Customer Care

[Jpn10037]

I remembering purchasing item A269411 when it was a one day only value in September 2015. Back then, the ODO policy was that it was the lowest price ever. When I purchased it, it was $220. Now it is on clearance for $99. QVC CS tells me it cannot help me because it is outside its price match policy. But this isn't a price match issue. It is a guarantee of lowest price ever issue or truth in advertising policy. Can anyone help direct me to someone who can help me?

[Jpn10037]

Should be one TIME only value. I purchased when it was a OTO, not an ODO.

[Pearlee]

I thought their "it's only good for six months"  policy went into effect before 2015?

To the OP, how do you know it was "forever" when you bought it?   I don't think that's been Q's policy for quite a while now.

[Q4u]

Wow, that's quite a price difference.  I also agree that it's probably a OTO (that was for a day).

However, the machinations that these companies go through in order to sell can be dicey but not necessarily illegal.  For instance stating that at the OTO will be the lowest price EVER may not hold water if the implication of EVER is for the year, month or day. To sell all they can at the price it was before and then realize they would be better off drastically reducing the price in order to clear the product out of stock may have been a spur of the moment decision and not realized at the time you purchased the item.

I see this in the RW all the time.  Most Brick & Mortars will adjust the price if you complain enough, but most customers just accept the price difference as something that just happens and at this new drastically cut price might not give the customer the sizing they wanted.... or pieces might have been handled ~a lot~ prior to them getting the item. 

It's unfortunate, but it's part of the buying/selling game....  and I doubt if it's illegal.

[Jpn10037]

Thank you for your response!

If the Q defined "ever" in writing somewhere on its site, then I think that would help their argument. However, in the absence of a written policy, the plain language controls. The plain language of "ever" is that the Q won't lower the price below that amount ever. This plain language interpretation is bolstered by the Q's new ODO policy that specifically delineates a 6-month period of a "lowest" price. 

In case you were wondering, yes, I am a lawyer! :-)

[KYToby]

You bought it a year ago, and unless there is a written policy stating that the price would be lower, then you are out of luck.  In this particular case, I honestly thik that this may be something you believe, but as stated by someone else, this has not been something QVC has done in a long time.

It is time to move on.

[Venezia]

---

@Jpn10037 wrote:

Thank you for your response!

If the Q defined "ever" in writing somewhere on its site, then I think that would help their argument. However, in the absence of a written policy, the plain language controls. The plain language of "ever" is that the Q won't lower the price below that amount ever. This plain language interpretation is bolstered by the Q's new ODO policy that specifically delineates a 6-month period of a "lowest" price. 

In case you were wondering, yes, I am a lawyer! :-)

---

I think expecting any company to never put their merchandise on a final clearnace sale is unreasonable.  You have, after all, had the item for a year.

And, if you're a lawyer, wouldn't you already know the proper channels to pursue this (as you're asking for advice in your first post).

I think you'll find QVC is on solid ground in this instance.

[Jpn10037]

I don't want to sue QVC. I want to resolve it without resorting to the proper legal channels. I know the correct legal channels. 

It's just that the Q is now pretending that the previous policy was the OTO was guaranteed to be the lowest price to date and that the Q and the hosts never made any representations that it would be the lowest price at the Q ever. 

So, I am looking for confirmation that the Q did used to have this as their stated policy: that OTOs were the lowest prices ever.

Sheesh. Tough crowd here.

Also, i posted here because I thought that moderators/CSR looked here and provided respones.

Thank you!

[GCR18]

I don't remember hearing that a price is the lowest "ever".  It used to be a year, then transitioned to six months.

[Squirrel Lover]

I was complaining about this issue in another thread last week. In July I purchased one of the TSV emerald rings for $499.00. Three months later it was on sale for $299.00-- yes, $200 less. I believed that the TSV price was the lowest price for a year, but apparently that is not true. 

I have learned my lesson the hard way.  If I really want something thats more than a few dollars I will just put it on my wishlist and wait for a lower price--if it sells out--then it was not meant to be. I am pissed about the $200 difference in price.