CompUSA sells empty box, won’t refund customer

[rootbear75]

Many of us swap CompUSA service horror stories, but here's an especially horrifying one. My AR&D partner Terry Heaton purchased a digital camera for $269 at a CompUSA liquidation sale. Terry bought the camera for his step-daughter amid a $3,500 purchase. One problem: they sold him an empty box. There was no camera inside. When Terry went to a nearby CompUSA, the manager there told him that, since a liquidation company technically sold him the camera, CompUSA wouldn't give him a refund. So, Terry wrote a note to Roman Ross, CompUSA president and CEO. Ross passed it along to a staffer who had the nerve to blame Terry: "The return policy for all merchandise, as printed on your receipt and posted throughout the store, clearly stated ALL SALES FINAL... if the camera you purchased was a clearance item, you should have inspected its content prior to purchase." And there you have it. Terry is to blame for not inspecting the box to make sure he wasn't being defrauded. All sales of empty boxes are, apparently, final. It doesn't matter the technicality - in CompUSA's name, on a CompUSA receipt, $269 was stolen from Terry and CompUSA won't give it back. It's not just "buyer beware," it's "don't be a buyer."

 

Source: http://www.lostremote.com/2007/06/03/compu...und-blames-him/

 

EDIT: Fixed stupid punctuation typos.

Edited June 7, 2007 by rootbear75

[Samapico]

holy potato... He should sue the ASSS

And get this story mediatized a bit more, so CompUSA will have no choice to refund him

[NBVegita]

Legally he has no case.

 

By law if he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the camera was not in the box at the time of purchase, then CompUSA and all affiliates, including any and all companies liquidating said product would be responsible to refund or replace said product, regardless of any notation on said reciept stating otherwise.

 

The problem is that he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no camera in the box. Even with a list of character witnesses he legally, unless a judge felt sympathetic to his cause, which could then be appealed, depending on the foyer, has no case.

 

Morally this is awful, but unfortunaly legally he has no case.

[Hoch]

Legally he has no case.

 

By law if he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the camera was not in the box at the time of purchase, then CompUSA and all affiliates, including any and all companies liquidating said product would be responsible to refund or replace said product, regardless of any notation on said reciept stating otherwise.

 

The problem is that he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no camera in the box. Even with a list of character witnesses he legally, unless a judge felt sympathetic to his cause, which could then be appealed, depending on the foyer, has no case.

 

Morally this is awful, but unfortunaly legally he has no case.

Uhm no. What you wrote is wholly inaccurate and incorrect. Whether or not

he has a case in law depends on various things. Therefore, I cannot say with

any precision whether or not he does.

 

First all, the standard of broof in civil cases is on the balance of probabilities,

though in the US I believe they still call it preponderance of the evidence; two

degrees of separation. Beyond a reasonable doubt is found only in criminal

cases.

 

Secondly, as this is a commercial transaction governed by contract law generally

and/or the sale of goods, it is certainly the situation that this chap could claim for

a breach of an implied and/or express term in the transaction. Otherwise, he could

sue in contract law for misrepresentation. Personally, the former is more likely.

 

In any event, it would cost more to litigate this matter than it would to recover the

price of the camera. My advice would be to merely threaten legal action. But all

things considered, i.e. CompUSA restructuring its business plan which includes the

closure of several stores, a nice letter to a newspaper should more than do the trick!

 

 

-Hoch

[sil]

Hoch, I like reading what you write.

 

And I cannot believe that CompUSA is doing nothing about this. Did they not think the guy would try to put this into the media?

[NBVegita]

I am neither inaccurate nor am I incorrect.

 

To prove your case, criminal or other, the evidence you present in defence of your case must be found to be accurate and true beyond a reasonable doubt, to a judge or jury of your peers. In a civil law suit most often there is not solid evidence as there is in capital cases, as in DNA, law enforcement ect. Thus the evidence you do have to present must be shown to be more credible than the defendants. Finally if the defendant can provide reasonable doubt that your evidence is either inaccurate or false, then the case is won by the defendant.

