, the company 
>>does not fulfill its side of the contract, and if legislation is the 
>>best manner to resolve this, then so be it.
>>
>>Art
> 
> 
> There are already laws for this. More won't help.
> If you really don't like rebates, your choice is simple: don't
> participate. I have not yet been forced to participate in a rebate.
> 
> Consumers should *never* make a purchase based on a rebate.
> 
0
Arthur
2/19/2007 6:09:16 PM
Sorry John, there have been numerous expos�s regarding how rebate 
fulfillment companies work, how they advertise to their clients (the 
manufacturers), etc.  I have even gone to a few of their websites and 
looked into their client services. Some of the services they report 
imply use of methods to deceive and mislead the public who submits the 
rebates.  The wording is often ambiguous enough to not bring down the 
wrath of the feds or whomever is responsible, but it's often quite 
clearly there between the lines.  Of late, with all the bad publicity, 
several have cleaned their websites of this stuff.

If tens of millions of rebates are applied for (not to mention the ones 
that never get done due to the complexity or other aspects (such as 
removal of a UPC or having to damage the packaging making the item in 
some cases nonreturnable if found to be inappropriate, overpriced (with 
a price protection guarantee) or to simply return it (some store will 
not accept goods without a UPC code, others will charge a restocking 
fee) and even 2 percent are not properly processed, that's headaches for 
potentially  hundreds of thousands of people, who end up at the 
retailer, rebate supplier or to regulatory bodies.  That means tax money 
  spent to prosecute or pursue.

Clearly written and occasionally executed law, however, can act as a 
major deterrent for white collar crime.

john cuthbertson wrote:

> "Bryan Olson" <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> wrote in message 
> news:P42Ch.6365$MN.2507@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> 
>>krw wrote:
>>
>>> malch@malch.com [Malcolm Hoar] says...
>>>
>>>>Whiners may want the government to protect them; that
>>>>doesn't mean the government should.
>>>
>>>Agreed, though there is nothing in the constitution preventing such 
>>>abominations.
>>
>>There's a kind of bad-faith contract at issue here. The vendor
>>has statistical analysis showing that most people will not in
>>fact collect on the rebate. They deliberately construct the
>>offer to make people think they will get a rebate that most
>>will not. Though the vendor may intend to fulfill the literal
>>terms of the agreements, the contract is still in bad faith,
>>constructed with the intent to deceive.
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>--Bryan
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't see the 'bad-faith contract' angle. If statistics 
> show that most people won't collect, that could be for a variety of reasons 
> including (but not limited to) non-participation.
> 
> What is 'bad-faith' about "you have until this date to send in your receipt 
> along with the UPC code and we'll send you a check"? 
> 
> 
0
Arthur
2/19/2007 6:24:51 PM
It is also a psychological ploy.  People tend to recall the price the 
paper showed them rather than the real amount.  As a result they have 
"fond" memories of buying a $25 DVD burner, forgetting that it had a $80 
rebate which Laos (in Canada required tax be paid) and the person forgot 
to submit the rebate form, or never received it.

Bryan Olson wrote:

> Barry Watzman wrote:
> 
>> There is no bad faith as long as everyone CAN get the rebate and the 
>> rebate is fulfilled according to the terms presented in the rebate offer.
>>
>> And there is no deception, either.
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Rebate offers only work for the vendors because they fool
> many people into thinking they'll collect when they will not. The
> offer is deliberately written and presented to do just that.
> 
> 
0
Arthur
2/19/2007 6:29:14 PM
In article <sacCh.45595$Gr2.3393@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, Bryan Olson <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> wrote:

>> Apparently, you can't think of any other similar law being
>> passed either. 
>
>Your kidding yourself. There are all kinds of laws on what
>companies can offer consumers and what their obligations are.

Never in dispute. 

>They could abolish mail-in rebates as we know them through
>perfectly legitimate legislation or delegated rule-making.

Well, name just one example of a scheme (akin to mail-in
rebates) that has been so abolished by the Feds.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
2/19/2007 6:48:25 PM

TJ wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> measekite wrote:
>>> TJ wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've had a flatbed scanner for years, too - at least five. Bought it
>>>> online from Office Max for $20 - after rebate. Got free shipping, too.
>>>> And I *did* get the rebate, without hassle or delay beyond that stated
>>>> on the form.
>>>>
>>>> TJ
>>  >
>>  > At that price it is probably a piece of trash
>>
>> Obviously not since it's still working after 5 years. You don't need 
>> a really high resolution scanner if all you're using it for is 
>> scanning documents.
>>
>> Bill
>
> I'm not concerned with Measekite's opinion. I've dealt with him before 
> in the printer newsgroup, heard everything he has to say, ad nauseum. 
> Google his name, if you wish to know more. IMHO, however, it wouldn't 
> be worth the bandwidth.
>
> My scanner is a Visioneer OneTouch 7600 USB. It's a letter/A4 scanner, 
> with a native resolution of 600 dpi. The software will interpolate

Oh thats software magnification
> to 1200 dpi using Windows 98. 

