I believe Lowes was not playing exactly fair with it's pricing. here
is what happened, you decide(prices rounded off for simplicity, and
since I left receipt with exact prices at home):

Needed insulation, went to Lowes because a newspaper ad said they had a
special "buy 3, get one free" That is 33% off.

Rolls had price sticker of $32s. I put 16 rolls on the flatbed.

Got up to register, rang up at 28 bucks per roll. That was supposed
to be the "sale price" which reflected the 4 for 3 deal. I am no math
genius, but the way I saw it I should have gotten 33% off per roll, and
$28 is not 33% off of $32. I asked about this, and they said the
price-per-roll in the "computer" was $38 bucks per roll, therefore the
28 bucks per roll reflected the sale price.

Fortunately Michigan has pretty strict "item pricing" consumer law, and
if a price tag is affixed to an item the store must charge that price,
regardless of what the "computer" says the price should be. Once I
pointed it out manager was very good, charged me 25 bucks per roll and
I left satisfied, but suspicious.

WHAT I THINK HAPPENED:
In anticipation of the 4 for 3 sale, Lowes raised the price of the roll
from 32 to 38 bucks, but this store missed marking up the rolls, so
they got caught and had to give me the better deal. If that is what
they did, they are trying to pull a fast one.. and I am glad I caught
them!

I would be interested to hear if anyone else has examples of Lowes
raising prices in order to then offer "sale prices".

"Jack" wrote:

I believe Lowes was not playing exactly fair with it's pricing. here
is what happened, you decide(prices rounded off for simplicity, and
since I left receipt with exact prices at home):

Needed insulation, went to Lowes because a newspaper ad said they had a
special "buy 3, get one free" That is 33% off.

snip

It is really 25% off not 33%.
--
Jim Rusling
More or Less Retired
Mustang, OK
http://www.rusling.org

"Jim Rusling" wrote

snip

It is really 25% off not 33%.

3 items at normal price X .25 = 75% of the normal price

3 items at normal price X .333 = 99.9% of the normal price (call it 100%)

Therefore the first three are really at 33% off making the 4th one "free".

"YYZedd" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jim Rusling" wrote

snip

It is really 25% off not 33%.

3 items at normal price X .25 = 75% of the normal price

3 items at normal price X .333 = 99.9% of the normal price (call it 100%)

Therefore the first three are really at 33% off making the 4th one "free".



Of course I guess you could look at it another way. They are giving you all
four at 25% off. Guess it works both ways.

Needed insulation, went to Lowes because a newspaper ad said they had a
special "buy 3, get one free" That is 33% off.

Normal price for three rolls is $96, but with the 4th free it works out
to $24 per roll, not the $25 you paid. Lowes owes you 16 bucks.

"YYZedd" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jim Rusling" wrote

snip

It is really 25% off not 33%.

3 items at normal price X .25 = 75% of the normal price

3 items at normal price X .333 = 99.9% of the normal price (call it 100%)

Therefore the first three are really at 33% off making the 4th one "free".

Depending on how hte ad is written, the first three are at 100%, the fourth
one is 0%, or free. If you only buy one, tow, or three, you pay full
price., but only after the third do you get the fourth one free. Some
states do not allow that type of pricing so a 25% discount would be "fair"
for the singles.

Jack wrote:
I believe Lowes was not playing exactly fair with it's pricing.
here is what happened, you decide(prices rounded off for
simplicity, and since I left receipt with exact prices at home):

Needed insulation, went to Lowes because a newspaper ad said they
had a special "buy 3, get one free" That is 33% off.

Rolls had price sticker of $32s. I put 16 rolls on the flatbed.

Got up to register, rang up at 28 bucks per roll. That was
supposed to be the "sale price" which reflected the 4 for 3 deal.
I am no math genius, but the way I saw it I should have gotten 33%
off per roll, and $28 is not 33% off of $32. I asked about this,
and they said the price-per-roll in the "computer" was $38 bucks
per roll, therefore the 28 bucks per roll reflected the sale price.

Fortunately Michigan has pretty strict "item pricing" consumer law,
and if a price tag is affixed to an item the store must charge that
price, regardless of what the "computer" says the price should be.
Once I pointed it out manager was very good, charged me 25 bucks
per roll and I left satisfied, but suspicious.

