Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dollar-stores overcharge customers while promising low prices

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 754 posts

Re: Dollar-stores overcharge customers while promising low prices

#271

Post by TylerE »

luckylion wrote: post #201
hellotheretoday wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this would be somewhat arguable as okay except for their introduction into categories like daycare, emergency rooms, drug and alcohol rehab, care homes for the geriatric and disabled, etc. things that probably shouldn’t be profit oriented to begin with yet are and are being snatched up by private equity, worsening outcomes in basically all of them

"shouldn't be profit oriented" is another way to say "costs will quickly grow exponentially", because there's absolutely no incentive not to let them. Is anyone better off if elderly care becomes too expensive to offer at scale?

Except that Americans pay far more for these services than places where they aren't profit oriented. Try again. Reality does not support your assertion.

Re: Dollar-stores overcharge customers while promising low prices

#272

Post by jeltz »

cs702 wrote: post #258

> Red Baron frozen pizzas, listed on the shelf at $5, rang up at $7.65. Bounty paper towels, shelf price $10.99, rang up at $15.50. Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes, Stouffer’s frozen meatloaf, Sprite and Pepsi, ibuprofen, Klondike Minis – shoppers were overpaying for all of them. Pedigree puppy food, listed at $12.25, rang up at $14.75. Surely, now that this made the news, there will be an investigation into the fraudulent…

It was investigated, the issue is that the fines are smaller than the profit. I would personally want to see things like this considered fraud and that it can result in prison sentences for executives and other people invovled in the decision making.

Re: Dollar-stores overcharge customers while promising low prices

#273

Post by nrhrjrjrjtntbt »

fencepost wrote: post #217

I believe Michigan has laws on the books that should be the model for this (the "Scanner law") - if you're overcharged at the register and the sale is completed, you have 30 days to get the price corrected plus ten times the amount of overcharge (between $1 and $5). Paying you the 'bonus' is optional, but if they don't do so you can file a suit for the greater of your actual damages or $250 (in small claims on your o…

That is already ludicuously complex. Designed by Kafka so you give up.

Re: Dollar-stores overcharge customers while promising low prices

#274

Post by LorenPechtel »

Waterluvian wrote: post #148
thanhhaimai wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is exactly why I only shop at Costco. While other retailers try to get me to buy more stuffs, Costco try to make sure I'm satisfied enough that I'll renew my yearly membership (their main profit source). The incentive structure aligns very well.

Buying in bulk is about having the ability to both afford next week’s food this week and have the means to store it. Not to mention the annual subscription. Responding to a comment about dollar stores preying on the poor with, “that’s why I shop at Costco” is… a choice.

For me it's very simple: What I save on glasses pays for my membership. I don't go all that often but it's still worthwhile.

Re: Dollar-stores overcharge customers while promising low prices

#275

Post by gruez »

youarentrightjr wrote: post #251
gruez wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Private equity is far worse. It’s mean 100% ownership by a group of sociopaths who are executing on a plan to extract as much cash as possible quickly with no other goals at all. ...as opposed to the average public company? An average company might have more "average joe" shareholders (almost by definition, because private equity is typically off limits to non-accredited investors), but outside of meme stocks, there…

I see these private equity takes on HN frequently and am really baffled by the ignorance. There's a very clear difference between a public and private company - the fiduciary duty to shareholders. There is a legal requirement for directors of public companies to act in the financial interests of all shareholders. In practice, and according to precedent, this means long term viability of the company, in other words, a…

>There is a legal requirement for directors of public companies to act in the financial interests of all shareholders. In practice, and according to precedent, this means long term viability of the company, in other words, a sustained profitable business.

All that means is that controlling shareholders can't use the company as a piggy bank and raid it to fund their other ventures. It doesn't mean the business has to be "sustainable" or whatever. In fact, it's perfectly legal for the board to sell to a "vulture" PE firm that will sell the business off for parts, as long as the sale price is good enough.

Re: Dollar-stores overcharge customers while promising low prices

#276

Post by LorenPechtel »

gruez wrote: post #220
s1artibartfast wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to amount to a similar principle, that their business model depends on repeat customers, and would fail if they lost trust. I much prefer this to stores that are happy to burn customers, never expecting to see them again.