Oh thats so outdated it is a joke.  Not even supported any more
> It does still work just fine, though I don't use it much any more. 
> Mandriva Linux doesn't support it, 

O course not.  Unfortunately, that is one of the problems with all Linux 
distributions.  It does not support many things including Photoshop
> or any of the scanners that use the A3 chipset. That is the only 
> reason I don't use it much anymore. I wish it *was* supported. 
> Measekite will no doubt consider it a piece of junk because it doesn't 
> do slides or something. So what? That's not what I bought it for.

How about your Brownie Hawkeye
>
> I also have the scanner on an HP PSC 2110 that I've had now for three 
> years. That IS supported by Linux, through drivers supplied by HP. Its 
> native resolution is also 600 dpi. I see little difference in the 
> output of the two scanners, so I use the HP because I use Linux far 
> more than Windows.
>
> TJ
>
0
measekite
2/19/2007 8:27:29 PM
The best thing that can happen is to make the retailers liable for all 
rebates not received after 60 days from purchase.  Here are the 3 things 
that might happen in that event:

1.  The mfg will send the rebates and on time

2.  One can trot down to the retailer and get the money

3.   The retailer will tell the mfg where to go with their rebate

TJ wrote:
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently, you can't think of any other similar law being
>>> passed either. 
>>
>> Your kidding yourself. There are all kinds of laws on what
>> companies can offer consumers and what their obligations are.
>>
>>> You might want to think about why nobody is
>>> coming up with an example of a law on which the prohibition of
>>> rebates might be modelled. 
>>
>> Actually my tax idea was modeled on laws on abandoned funds.
>> In the rebate deal, you only get back your money if you apply
>> in a particular form, in a particular time window; otherwise
>> the company keeps the money. Financial institutions cannot
>> do that, no matter what they put in an account agreement.
>>
>> [...]
>>> The FTC has published a few rules and guidelines regarding
>>> mail-in rebates too. They have not yet even attempted to
>>> abolish them. I say they won't and can't.
>>
>> They could abolish mail-in rebates as we know them through
>> perfectly legitimate legislation or delegated rule-making.
>>
>>
> I'm not a lawyer, so I can't debate the finer points of law with you 
> two. However, I will bring up this example:
>
> Before the US Federal government stepped in, it used to be that 
> companies offering mail-in sweepstakes entries (You may have already 
> WON $10 million!) imposed complicated hoops for entrants that didn't 
> want to make purchases, even though there was a "no purchase 
> necessary" regulation on them. Special forms were offered for 
> non-purchasers, forms that were difficult to find and even more 
> difficult to fill out to strictly follow the tiny-print "Official 
> Rules." And if the "rules" weren't followed to the letter, the entry 
> was denied. Many consumers decided all sweepstakes were fraudulent, 
> even though most weren't at all. Sound familiar?
>
> I don't know which agency stepped in, whether a new law was passed or 
> an old one applied, but I do know that mail-in sweepstakes entries now 
> have guidelines as to what they can and can't require of 
> non-purchasers versus purchasers. And now, entering a sweepstakes, if 
> I so desire, is as easy if I don't make a purchase as it is if I do.
>
> If the US government does step in on mail-in rebates, I suspect 
> they'll use the sweepstakes regulations as a model. I don't think 
> they'll abolish rebates. I don't think they should be abolished. But I 
> do think the rebate-offerer can be regulated as to the requirements 
> imposed on the rebate-seeker without harming the businesses or 
> economy. Come to think of it, it seems to me that I've heard that the 
> subject has been discussed in the Halls of Congress already. I haven't 
> heard of anything coming of it yet, but such are the ways of US politics.
>
> TJ
>
0
measekite
2/19/2007 8:32:52 PM
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:27:29 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>  wrote in
<news:RKnCh.12804$gj4.4350@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>:

>> Measekite will no doubt consider it a piece of junk because it doesn't 
>> do slides or something. So what? That's not what I bought it for.
> 
> How about your Brownie Hawkeye