You were still screwed, should have been $24.
(3*32)/4 = 24
________________

I would be interested to hear if anyone else has examples of Lowes
raising prices in order to then offer "sale prices".

All stores do it. Yes, your friendly supermarket too. Welcome to the
wonderful world of merchandising...


--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

"Jack" wrote in message
WHAT I THINK HAPPENED:
In anticipation of the 4 for 3 sale, Lowes raised the price of the roll
from 32 to 38 bucks, but this store missed marking up the rolls, so
they got caught and had to give me the better deal. If that is what
they did, they are trying to pull a fast one.. and I am glad I caught
them!

I would be interested to hear if anyone else has examples of Lowes
raising prices in order to then offer "sale prices".

This is a verypossible scenario. Supermarkets do it al the time. I watch
the prices of items we buy on a regular basis and often they re increased
for the sale. The sale may still be less that normal, but not as much as
stated.

Look at tools or electronics on Amazon.com. They offer a 40%, 50% or even
more discount off of the "list" price, not what it really sells for at any
other retail store.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Needed insulation, went to Lowes because a newspaper ad said they had a
special "buy 3, get one free" That is 33% off.

Normal price for three rolls is $96, but with the 4th free it works out
to $24 per roll, not the $25 you paid. Lowes owes you 16 bucks.



Michigan has a 6% sales tax.

"YYZedd" wrote in message
nk.net...

"YYZedd" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jim Rusling" wrote

snip

It is really 25% off not 33%.

3 items at normal price X .25 = 75% of the normal price

3 items at normal price X .333 = 99.9% of the normal price (call it
100%)

Therefore the first three are really at 33% off making the 4th one
"free".



Of course I guess you could look at it another way. They are giving you
all
four at 25% off. Guess it works both ways.


It doesn't work both ways. I think the problem is that you think "Buy 3 and
get one free" indicates that the deal applies to 3 rolls of insulation. It
applies to 4.

A 33% discount is what you get if you buy two and get one free (for a total
of 3).
A 25% discount is what you get if you buy 3 and get one free (for a total of
4).
A 20% discount is what you get if you buy 4 and get one free (for a total of
5).

If you buy 16 rolls at $32/roll and then get a 33% discount (we'll skip
sales tax for now), you should be charged $341.33.

If you were to buy 12 rolls at $32/roll (and got 4 free as advertised),
you'd be charged $384.

If you were to buy 16 rolls at $32/roll and then got a 25% discount on the
lot of them, you'd also pay $384, which works out to $24/roll.

With sales tax, you should have paid $407.04 for the 16 rolls you had on the
cart, which works out to $25.44/roll. Lowe's was right. You were not
cheated.

"dadiOH" wrote in message
news:jdFGg.5938$hP6.5192@trnddc04...
Jack wrote:
I believe Lowes was not playing exactly fair with it's pricing.
here is what happened, you decide(prices rounded off for
simplicity, and since I left receipt with exact prices at home):

Needed insulation, went to Lowes because a newspaper ad said they
had a special "buy 3, get one free" That is 33% off.

Rolls had price sticker of $32s. I put 16 rolls on the flatbed.

Got up to register, rang up at 28 bucks per roll. That was
supposed to be the "sale price" which reflected the 4 for 3 deal.
I am no math genius, but the way I saw it I should have gotten 33%
off per roll, and $28 is not 33% off of $32. I asked about this,
and they said the price-per-roll in the "computer" was $38 bucks
per roll, therefore the 28 bucks per roll reflected the sale price.

Fortunately Michigan has pretty strict "item pricing" consumer law,
and if a price tag is affixed to an item the store must charge that
price, regardless of what the "computer" says the price should be.
Once I pointed it out manager was very good, charged me 25 bucks
per roll and I left satisfied, but suspicious.

You were still screwed, should have been $24.
(3*32)/4 = 24

$24 * 1.06 = $25.44

If he paid $25/roll then he actually owes Lowe's $0.44 per roll. I'm
assuming he was just approximating the $25.




________________

I would be interested to hear if anyone else has examples of Lowes
raising prices in order to then offer "sale prices".