 

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. If the plaintiff cannot present solid evidence, thus meaning evidence that can be shown as true without reasonable doubt, he has no case. In this case it is impossible for the plaintiff to produce said evidence. The only singular evidence the plaintiff would be able to provide would be an eye witness to state that they were both present and coherent upon the plantiffs original opening of said product. Which if you know much of the legal system is tantamount to kissing your sister. Then all CompUSA would have to do is bring forth their own video recordings and staff to verify that to the best of their knowledge the package was sealed and untampered with when sold to the client. Then they would also bring in evidence to show the weight variation in a camera box with and without a camera in it, and many other resources. It would be infinitely easy for CompUSA to provide reasonable doubt as to the claim that the camera was not in the box when it was sold.

 

Thus he cannot sue for breach of contract, fraud or misrepresentation, because without him being able to prove, yes beyond a reasonable doubt, that the camera was not in the box, CompUSA and or !@#$%^&*ociating companies have done none of the above.

 

No matter what branch of law you are in, the defendant is always innocent until proven guilty.

 

Please don't try to tell me that I am wrong when I am far from wrong.

[Hoch]

Please don't try to tell me that I am wrong when I am far from wrong.

You are wrong. You are wrong because you keep mixing the civil standard of proof

with the criminal standard of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a much higher

standard than on the balance of probabilities, or on the preponderance of the evi-

dence as is used in the US (but I will continue to use b of p).

 

Look at it like this, on the one hand you have beyond a reasonable doubt which sets

a much higher bar. Generally speaking in criminal trials the judge will instruct the jury

that this means more probable than not. It would be misleading to give an exact figure

or percentage, but on a scale of 0 to 100, beyond a reasonable doubt would fall above

90 per cent or so (in practise 95 per cent, i.e. near certainty).

 

On the other hand you have on the balance of probabilities. This bar is set much lower.

The reason for this is obvious; every claimant (plaintiff as is still the used terminology

in the US) would have to overcome such a high standard if the bar were not set lower.

This would place an unfair burden on a claimant claiming against a defendant, as civil

cases generally involve monetary or pecuniary losses. This is not so with criminal law

which involves the loss of civil liberties. Thus the bar is much lower in civil cases than

criminal cases. This is of course very general, but I have no desire to give a full lecture!

 

Returning to the balance of probabilities, this generally means that a claimant must prove

his case to a court above 50 per cent. Generally, not always, if a judge (or jury with com-

plex fraud cases) believes that the claimant has put his case forward and accepts that the

balance goes more in his favour than the defendant's, i.e. 51 per cent or more, then he will

succeed at trial.

 

To summarise, when speaking of civil and/or criminal cases it is very important to ensure

that you do not mix up or confuse the standard of proof. The criminal standard of proof

would place to high of a bar for a claimant initiating a civil claim. One of the more better

examples to remember is the OJ Simpson trial. Whilst the prosecution failed to prove to a

jury that it was more probable than not that Simpson committed murder, the victim's fami-

lies were able to succeed in their civil case against Simpson for wrongful death because the

standard of proof is much lower. If we were to accept what you have written then the civil

case against Simpson would have surely failed.

 

Again, think of the two standard's as a bar with beyond a reasonable doubt being much higher

and the balance of probabilities much lower. In the former, the burden is on the prosecution

to prove their case on that standard. In reality a defendant has to do nothing. The moment the

evidence does not show that it is more probable than not that the defendant committed the

crime of which he is accused the prosecution's case fails. Of course, it is generally advisable

that a defendant put forward some (cogent) evidence, which is what I always advise my clients

to do. In any event, this is the criminal standard.

 

As regard to the rest of what you wrote, you are quite right to suggest that unless this chap can

show that there was no camera to begin with, then his claim will not succeed. However, he does

not have to show this beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal vs. civil standard of proof). If he

could, then the examples I gave earlier would apply. I only failed to mention this earlier simply

because I felt it was so obvious that no right-thinking person would form a different conclusion.

 

But in any event, it would cost more to litigate this matter and he should just tip off a local news-

paper (!@#$%^&*uming of course he is not lying )

 

 

-Hoch

[Gravitron]

^ What he said.

 

Liability of proof is on the prosecution in criminal cases.

However, in civil cases liability of proof is usually in the hands of the defence.

 

In addition, there's a matter of "in good faith".

"All sales are final" and "should've inspected content of purchase" do not hold versus.

If fraud is proven illicitly intentional, however, this may escalate onto a criminal trial...but I don't see that happening.

But you definitely can't go about as a regular manner of business conduct to sell empty boxes and exclaim yourself of warranty via the former replies from Ross' staffer.