I'm sure his Brownie Hawkeye is pointed in your direction.
0
Nicolaas
2/19/2007 8:36:40 PM
measekite wrote:
> 
> 
> TJ wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> measekite wrote:
>>>> TJ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I've had a flatbed scanner for years, too - at least five. Bought it
>>>>> online from Office Max for $20 - after rebate. Got free shipping, too.
>>>>> And I *did* get the rebate, without hassle or delay beyond that stated
>>>>> on the form.
>>>>>
>>>>> TJ
>>>  >
>>>  > At that price it is probably a piece of trash
>>>
>>> Obviously not since it's still working after 5 years. You don't need 
>>> a really high resolution scanner if all you're using it for is 
>>> scanning documents.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> I'm not concerned with Measekite's opinion. I've dealt with him before 
>> in the printer newsgroup, heard everything he has to say, ad nauseum. 
>> Google his name, if you wish to know more. IMHO, however, it wouldn't 
>> be worth the bandwidth.
>>
>> My scanner is a Visioneer OneTouch 7600 USB. It's a letter/A4 scanner, 
>> with a native resolution of 600 dpi. The software will interpolate
> 
> Oh thats software magnification

Thank you for clarifying that, but I believe that's what I said.

>> to 1200 dpi using Windows 98. 
> 
> Oh thats so outdated it is a joke.  Not even supported any more

Ah, but it *was* still supported 5 years ago when I bought the scanner. 
Not particularly well, since Windows 98 was a joke the day it was 
released, but that's another subject.

>> It does still work just fine, though I don't use it much any more. 
>> Mandriva Linux doesn't support it, 
> 
> O course not.  Unfortunately, that is one of the problems with all Linux 
> distributions.  It does not support many things including Photoshop

I beg to differ. Most scanners are supported by Linux. The A3 chipset 
scanners are an exception. And as for Photoshop, versions up to the 
latest can be run with a Linux program called WINE. I'm quite sure the 
latest version will be runnable with WINE soon.

>> or any of the scanners that use the A3 chipset. That is the only 
>> reason I don't use it much anymore. I wish it *was* supported. 
>> Measekite will no doubt consider it a piece of junk because it doesn't 
>> do slides or something. So what? That's not what I bought it for.
> 
> How about your Brownie Hawkeye

If I could still get film for it, my mother's Brownie would work just 
fine, thank you. Good to know you can appreciate one of the historic 
cameras that  brought photography to the masses.

TJ

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
TJ
2/19/2007 9:42:37 PM
Mary wrote:
> "TJ" <TJ@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:45d87b49$0$16292$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> Mary wrote:
>>
>>> I don't have a copier but have had a flatbed scanner for years. They are
> not
>>> very expensive compared to other computer parts. Many people now have
>>> all-in-one printers which include scanners and copiers. But if  you need
> to
>>> make a special trip to make copies of what you need, then yes, its more
>>> trouble, and may not be worth it unless you think the rebate amount is
> worth
>>> it.
>>>
>> I've had a flatbed scanner for years, too - at least five. Bought it
>> online from Office Max for $20 - after rebate. Got free shipping, too.
>> And I *did* get the rebate, without hassle or delay beyond that stated
>> on the form.
> 
> What make is the scanner? It must be ok if it still works.
> 
> Mary
> 
> 
As explained in another post, it's a Visioneer OneTouch 7600 USB 
scanner. The maximum native resolution is 600 dpi, better than many in 
its class of that time. No doubt it has been superseded by newer models, 
but it still does the job it was designed to do as well as it did when 
it was new. It doesn't owe me a dime.

TJ


-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
TJ
2/19/2007 10:01:43 PM
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:46:48 -0500, Barry Watzman
<WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:

>Re: "Get your head out of your rear end Barry, and look at the numbers 
>being posted in here."
>
>Forget the "numbers being posted here", I do over 200 rebates per year, 
>and that's down from probably twice that a few years ago.  I benefit 
>greatly from rebates because I get mine.  If you are too lazy, careless 
>or stupid to properly get yours, that's not my problem.  But don't tell 
>me that deals that work exactly as advertised more than 97% of the time 
>are a scam.  That is just bullshit.