All stores do it. Yes, your friendly supermarket too. Welcome to the
wonderful world of merchandising...

"TakenEvent" wrote in message
...

"YYZedd" wrote in message
nk.net...

"YYZedd" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jim Rusling" wrote

snip

It is really 25% off not 33%.

3 items at normal price X .25 = 75% of the normal price

3 items at normal price X .333 = 99.9% of the normal price (call it
100%)

Therefore the first three are really at 33% off making the 4th one
"free".



Of course I guess you could look at it another way. They are giving you
all
four at 25% off. Guess it works both ways.


It doesn't work both ways. I think the problem is that you think "Buy 3
and
get one free" indicates that the deal applies to 3 rolls of insulation.
It
applies to 4.

A 33% discount is what you get if you buy two and get one free (for a
total
of 3).
A 25% discount is what you get if you buy 3 and get one free (for a total
of
4).
A 20% discount is what you get if you buy 4 and get one free (for a total
of
5).

If you buy 16 rolls at $32/roll and then get a 33% discount (we'll skip
sales tax for now), you should be charged $341.33.

If you were to buy 12 rolls at $32/roll (and got 4 free as advertised),
you'd be charged $384.

If you were to buy 16 rolls at $32/roll and then got a 25% discount on the
lot of them, you'd also pay $384, which works out to $24/roll.

With sales tax, you should have paid $407.04 for the 16 rolls you had on
the
cart, which works out to $25.44/roll. Lowe's was right. You were not
cheated.


My apologies. Jack was not cheated. Whether or not YYZed was cheated, I
cannot tell.

"TakenEvent" wrote in message
...

"YYZedd" wrote in message
nk.net...

"YYZedd" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jim Rusling" wrote

snip

It is really 25% off not 33%.

3 items at normal price X .25 = 75% of the normal price

3 items at normal price X .333 = 99.9% of the normal price (call it
100%)

Therefore the first three are really at 33% off making the 4th one
"free".



Of course I guess you could look at it another way. They are giving you
all
four at 25% off. Guess it works both ways.


It doesn't work both ways. I think the problem is that you think "Buy 3
and
get one free" indicates that the deal applies to 3 rolls of insulation.
It
applies to 4.

A 33% discount is what you get if you buy two and get one free (for a
total
of 3).
A 25% discount is what you get if you buy 3 and get one free (for a total
of
4).
A 20% discount is what you get if you buy 4 and get one free (for a total
of
5).

If you buy 16 rolls at $32/roll and then get a 33% discount (we'll skip
sales tax for now), you should be charged $341.33.

If you were to buy 12 rolls at $32/roll (and got 4 free as advertised),
you'd be charged $384.

If you were to buy 16 rolls at $32/roll and then got a 25% discount on the
lot of them, you'd also pay $384, which works out to $24/roll.

With sales tax, you should have paid $407.04 for the 16 rolls you had on
the
cart, which works out to $25.44/roll. Lowe's was right. You were not
cheated.


Actually, after rereading the original post, I have determined that Jack got
a better deal than he may think. If the original price was $38/roll, Jack
should have paid $28.50 per roll, for a total of $456. The confusion comes
from the $32 price tag. Either way, Jack got the best possible price.
Lowe's gave Jack the advertised discount off the sticker price on the
insulation. Had he received the discount off of the price in the computer,
he would have paid a total of $483.36. Paying attention to the difference
between the sticker price and the computer price saved Jack $76.32. Lowe's
did right by Jack, but only after he spoke up.

TakenEvent wrote:
"TakenEvent" wrote in message
...
"YYZedd" wrote in message
nk.net...
"YYZedd" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Jim Rusling" wrote

snip

It is really 25% off not 33%.
3 items at normal price X .25 = 75% of the normal price

3 items at normal price X .333 = 99.9% of the normal price (call it
100%)
Therefore the first three are really at 33% off making the 4th one
"free".

Of course I guess you could look at it another way. They are giving you
all
four at 25% off. Guess it works both ways.

It doesn't work both ways. I think the problem is that you think "Buy 3
and
get one free" indicates that the deal applies to 3 rolls of insulation.
It
applies to 4.