This be a single case...were they to be doing this as a matter of routine they would have the FTC and BOBB all over their !@#$%^&*es in lawsuits up their armpits.

[NBVegita]

Yet again neither am I wrong nor innacurate.

 

The burden of proof required is direcly dependent on the evidence produced by the defendant. In the US we even have a 3rd level of "proof" something like clear and convincing evidence. In the United states there is no structure as to which type of suit requires which burden of proof. Typically in capital criminal cases the jury will not come to a conclusion unless the evidence is overwhelming, but even in standard criminal cases they do not need to excercise evidence that falls in the category of beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the defendant can produce very solid clear and convincing evidence, which is a step above your balance of evidence in the US legal system, so in order for the plaintiff to win his case, he would have to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if by some chance the plaintiff could manage to produce clear and convincing evidence, which would be an oxy-moron in this instance, the evidence, according to your preponderance would have to outweight the defence, which in this case they can easily produce clear and convinsing evidence. So thusly in order for the preponderance of the plaintiff to be greater than that of the defendant, the plaintiff would have to produce evidence near or within the bounds of beyond a reasonable doubt. Not very difficult to see.

 

In your math terms:

Balance = 50%

Clear = 75%

Reasonable = 90-95%

 

If defendant A produces evidence in the realm of 75%-89% thus the plaintiff would have to produce evidence greater than 75%-89% to win his case. You can call it anything you want, but based on the standard evidence a retail store is able to produce in any type of suit, the plaintiff must present extremely solid and convincing evidence, thus falling in a very very high % of legal truancy, thus falling near or in beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

And yes if this were a common occurance, or even if this gentleman could get hundreds of plaintiffs together to go after CompUSA in a class action lawsuit he might have a chance, but otherwise no matter how bad it stinks for the guy, he's SOL.

[Gravitron]

In a civil case of this degree, suffice that he p!@#$%^&* a polygraph test to prove that infact he had purchased an empty box unknowingly and it's game over.

[NBVegita]

Polygraphs are not deemed solid evidence in a united states court of law.

 

And even if the judge, which is all that presides over a civil case, allows the polygraph test results to sway his opinion, it would fall into the low to middle end category of evidence. So even if he paid for and brought in the polygraph test results, which most likely would cost more than the camera, it would be the only, minor, bit of evidence in his favor, and not allow him to win his case.

 

Polygraph tests have been proven terribly innaccurate over the past century and can have a nervous person telling the truth shown false, and a calm person lying shown true.

 

I'm not clear on international law, but I don't believe anywhere considers them to be credible sources of evidence.

Edited June 7, 2007 by NBVegita

[Hoch]

Okay, as there is some obvious confusion on this otherwise simple issue, let's

take it from the top.

 

The law of evidence recognises two principal burdens:

the legal burden; and
the evidential burden

The legal burden (of course) is the obligation placed on a party to prove a fact

in issue. Whether a party has discharged the legal burden is a question to be

determined by the tribunal of fact, i.e. a judge in most civil trials or a jury in

criminal trials.

 

The evidential burden is the obligation on a party to adduce sufficient evidence

to raise a fact in issue, i.e. make a particular issue a live issue at trial. Whether

a party has discharged the evidential burden is a question of law for the judge.

 

The standard of proof is the degree of cogency or persuasiveness required of

the evidence in order to discharge a burden of proof.

 

Criminal proceedings

 

In criminal proceedings the legal burden properly lies with the prosecution, and

a high standard of proof is required. However, the common law does recognise

a number exceptions when the legal burden is reversed. Suffice it say, none of

them applies to this particular situation (nor this entire explanation ... but oh well).

 

The general rule is that a party bearing the legal burden on a particular issue

usually bears the evidential burden. However, once again the common law does

recognise a number of exceptions to this, but none apply here. This stated, a

cursory look at US criminal law has indicated that the same exceptions that apply

in England also applies in the US.

 

The standard of proof to which the prosecution must prove its cases has been

variously described as 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. If there is a reasonable

doubt about the defendant's guilt, the standard of proof has not been met and

the defendant must be acquitted.

 

Where the defence bear the legal burden in relation to a fact in issue in a crim-

inal trial the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, or preponderance

of evidence. As with before, two degrees of separation.