     You didn't answer my question.....would you prefer to send in for
a rebate, or would you rather see the item put on sale?
     I asked that for one reason because the entire debate stems from
it.  NOONE likes rebates if they could instead, buy the item on
sale....wouldn't you?
     Again, it has nothing to do with being lazy or stupid, it's the
fact that it's deceiving business practices, laced with fraud.  How
many times do you see a flyer from someplace like CompUsa that says,
"President's Day Sale", or whatever holiday is coming up, and in that
flyer it shows numerous items on "sale", that are not on sale, but are
the actual price, only the manufacturer is offering a rebate on it?
     If you're in the store and see something that says, Reduced to
$19.95*
















*After rebate

     That's not a sale, that's deceptive advertising plain and simple
and if you can't see that then you're blind.
     If you got 97% of your 200 rebates, then you were scammed out of
6, right?  What part of scam don't you understand?  Did you get those
6 rebates?  Did you spend hours on the phone trying to get them?  What
wasa the dollar total of those 6 rebates?  Were you too stupid or lazy
to fill out the rebate forms correctly?
     IT'S A SCAM!!!!!  Understand?
Jeez....

Talker
0
Talker
2/19/2007 10:12:19 PM
  :-D

Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:27:29 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>  wrote in
> <news:RKnCh.12804$gj4.4350@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>:
>
>   
>>> Measekite will no doubt consider it a piece of junk because it doesn't 
>>> do slides or something. So what? That's not what I bought it for.
>>>       
>> How about your Brownie Hawkeye
>>     
>
> I'm sure his Brownie Hawkeye is pointed in your direction.
>   
0
measekite
2/20/2007 12:07:50 AM

TJ wrote:
> measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>> TJ wrote:
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>> measekite wrote:
>>>>> TJ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've had a flatbed scanner for years, too - at least five. Bought it
>>>>>> online from Office Max for $20 - after rebate. Got free shipping, 
>>>>>> too.
>>>>>> And I *did* get the rebate, without hassle or delay beyond that 
>>>>>> stated
>>>>>> on the form.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TJ
>>>>  >
>>>>  > At that price it is probably a piece of trash
>>>>
>>>> Obviously not since it's still working after 5 years. You don't 
>>>> need a really high resolution scanner if all you're using it for is 
>>>> scanning documents.
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>> I'm not concerned with Measekite's opinion. I've dealt with him 
>>> before in the printer newsgroup, heard everything he has to say, ad 
>>> nauseum. Google his name, if you wish to know more. IMHO, however, 
>>> it wouldn't be worth the bandwidth.
>>>
>>> My scanner is a Visioneer OneTouch 7600 USB. It's a letter/A4 
>>> scanner, with a native resolution of 600 dpi. The software will 
>>> interpolate
>>
>> Oh thats software magnification
>
> Thank you for clarifying that, but I believe that's what I said.
>
>>> to 1200 dpi using Windows 98. 
>>
>> Oh thats so outdated it is a joke.  Not even supported any more
>
> Ah, but it *was* still supported 5 years ago when I bought the 
> scanner. Not particularly well, since Windows 98 was a joke the day it 
> was released, but that's another subject.
>
>>> It does still work just fine, though I don't use it much any more. 
>>> Mandriva Linux doesn't support it, 
>>
>> O course not.  Unfortunately, that is one of the problems with all 
>> Linux distributions.  It does not support many things including 
>> Photoshop
>
> I beg to differ. Most scanners are supported by Linux. The A3 chipset 
> scanners are an exception. And as for Photoshop, versions up to the 
> latest can be run with a Linux program called WINE. I'm quite sure the 
> latest version will be runnable with WINE soon.

WINE is overhead.  It cannot run it natively.  Thats like OS2 running 
Windows programs.
>
>>> or any of the scanners that use the A3 chipset. That is the only 
>>> reason I don't use it much anymore. I wish it *was* supported. 
>>> Measekite will no doubt consider it a piece of junk because it 
>>> doesn't do slides or something. So what? That's not what I bought it 
>>> for.
>>
>> How about your Brownie Hawkeye
>
> If I could still get film for it, my mother's Brownie would work just 
> fine, thank you. Good to know you can appreciate one of the historic 
> cameras that  brought photography to the masses.

Correction:  It did NOT bring photography to the masses.

It just empowered a bunch of snapshooters.  That is not photography.
>
> TJ
>
0
measekite
2/20/2007 12:11:04 AM
measekite wrote:
> 
> 
> TJ wrote:
>> measekite wrote:

>>> How about your Brownie Hawkeye
>>
>> If I could still get film for it, my mother's Brownie would work just 
>> fine, thank you. Good to know you can appreciate one of the historic 
>> cameras that  brought photography to the masses.
> 
> Correction:  It did NOT bring photography to the masses.
> 
> It just empowered a bunch of snapshooters.  That is not photography.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, just as I'm entitled to mine. I 
suspect, though, that more people would agree with me than with you. And 
I suspect even more people would appreciate it if we both would just 
shut up.