A 33% discount is what you get if you buy two and get one free (for a
total
of 3).
A 25% discount is what you get if you buy 3 and get one free (for a total
of
4).
A 20% discount is what you get if you buy 4 and get one free (for a total
of
5).

If you buy 16 rolls at $32/roll and then get a 33% discount (we'll skip
sales tax for now), you should be charged $341.33.

If you were to buy 12 rolls at $32/roll (and got 4 free as advertised),
you'd be charged $384.

If you were to buy 16 rolls at $32/roll and then got a 25% discount on the
lot of them, you'd also pay $384, which works out to $24/roll.

With sales tax, you should have paid $407.04 for the 16 rolls you had on
the
cart, which works out to $25.44/roll. Lowe's was right. You were not
cheated.


Actually, after rereading the original post, I have determined that Jack got
a better deal than he may think. If the original price was $38/roll, Jack
should have paid $28.50 per roll, for a total of $456. The confusion comes
from the $32 price tag. Either way, Jack got the best possible price.
Lowe's gave Jack the advertised discount off the sticker price on the
insulation. Had he received the discount off of the price in the computer,
he would have paid a total of $483.36.

Sale prices aren't supposed X% off a fictional price stored in a
computer. They're supposed to be X% off the price the customer would be
paying in the absence of a sale. That's the sticker price.

If there wasn't a sale at all, the price on the sticker was $32, the
cashier charged $38, and the cashier said that that what was in the
computer, I'd ask to see the manager on the spot. If the manager's
response was that it was a case of "confusion" caused by my relying on
the sticker price, and that the price in the computer was the real
price, I'd leave the store.

The case when a sale is involved is no different.

"Harlan Messinger" wrote in message
...
TakenEvent wrote:
"TakenEvent" wrote in message
...
"YYZedd" wrote in message
nk.net...
"YYZedd" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Jim Rusling" wrote

snip

It is really 25% off not 33%.
3 items at normal price X .25 = 75% of the normal price

3 items at normal price X .333 = 99.9% of the normal price (call it
100%)
Therefore the first three are really at 33% off making the 4th one
"free".

Of course I guess you could look at it another way. They are giving
you
all
four at 25% off. Guess it works both ways.

It doesn't work both ways. I think the problem is that you think "Buy 3
and
get one free" indicates that the deal applies to 3 rolls of insulation.
It
applies to 4.

A 33% discount is what you get if you buy two and get one free (for a
total
of 3).
A 25% discount is what you get if you buy 3 and get one free (for a
total
of
4).
A 20% discount is what you get if you buy 4 and get one free (for a
total
of
5).

If you buy 16 rolls at $32/roll and then get a 33% discount (we'll skip
sales tax for now), you should be charged $341.33.

If you were to buy 12 rolls at $32/roll (and got 4 free as advertised),
you'd be charged $384.

If you were to buy 16 rolls at $32/roll and then got a 25% discount on
the
lot of them, you'd also pay $384, which works out to $24/roll.

With sales tax, you should have paid $407.04 for the 16 rolls you had
on
the
cart, which works out to $25.44/roll. Lowe's was right. You were not
cheated.


Actually, after rereading the original post, I have determined that Jack
got
a better deal than he may think. If the original price was $38/roll,
Jack
should have paid $28.50 per roll, for a total of $456. The confusion
comes
from the $32 price tag. Either way, Jack got the best possible price.
Lowe's gave Jack the advertised discount off the sticker price on the
insulation. Had he received the discount off of the price in the
computer,
he would have paid a total of $483.36.

Sale prices aren't supposed X% off a fictional price stored in a
computer. They're supposed to be X% off the price the customer would be
paying in the absence of a sale. That's the sticker price.

If there wasn't a sale at all, the price on the sticker was $32, the
cashier charged $38, and the cashier said that that what was in the
computer, I'd ask to see the manager on the spot. If the manager's
response was that it was a case of "confusion" caused by my relying on
the sticker price, and that the price in the computer was the real
price, I'd leave the store.

The case when a sale is involved is no different.

Are you supposed to be refuting or disagreeing with something I posted? The
store (eventually) charged Jack based on the sticker price, which was the
correct thing to do as it was, in fact, the sticker price and it was also
the lower of the two. Other than Jack's misconception about there being a
33% discount, he was much less confused than Lowe's. It must be said,
though, that once the discrepency was brought to their attention, Lowe's
handled it as they should have.