 

Civil proceedings

 

In civil cases, at common law, the general rule is that the legal burden of any

fact in issue is borne by the party !@#$%^&*erting and not denying. In other words,

he who !@#$%^&*erts must prove not he who denies. Accordingly, the claimant usu-

ally bears the legal burden (and by necessity an evidential burden) of proving

all the elements of his claim. Similarly, the defendant bears the legal (and evi-

dential) burden of proving any defence and/or counter claim against the claim-

ant. This general rule includes negative !@#$%^&*ertions, such as if the !@#$%^&*ertion of

a negative is an essential part of the claimant's case, the proof of the !@#$%^&*ertion

still rests upon the claimant.

 

The standard of proof can be stated thusly: if the evidence is such that the tri-

bunal can say; 'We think it more probably than not', the burden is discharged,

but, if the probabilities are equal, it is not. This is derived from the UK case of

Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 327, per LORD Denning giving judg-

ment of the court after carefully examining the position in all common law juris-

dictions. Although his Lordship's words have been reformulated to mean on the

balance of probabilities it is still good and valid law.

 

Now then, having given a rather thorough explanation on the law of evidence

the original position put forward can be stated thusly: it is inherently and funda-

mentally wrong to describe the stand of proof in a civil case as being one of

evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Not only does this confuse the standard

of proof's required in civil and criminal cases, it would invalidate a corpus of

case law which hitherto has been decided on a lower standard of proof, e.g. the

OJ Simpson civil case I mentioned earlier.

 

Whilst I appreciate and understand that there are some differences in the law

of evidence in the UK versus the US, this is not one of them. A fortiori, this is

also the position in most non-common law jurisdictions, e.g. Germany.

 

I truly hope this clears up the matter. But if, as I suspect, it does not and the

line continues to be 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to describe the standard of

proof in a civil case, then I see no further need to discuss this and I have tried

my best.

 

Could it be that by some unfortunate miracle the legal heavens have been flooded

with philistine proselytisers? I think not.

 

 

-Hoch

[Shlazzer]

yall type too much

[»Swift]

Let's just remind some people. Hoch is a lawyer.

[Samapico]

yep... I know... that's why I'm not even trying to argue

[Gravitron]

NBVegita seems to have a serious hard time recognizing the difference between criminal law and civil law.

This would indicate that his knowledge of the law stems from all those police shows and he has very little background on actual law studies.

 

<3 Hoch.

 

And now, for some kenyans!

http://www.yikers.com/video_powerthirst.html

[rootbear75]

Let's just remind some people. Hoch is a lawyer.

oh lol.... that explains a lot

[NBVegita]

What I think you miss is that I've never once stated that in a civil case there NEED be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, in fact I quite implicitly said that in all criminal cases there need not be. I think you are more picking on the literal meaning of my syntax.

 

In a case, civil or criminal, if the defending party has overwhelming evidence in their defence, the plaintiff would have to produce near infalable evidence proving his claim to be more credible then the defence. In essence the evidence produce by the prosecution would be statistically, of course depending on the judge, 85-100% true, thus falling it in the realm that the evidence would need to be so severe as to be categorized as beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

The only point I've been trying to make is that in THIS case, the plaintiff would have to produce evidence that would fall into, legally, the category of beyond reasonable doubt, to win a case against a defendant with such strong evidence to support their claim. by syntax you can fall back on the fact that no he does not have to produce "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt", as that is required in nothing more than severe criminal cases , but in reality you would have to provide evidence that is more credible and solid that the defendant, who in this case can produce evidence that could most likely fall withing your criminal bounds of evidence.

 

Beyond a reasonalbe doubt is not a scale you can base a case on. Criminal cases have been ruled upon with evidence as simple as an eye witness and a bad alibi, and criminal cases have been lost with evidence that is all but !@#$%^&*ing. The same can be said for civil cases. If you really look at it the way you are presenting it, being beyond a reasonable doubt is not a scale we can really measure, every case, be it criminal or civil, is really just about who has more credible evidence. In a civil court you need just need to convince a judge, where as in a criminal court you need convince a jury. As in the OJ simpson case, the defence produced enough evidence to convince the jury who was 75% black that O.J. was innocent. There were also loopholes in the evidence, and his lawyers, who were the best money could by, dismissed some key evidence through legal technicalities. Dispite being able to convince 12 people that he was innocent, the majority of the world believed the prosecuters charge and knew O.J. to be guilty. That is why when faced in a civil court he was found to be guilty. The O.J. simpson trial is a perfect example of how our legal system can fail, so not exactly the best to base an arguement off of. I mean for heavens sake the man even wrote a book about "if I did kill them".