TJ

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
TJ
2/20/2007 1:17:09 AM
"TJ" <TJ@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:45da110c$0$16279$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Mary wrote:
> > "TJ" <TJ@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:45d87b49$0$16292$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> >> Mary wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't have a copier but have had a flatbed scanner for years. They
are
> > not
> >>> very expensive compared to other computer parts. Many people now have
> >>> all-in-one printers which include scanners and copiers. But if  you
need
> > to
> >>> make a special trip to make copies of what you need, then yes, its
more
> >>> trouble, and may not be worth it unless you think the rebate amount is
> > worth
> >>> it.
> >>>
> >> I've had a flatbed scanner for years, too - at least five. Bought it
> >> online from Office Max for $20 - after rebate. Got free shipping, too.
> >> And I *did* get the rebate, without hassle or delay beyond that stated
> >> on the form.
> >
> > What make is the scanner? It must be ok if it still works.
> >
> > Mary
> >
> >
> As explained in another post, it's a Visioneer OneTouch 7600 USB
> scanner. The maximum native resolution is 600 dpi, better than many in
> its class of that time. No doubt it has been superseded by newer models,
> but it still does the job it was designed to do as well as it did when
> it was new. It doesn't owe me a dime.
>
> TJ

Well, thats the main thing.

Mary


-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
Mary
2/20/2007 1:32:55 AM
TJ wrote:
> measekite wrote:
> 

>> It just empowered a bunch of snapshooters.  That is not photography.
> 
Ohhhh...that idiot thinks he's a photographer. Excuse me while I laugh 
so hard my ribs are hurting!
Enough...hehehe...hehehe...please!!!
I can't take it anymore.
Frank
0
Frank
2/20/2007 6:30:10 AM
Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> Bryan Olson wrote:
> 
>>> Apparently, you can't think of any other similar law being
>>> passed either. 
>> Your kidding yourself. There are all kinds of laws on what
>> companies can offer consumers and what their obligations are.
> 
> Never in dispute. 
> 
>> They could abolish mail-in rebates as we know them through
>> perfectly legitimate legislation or delegated rule-making.
> 
> Well, name just one example of a scheme (akin to mail-in
> rebates) that has been so abolished by the Feds.

Been there; done that. "Abandoned funds" -- I even explained
how the terms of mail-in rebates are like terms allowing the
holder to keep abandoned funds.

You on the other hand, as the one who brought up court
derisions and wrote "Just some Supreme Court decisions that
you wave away," have so far cited just one decision, and it
turns out the decision you yourself chose *allowed*
legislative restriction on contracts. If you can't find a
clue, you might at least move the town where a clue lives.


-- 
--Bryan
0
Bryan
2/20/2007 6:56:26 AM
"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
news:s0rCh.20115$ji1.4970@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
> TJ wrote:
> >
> > If I could still get film for it, my mother's Brownie would work just
> > fine, thank you. Good to know you can appreciate one of the historic
> > cameras that  brought photography to the masses.
>
> Correction:  It did NOT bring photography to the masses.
>
> It just empowered a bunch of snapshooters.  That is not photography.
> >
> > TJ
> >

Snapshooting is photography. Snapshooting is just lower quality The
photographer determines the quality much more than the camera. More people
having reasonable access to equipment allows more quality photographers to
emerge.

It was really about not having to develop your own image. Kind of like the
difference of using an outhouse or a Crapper in January.


0
Captain
2/20/2007 7:44:34 AM
Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> Bryan Olson  wrote:
>> Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>>> A Federal prohibition of mail-in rebates would never pass
>>> constitutional muster and it isn't going to happen period.

>> The happening is doubtful, but your constitutional
>> arguments are silliness.
> 
> Not at all. 

All. You are just not dealing with reality. You may have
a defensible view that the government ought not to restrict
contracts (where the obligations to be performed are legal).
The issue in this thread is about the actual law in force,
and sanctity-of-contracts advocates lost several decades ago.


> Buyers and sellers have the right to enter
> into contracts freely and without excessive government
> interference. Obviously, the government can and does
> place some restrictions -- the sale of drugs, guns and
> other items is regulated. But Congress needs to show a
> real public interest and the standard is very high. 

Get with the current reality. If the federal government
passes a law, it is enforcible, unless a defendant can
show it unconstitutional. "The standard is high"? Let's
be specific; your own citation states the criteria in
this area: the law must not be random or capricious,
and must have a substantial relation to the object
ought to be attained.


[...]
>> A full prohibition is not usually how these things are done.
> 
> Agreed. Barriers could be errected to make rebate schemes
> less attractive. However, even that would be quite tricky
> at the Federal level. The States have a lot more options.