The real question is whether Lowe's then relabeled all the insulation,
changed the price in the computer, or did nothing after Jack left. It
wouldn't be that difficult to figure out if the insulation is regularly
priced at $32 or $38. If Jack was up to it, he could send a buddy in to buy
some insulation to see just how Lowe's handled it.

Note from Jack (original poster)

Knowing full well I was not a Mathmetician, and standing in the aisle
at Lowes at 9:30pm after a hard day, and debating with myself whether
it was 25% off, or 33% off.. and finding it possible to make an
internal argument for both.. I finally figured out through good old
fashioned common sense what I should have paid:

I was buying 16 rolls. with a 4 for 3 deal I should have been paying
for 12 rolls. I multiplied 12 times the sticker price(+tax), and
decided that is what I should have paid. The "percent off" was
irrelevant at that point.

I showed my math to the store manager, he concured, and gave it to me
for that price. As I said I was using aproximate numbers, since I
don't have reciept with me.



I left satisfied. The local store folks did the right thing, my post
was about whether the folks at corporate level had raised the price,
just to then offer a "sales price".

TakenEvent wrote:
"Harlan Messinger" wrote in message
...
TakenEvent wrote:
Actually, after rereading the original post, I have determined that Jack
got
a better deal than he may think. If the original price was $38/roll,
Jack
should have paid $28.50 per roll, for a total of $456. The confusion
comes
from the $32 price tag. Either way, Jack got the best possible price.
Lowe's gave Jack the advertised discount off the sticker price on the
insulation. Had he received the discount off of the price in the
computer,
he would have paid a total of $483.36.
Sale prices aren't supposed X% off a fictional price stored in a
computer. They're supposed to be X% off the price the customer would be
paying in the absence of a sale. That's the sticker price.

If there wasn't a sale at all, the price on the sticker was $32, the
cashier charged $38, and the cashier said that that what was in the
computer, I'd ask to see the manager on the spot. If the manager's
response was that it was a case of "confusion" caused by my relying on
the sticker price, and that the price in the computer was the real
price, I'd leave the store.

The case when a sale is involved is no different.

Are you supposed to be refuting or disagreeing with something I posted?

I was taking issue with your statement that "the confusion comes from
the $32 price tag", which I interpreted to mean that $38 really was the
number to be used in the calculation, and that the use of $32 was a
mistake owing to confusion caused by the price tag. If I misunderstood,
sorry.

"Harlan Messinger" wrote in message
...
TakenEvent wrote:
"Harlan Messinger" wrote in message
...
TakenEvent wrote:
Actually, after rereading the original post, I have determined that
Jack
got
a better deal than he may think. If the original price was $38/roll,
Jack
should have paid $28.50 per roll, for a total of $456. The confusion
comes
from the $32 price tag. Either way, Jack got the best possible price.
Lowe's gave Jack the advertised discount off the sticker price on the
insulation. Had he received the discount off of the price in the
computer,
he would have paid a total of $483.36.
Sale prices aren't supposed X% off a fictional price stored in a
computer. They're supposed to be X% off the price the customer would be
paying in the absence of a sale. That's the sticker price.

If there wasn't a sale at all, the price on the sticker was $32, the
cashier charged $38, and the cashier said that that what was in the
computer, I'd ask to see the manager on the spot. If the manager's
response was that it was a case of "confusion" caused by my relying on
the sticker price, and that the price in the computer was the real
price, I'd leave the store.

The case when a sale is involved is no different.

Are you supposed to be refuting or disagreeing with something I posted?

I was taking issue with your statement that "the confusion comes from
the $32 price tag", which I interpreted to mean that $38 really was the
number to be used in the calculation, and that the use of $32 was a
mistake owing to confusion caused by the price tag. If I misunderstood,
sorry.


I could have just as easily said it the other way around. Perhaps I should
have said that the confusion comes from the discrepancy between the two
prices.

On 08/22/06 10:36 am Jack wrote:

Fortunately Michigan has pretty strict "item pricing" consumer law, and
if a price tag is affixed to an item the store must charge that price,
regardless of what the "computer" says the price should be. Once I
pointed it out manager was very good, charged me 25 bucks per roll and
I left satisfied, but suspicious.