 

I've typed too much and done it broken at work so if I missed something I meant to say, or don't make sense at some point I'll try to clarify later.

[NBVegita]

Also I appreciate that Hoch is a lawyer and although I did not know that at the beginning I knew he has a good legal experience base. The point I'm trying to prove is that in this particular case, the plaintiff would need to produce near, or infalable evidence to win against CompUSA based on the evidence that can be presented by CompUSA.

 

I have been debating one particular theoretical evidential severity pertaining to a singular civil lawsuit, whilst hoch has been debating the theoretical evidential severity of criminal vs civil lawsuits.

 

In closing we have been debating two separate subjects, unless Hoch's ultimate arguement is that in no civil case, including the one I have mentioned, would you need to produce evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt". In which I would argue that you would need to produce, due to the degree of evidence admissable by the defence, evidence that would need to be near infallable, as the evidence by the defence is also near infalable, and thus would fall into needing such severe evidence as could be classified "beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

Of course I don't see the difference between stating, specially on ssforum:

 

To win the case the plaintiff would need to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt;

 

vs

 

The plaintiff, due to the fact that the defendant can produced such evidence as to nearly absolve himself of all legal obligation in said matter, must produce evidence that supercedes the nearly infalable evidence produced by the defendant; so that if the plaintiff cannot produce stalwart enough evidence, that can be proved less falable than the nearly infalable evidence of the defendant, he cannot win a civil lawsuit against said defendant.

 

I sincerly hope that is not what this debate has been about.

[Samapico]

NBVegita seems to have a serious hard time recognizing the difference between criminal law and civil law.

This would indicate that his knowledge of the law stems from all those police shows and he has very little background on actual law studies.

 

<3 Hoch.

 

And now, for some kenyans!

http://www.yikers.com/video_powerthirst.html

400 BABIES

 

OMG THAT IS SO FUNNY HAHAAH

[Aileron]

The most important point Hoch made is this though: Lawyers cost more than the camera.

 

The customer couldn't open the box prior to purchase, because that would be shoplifting, or atleast if a store employee saw him opening the box in the store he would interpret it as an act of shoplifting.

 

This is poor customer service in any case. Few products are more valueble than a customer. If you give them a refund, the customer continues to shop at your store. If you don't he goes somewhere else. In the end, the loss of business costs more than a camera.

[Samapico]

Yeah... because he didn't refund him, he will never go back there. Plus, he probably told his story to all his friends and relatives... they won't go there again either. And all of us know about it too, we won't go there either (not that I would ever have been there anyway)...

 

A satisfied client refers your company to ~3 people.

An unsatisfied client will badmouth your company to atleast 10 people...

 

That's why the client is always right

[Samapico]

What Maddox thinks of CompUSA

 

his site rulez by the way.

It's the best site of the universe.

[Greased_Lightning]

I have no legal base, but I have watched 'The People's Court' a few times (and I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night). Can't you also sue for damages and attorney fees in a civil matter?

 

From what I saw on TV (haha I can't believe I said that) if the store's return policy is clearly printed on the receipt, then it is the responsibility of the customer to ensure his/her purchase is correct and intact (like by opening the box before leaving the store). I don't think he has much of a chance just by going on his word and credibility witnesses (people lie for stupid things).

 

That being said, I don't doubt that what this guy says happened did happen. He should get a bunch of bad press going against CompUSA and teach those ASSS the meaning of good business relations!

 

Lastly, I must admit that I am really ashamed that I used stuff that I might have seen on People's Court from like two years ago when the cable was out and all the bunny ears picked up was ABC. If I have come off as a completely re!@#$%^&*ed !@#$%^&*bag, I apologize and will accept forum-based kicks in the nutz.

[sil]

Here is a question. If the box was sealed (or if the people at CompUSA claim that it was a sealed box) than the customer would have no reason to check the merchandise as they would believe a sealed box to have everything in it. Is it the customers fault that they did not check a sealed box? Also, if the item was defective (say the lense was cracked) would CompUSA have done anything then? This is a case of terrible customer service.

 

Not very familiar with liquidation sales though. I am guessing everything is on clearance for cheap? And to me, all sales final does not mean if we sold you something defective you are out of luck (missing parts being a defective reason). I guess that is what CompUSA thinks it means?