In what world do you live? The *vast* majority of rebates are
interstate. I happen to have an outstanding Canon rebate, the
very issue in this thread. I bough a Japanese lens and a
speed-light from a New York retailer who shipped to my
California home, from which I sent the rebate form via the
USPS to the given address in Texas.  You might Google up
"Commerce Clause" for a clue as to whether such transactions
might be regulated "at the Federal level."


-- 
--Bryan
0
Bryan
2/20/2007 8:48:52 AM

TJ wrote:
> measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>> TJ wrote:
>>> measekite wrote:
>
>>>> How about your Brownie Hawkeye
>>>
>>> If I could still get film for it, my mother's Brownie would work 
>>> just fine, thank you. Good to know you can appreciate one of the 
>>> historic cameras that  brought photography to the masses.
>>
>> Correction:  It did NOT bring photography to the masses.
>>
>> It just empowered a bunch of snapshooters.  That is not photography.
>
> Well, you're entitled to your opinion, just as I'm entitled to mine. I 
> suspect, though, that more people would agree with me

No more snapshooters will agree with you and there are only 150,000 
professional and amateur photographers in the U.S.
> than with you. And I suspect even more people would appreciate it if 
> we both would just shut up.

You can.
>
> TJ
>
0
measekite
2/20/2007 3:10:28 PM
In article <UByCh.12940$gj4.4658@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, Bryan Olson <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> wrote:
>Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>> Bryan Olson  wrote:
>>> Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>>>> A Federal prohibition of mail-in rebates would never pass
>>>> constitutional muster and it isn't going to happen period.
>
>>> The happening is doubtful, but your constitutional
>>> arguments are silliness.
>> 
>> Not at all. 
>
>All. You are just not dealing with reality. You may have
>a defensible view that the government ought not to restrict
>contracts (where the obligations to be performed are legal).
>The issue in this thread is about the actual law in force,
>and sanctity-of-contracts advocates lost several decades ago.

Let's talk about reality and the actual law in force.

There is no Federal prohibition on rebates. As far as I
am aware, no congresscritter is currently sponsoring
such a law.

And by the way, I never asserted the liberty of contract
was absolute.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
malch
2/20/2007 3:47:47 PM
In article <erf5731r20n2002malch@nntp.sonic.net>, malch@malch.com 
says...
> In article <UByCh.12940$gj4.4658@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, Bryan Olson <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> wrote:
> >Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> >> Bryan Olson  wrote:
> >>> Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> >>>> A Federal prohibition of mail-in rebates would never pass
> >>>> constitutional muster and it isn't going to happen period.
> >
> >>> The happening is doubtful, but your constitutional
> >>> arguments are silliness.
> >> 
> >> Not at all. 
> >
> >All. You are just not dealing with reality. You may have
> >a defensible view that the government ought not to restrict
> >contracts (where the obligations to be performed are legal).
> >The issue in this thread is about the actual law in force,
> >and sanctity-of-contracts advocates lost several decades ago.
> 
> Let's talk about reality and the actual law in force.

Ok.

> There is no Federal prohibition on rebates. As far as I
> am aware, no congresscritter is currently sponsoring
> such a law.

No one said there was any prohibition on rebates (or any bill in 
the works, thought it wouldn't surprise me).  You're moving the 
goal posts now.  You claimed that there was constitutional bar.  
Several of us have said you're wrong.  You've done nothing to 
support your position, other than hand-wave.
 
> And by the way, I never asserted the liberty of contract
> was absolute.

Sheesh!

-- 
  Keith
0
krw
2/20/2007 4:37:53 PM
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:
>Barry Watzman wrote:
>> An "instant rebate" is not a rebate, it's a price reduction, or a sale 
>> price.  So you are suggesting outlawing rebates.  Sorry, I can't support 
>> that.  I would like to see some regulations passed covering rebate 
>> practices, but they need to be reasonable from the sides of both the 
>> manufacturer / merchant and the buyer.  There is nothing inherintly 
>> wrong, in principle, with mail-in rebates as long as they are honestly 
>> administered, as most (but not all) are.
>> 
>> 
>> measekite wrote:
>> 
>>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the 
>>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already 
>>> received) form the return amount.
>>>

>Exactly. "Instant rebate" is an oxymoron. It is simply a mark down in 
>price. Advertised "Instant rebates" are nothing more than a marketing 
>gimmick.
>Frank

And what is a mail-in rebate?  It is an instant rebate in which
you first lend the manufacturer the money he will eventually
rebate to you?