I have often been very grateful for this Michigan law, especially at
Best Buy, where I have often found items on the shelf with price
stickers considerably lower than the currently advertised price (in
addition to other identical items priced higher than the currently
advertised price).

I think that they must affix price stickers reflecting the price when
the stock arrives or when it is put on the shelf, even when it's only a
"temporary price drop" (or whatever term BB uses), and they forget to
change the stickers later. I've saved big bucks on such things as hard
disks (especially since BB seems to have abandoned mail-in rebates in
favor of instant rebates).

But in general, yes, I think that all stores sometimes raise the
"original price" from which they are offering a discount.

Perce

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
On 08/22/06 10:36 am Jack wrote:

Fortunately Michigan has pretty strict "item pricing" consumer law, and
if a price tag is affixed to an item the store must charge that price,
regardless of what the "computer" says the price should be. Once I
pointed it out manager was very good, charged me 25 bucks per roll and
I left satisfied, but suspicious.

I have often been very grateful for this Michigan law, especially at Best
Buy, where I have often found items on the shelf with price stickers
considerably lower than the currently advertised price (in addition to
other identical items priced higher than the currently advertised price).

I think that they must affix price stickers reflecting the price when the
stock arrives or when it is put on the shelf, even when it's only a
"temporary price drop" (or whatever term BB uses), and they forget to
change the stickers later. I've saved big bucks on such things as hard
disks (especially since BB seems to have abandoned mail-in rebates in
favor of instant rebates).

But in general, yes, I think that all stores sometimes raise the "original
price" from which they are offering a discount.

Perce

Having worked in retail for over 25 years, I can tell you that it is common
practice. Especially at Sears. And watch out for the sale prices when a
store closes. Was working at a Sears Hardware when they were closing most
of them. They hired a "close out specialty" firm to handle the closing.
Almost all items were cheaper the day before the close out started. I was
discussing this with the man who was handling the sale. I mentioned that I
had lived in Arizona when the Home Base chain went out of business and the
state and the media had a field day with the way they had actually raised
prices instead of lowering them. He said he was familiar with that as that
was were he got his start doing the closeouts. As P.T. Barnum said.....

Tom G.

"Jack" wrote in message
ups.com...
I believe Lowes was not playing exactly fair with it's pricing. here
is what happened, you decide(prices rounded off for simplicity, and
since I left receipt with exact prices at home):

Needed insulation, went to Lowes because a newspaper ad said they had a
special "buy 3, get one free" That is 33% off.

No, you buy three you get three and they give you a 4th no additional
cost. It is 0% off the first three and 100% off the last one. If you use
strict pricing then if you buy two you get nothing off if you buy three you
are entitled to a forth one free, but if you only want three then you pay
full price for the three. If you by any number devisable by four then you
get 25% off what the total would have been without the sale.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Here in Canada, Sears got hauled into court, for selling tires at a discount
off a "regular price" that they could not prove that they ever sold one tire
at. They were convicted and had to pay a huge fine.

"Jack" wrote in message
ups.com...
I believe Lowes was not playing exactly fair with it's pricing. here
is what happened, you decide(prices rounded off for simplicity, and
since I left receipt with exact prices at home):

Needed insulation, went to Lowes because a newspaper ad said they had a
special "buy 3, get one free" That is 33% off.

Rolls had price sticker of $32s. I put 16 rolls on the flatbed.

Got up to register, rang up at 28 bucks per roll. That was supposed
to be the "sale price" which reflected the 4 for 3 deal. I am no math
genius, but the way I saw it I should have gotten 33% off per roll, and
$28 is not 33% off of $32. I asked about this, and they said the
price-per-roll in the "computer" was $38 bucks per roll, therefore the
28 bucks per roll reflected the sale price.

Fortunately Michigan has pretty strict "item pricing" consumer law, and
if a price tag is affixed to an item the store must charge that price,
regardless of what the "computer" says the price should be. Once I
pointed it out manager was very good, charged me 25 bucks per roll and
I left satisfied, but suspicious.