>It seems to amount to a similar principle, that their business model depends on repeat customers, and would fail if they lost trust. You think dollar general is making $37.9B (in 2023) of annual revenue from one-off customers? Unless you're operating a tourist trap, or some sort of business that people only need a few times in their lifetimes (eg. real estate agents), most businesses rely on repeat customers.

Note how they tend to have captive customers.

Re: Dollar-stores overcharge customers while promising low prices

#277

Post by pclmulqdq »

collingreen wrote: post #236
pclmulqdq wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should have paid more for the fabric, I guess. Private equity tends to loot things on the way down. Joann was on the way out regardless.

Lol, the "it's actually good for customers" response is "they should have paid more"? I love it.

Nobody in this comment chain was saying it was good for the customers. The GP was saying that they clear out room for new businesses, and if brick-and-mortar-fabric-superstore were still a viable model someone would be doing it.

Re: Dollar-stores overcharge customers while promising low prices

#279

Post by jkaplowitz »

gruez wrote: post #268
jkaplowitz wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a novel legal theory, But yeah, I did call it a theoretical option, not a practical one. I don't pretend that it's practical.

Your original idea of "paying the marked (lower) price, walking away, even if the cashier corrected you with the higher price" certainly is novel. Otherwise can you link any sort of judicial ruling or even a random lawyer that agrees with you?Otherwise this looks suspiciously similar to all the spurious legal theories that sovereign citizens have, about how they don't need a drivers license because they're "traveling…

I said the legally maximum price is often the lower price. NYC is an example with a law about this:

https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/consumers/10-things-consumer.pa...

Similar laws exist at the state level in NY, in other NY counties, and in several other states and subdivisions of other states across the country.

In that case, the higher charge is clearly illegal (no novel theory needed), so standard contract law theory could consider the terms of the buyer's offer to purchase to be the terms of the invitation to treat in the absence of legal contrary terms offered at checkout. I guess it's possible that the court would say that the store never agreed to sell the item at all by demanding an illegal price instead of being considered to have accepted the buyer's offer on the posted terms, but there's only so much tolerance a judge would have for that kind of defense by the store - after all, it's very likely that the customer would have an unjust enrichment claim against the store for the amount of the overcharge if they were to pay the illegal higher price, and that wouldn't be true if the illegal contract term were valid.

The precise answer may vary by state based on judicial precedents about illegal terms in contractual counteroffers following an offer to buy made pursuant to an invitation to treat.

None of this is practical for almost any chain dollar store overpricing victim to pursue, but I am just talking theoretically here.

Re: Dollar-stores overcharge customers while promising low prices

#280

Post by JumpCrisscross »

youarentrightjr wrote: post #251
gruez wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Private equity is far worse. It’s mean 100% ownership by a group of sociopaths who are executing on a plan to extract as much cash as possible quickly with no other goals at all. ...as opposed to the average public company? An average company might have more "average joe" shareholders (almost by definition, because private equity is typically off limits to non-accredited investors), but outside of meme stocks, there…

I see these private equity takes on HN frequently and am really baffled by the ignorance. There's a very clear difference between a public and private company - the fiduciary duty to shareholders. There is a legal requirement for directors of public companies to act in the financial interests of all shareholders. In practice, and according to precedent, this means long term viability of the company, in other words, a…

> There is a legal requirement for directors of public companies to act in the financial interests of all shareholders

No, there isn't.

The whole point of Revlon duties is that they trigger "in certain limited circumstances indicating that the 'sale' or 'break-up' of the company is inevitable" [1]. Outside those conditions, "the singular responsibility of the board" is not "to maximize immediate stockholder value by securing the highest price available."

> There is no such requirement for a private company

Are you thinking of minority rights? These vary based on whether a company is closely held or not [2], not whether it's public or private.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revlon%2C_Inc._v._MacAndrews_%....

[2] https://millerlawpc.com/rights-minority-shareholders-private...

Post reply on HN