Put more exactly, a $20 rebate on a $500 dollar item (made up
just as an example) is really an offer to sell you the item
for $480 IF you will lend the seller $20, interest free, for
six to eight weeks or longer.

Don't you think that that sort of semi-coerced lending ought
to be regulated?

-- 
   --- Paul J. Gans
0
Paul
2/20/2007 4:41:19 PM
In article <erf8bf$ovp$1@reader2.panix.com>, gans@panix.com says...
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:
> >Barry Watzman wrote:
> >> An "instant rebate" is not a rebate, it's a price reduction, or a sale 
> >> price.  So you are suggesting outlawing rebates.  Sorry, I can't support 
> >> that.  I would like to see some regulations passed covering rebate 
> >> practices, but they need to be reasonable from the sides of both the 
> >> manufacturer / merchant and the buyer.  There is nothing inherintly 
> >> wrong, in principle, with mail-in rebates as long as they are honestly 
> >> administered, as most (but not all) are.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> measekite wrote:
> >> 
> >>> There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the 
> >>> time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already 
> >>> received) form the return amount.
> >>>
> 
> >Exactly. "Instant rebate" is an oxymoron. It is simply a mark down in 
> >price. Advertised "Instant rebates" are nothing more than a marketing 
> >gimmick.
> >Frank
> 
> And what is a mail-in rebate?  It is an instant rebate in which
> you first lend the manufacturer the money he will eventually
> rebate to you?
> 
> Put more exactly, a $20 rebate on a $500 dollar item (made up
> just as an example) is really an offer to sell you the item
> for $480 IF you will lend the seller $20, interest free, for
> six to eight weeks or longer.
> 
> Don't you think that that sort of semi-coerced lending ought
> to be regulated?
> 
In what way is it coerced?  No one held a gun to your head.  ...not 
even a semi.

-- 
  Keith
0
krw
2/20/2007 5:07:43 PM
krw wrote:
>  gans@panix.com says...
>> Don't you think that that sort of semi-coerced lending ought
>> to be regulated?
>>
> In what way is it coerced?  No one held a gun to your head.  ...not 
> even a semi.

The law has long recognized that in many dealings one side has
far more power to set the terms of a contract than does the
other, and thus the state may legitimately step in and rule
various terms unreasonably unfair and therefore illegal. Look
up "Standard form contract."

-- 
-Bryan
0
Bryan
2/22/2007 8:53:01 AM
In article <IRcDh.67$P47.46@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, 
fakeaddress@nowhere.org says...
> krw wrote:
> >  gans@panix.com says...
> >> Don't you think that that sort of semi-coerced lending ought
> >> to be regulated?
> >>
> > In what way is it coerced?  No one held a gun to your head.  ...not 
> > even a semi.
> 
> The law has long recognized that in many dealings one side has
> far more power to set the terms of a contract than does the
> other, and thus the state may legitimately step in and rule
> various terms unreasonably unfair and therefore illegal. Look
> up "Standard form contract."
> 
> 
The sky is blue too.  (What's that got to do with the price of oats 
in China.)

Nice snip forging, BTW.

-- 
  Keith 
0
krw
2/22/2007 1:39:04 PM
"Captain Midnight" <Notany@twip.invalid> said in misc.consumers:

>
>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>news:s0rCh.20115$ji1.4970@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>>
>> TJ wrote:
>> >
>> > If I could still get film for it, my mother's Brownie would work just
>> > fine, thank you. Good to know you can appreciate one of the historic
>> > cameras that  brought photography to the masses.
>>
>> Correction:  It did NOT bring photography to the masses.
>>
>> It just empowered a bunch of snapshooters.  That is not photography.
>> >
>> > TJ
>> >
>
>Snapshooting is photography. Snapshooting is just lower quality The
>photographer determines the quality much more than the camera. More people
>having reasonable access to equipment allows more quality photographers to
>emerge.

And even snapshooters occasionally get lucky and take a really good
shot.
0
Scott
2/22/2007 3:52:09 PM
Scott en Aztl�n wrote:
> "Captain Midnight" <Notany@twip.invalid> said in misc.consumers:
> 
> 
>>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>>news:s0rCh.20115$ji1.4970@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...

>>>Correction:  It did NOT bring photography to the masses.
>>>
>>>It just empowered a bunch of snapshooters.  That is not photography.

What an ignorant and arrogant statement from our resident idiot/troll 
meashershithead.
He thinks if your have an SLR camera you're a photographer. Whereas if 
you have a PAS camera you're a snap shooter. In other words, the 
equipment makes the difference between a great picture and a really bad one.
This clown is an excellent example of a bad example.
Frank
0
Frank
2/22/2007 7:03:18 PM
I posted the following reply three days ago, but it hasn't yet appeared 
in the printer newsgroup, where I'm reading this thread. I'm posting 
again, in hopes that this time it will get here. I apologize to any 
group where it appears twice.

And for all those who have a spell over top-posting: Get over it. 
Sometimes it makes more sense to do it this way.

TJ

> Captain Midnight wrote:
>> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>> news:s0rCh.20115$ji1.4970@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>>>
>>> TJ wrote:
>>>> If I could still get film for it, my mother's Brownie would work just
>>>> fine, thank you. Good to know you can appreciate one of the historic
>>>> cameras that  brought photography to the masses.
>>> Correction:  It did NOT bring photography to the masses.
>>>
>>> It just empowered a bunch of snapshooters.  That is not photography.
>>>> TJ
>>>>
>>
>> Snapshooting is photography. Snapshooting is just lower quality The
>> photographer determines the quality much more than the camera. More people
>> having reasonable access to equipment allows more quality photographers to
>> emerge.
>>
>> It was really about not having to develop your own image. Kind of like the
>> difference of using an outhouse or a Crapper in January.
>>
>>
> My father died in July, a victim of lung cancer from years of smoking 
>cigarettes. My youngest brother died three years ago, also a victim of 
>cancer - that one from unknown causes. Yesterday I came across a snapshot 
>of the two of them, taken around 35 years ago. They're standing on the dock 
>at a fishing camp, my then five-year-old brother proudly holding up the 
>8-inch fish he had just caught. My father, in the full vigor of his life, 
>is standing slightly behind him, hands on hips, smiling at him. When I 
>think of my father, the image that forms in my mind is much like the one 
>I see in this photo, not the one of the sick, old man of his last year.
> 
> I'm not sure who caught the shot, whether it was me, my mother, or one 
>of my other brothers, but the moment was preserved by a simple, 
>inexpensive snapshot camera. By professional standards, the quality is 
>poor, and has deteriorated with age. Colors have faded, and they are no 
>longer quite the correct hues. But this old print still has the power 
>to invoke strong memories, the power to show even strangers something 
>of the man my father once was, and the happiness he gave to his children.
> 
> That image would never have existed but for the simple, inexpensive 
 >snapshot camera. There are thousands, millions of snapshots, taken by
 >non-professionals, that accomplish the same thing, around the world.
> 
> If that's not photography, I don't know what is.
> 
> TJ
> 
> 

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
TJ
2/22/2007 9:44:28 PM
In article <45de017f$0$16370$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
 TJ <TJ@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> I posted the following reply three days ago, but it hasn't yet appeared 
> in the printer newsgroup, where I'm reading this thread.

That's because it is top posted.

> And for all those who have a spell over top-posting: Get over it. 
> Sometimes it makes more sense to do it this way.

Sin in haste, repent at leisure.
0
bearclaw
2/23/2007 4:49:51 AM
bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
> In article <45de017f$0$16370$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
>  TJ <TJ@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> I posted the following reply three days ago, but it hasn't yet appeared 
>> in the printer newsgroup, where I'm reading this thread.
> 
> That's because it is top posted.
> 
If you read very carefully, you will note that the original post, the 
one that never appeared, was NOT top-posted. So your statement above 
makes no sense. But then, you probably didn't read the post in full, 
because there was an explanatory top-posted apology in front of it. Your 
loss.

>> And for all those who have a spell over top-posting: Get over it. 
>> Sometimes it makes more sense to do it this way.
> 
> Sin in haste, repent at leisure.

It wasn't in haste, I assure you. And I do not repent a word of it, or 
the formatting I chose to use. The apology wasn't necessary, but I 
actually believed it was courteous for me to do so. Silly me. But I've 
learned my lesson. How elegant of you to accept my apology in the spirit 
in which it was given. You'll be pleased to know I won't be burdening 
you with another any time soon.

TJ

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
TJ
2/23/2007 2:07:35 PM
In article <bearclaw-524D97.22494922022007@news.supernews.com>,
 bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:

> In article <45de017f$0$16370$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
>  TJ <TJ@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > I posted the following reply three days ago, but it hasn't yet appeared 
> > in the printer newsgroup, where I'm reading this thread.
> 
> That's because it is top posted.
> 
> > And for all those who have a spell over top-posting: Get over it. 
> > Sometimes it makes more sense to do it this way.
> 
> Sin in haste, repent at leisure.

Just kidding.