WHAT I THINK HAPPENED:
In anticipation of the 4 for 3 sale, Lowes raised the price of the roll
from 32 to 38 bucks, but this store missed marking up the rolls, so
they got caught and had to give me the better deal. If that is what
they did, they are trying to pull a fast one.. and I am glad I caught
them!

I would be interested to hear if anyone else has examples of Lowes
raising prices in order to then offer "sale prices".

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:08:30 GMT, "YYZedd"
wrote:


"Jim Rusling" wrote

snip

It is really 25% off not 33%.

3 items at normal price X .25 = 75% of the normal price

No, it's 3 items at the full price. Total price 300% of the cost of
one. 4th one "free", freee for someone who bought 3.

So 4 for 300% of the cost of one. The average price for each one
300%/4 - 75%.


3 items at normal price X .333 = 99.9% of the normal price (call it 100%)

Therefore the first three are really at 33% off making the 4th one "free".

EXT wrote:
Here in Canada, Sears got hauled into court, for selling tires at a
discount off a "regular price" that they could not prove that they
ever sold one tire at. They were convicted and had to pay a huge fine.

Here in Ohio (south of Canada) I worked at Lazarus department store back
in the good days when a Lazarus family member ran the show. On day over 30
years ago the word came down that the law had changed and regular price had
to be a price at which a real sale had taken place. Anyone responsible for
allowing an add to run or sign displayed that violated this rule would be an
ex-employee. There were a few close calls, but we played it clean. We may
have recommended a product that we would not have normally as it might not
have been a good buy at the regular price, but we knew that it was going on
sale the following week and we would call to let the customer know they
could have a refund of the difference.

However the case in point, Lowes was correct.



--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Jack wrote:

I would be interested to hear if anyone else has examples of Lowes
raising prices in order to then offer "sale prices".

Yeah, I bought more electrical stuff than I needed. Took the overage back to
Lowes.

They gave me $11.30 for $8.20 worth of stuff.

When I called it to their attention, they carefully examined the original
receipt and the return voucher. They concluded that the price of the stuff I
was returning went UP in the intervening week. "Keep the change," they said.

raising prices right before a % off sale has been going on forever

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:15:06 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"YYZedd" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jim Rusling" wrote

snip

It is really 25% off not 33%.

3 items at normal price X .25 = 75% of the normal price

3 items at normal price X .333 = 99.9% of the normal price (call it 100%)

Therefore the first three are really at 33% off making the 4th one "free".

Depending on how hte ad is written, the first three are at 100%, the fourth
one is 0%, or free. If you only buy one, tow, or three, you pay full
price., but only after the third do you get the fourth one free. Some
states do not allow that type of pricing so a 25% discount would be "fair"
for the singles.


And if you do buy 3, it would be nice if they reminded you that you
could get 4 without paying any more.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

"Jack" wrote in message
I believe Lowes was not playing exactly fair with it's pricing. here
is what happened, you decide(prices rounded off for simplicity, and
since I left receipt with exact prices at home):

Needed insulation, went to Lowes because a newspaper ad said they had a
special "buy 3, get one free" That is 33% off.

Rolls had price sticker of $32s. I put 16 rolls on the flatbed.

Got up to register, rang up at 28 bucks per roll. That was supposed
to be the "sale price" which reflected the 4 for 3 deal. I am no math
genius, but the way I saw it I should have gotten 33% off per roll, and
$28 is not 33% off of $32. I asked about this, and they said the
price-per-roll in the "computer" was $38 bucks per roll, therefore the
28 bucks per roll reflected the sale price.

Fortunately Michigan has pretty strict "item pricing" consumer law, and
if a price tag is affixed to an item the store must charge that price,
regardless of what the "computer" says the price should be. Once I
pointed it out manager was very good, charged me 25 bucks per roll and
I left satisfied, but suspicious.

WHAT I THINK HAPPENED:
In anticipation of the 4 for 3 sale, Lowes raised the price of the roll
from 32 to 38 bucks, but this store missed marking up the rolls, so
they got caught and had to give me the better deal. If that is what
they did, they are trying to pull a fast one.. and I am glad I caught
them!

They still got you. Forget percentage. Buy 3, get 1 free was the ad. Price
per advertised "marked" roll was $32 per, times you bought 12 rolls, you
get 4 free = $384.00

They charged you $25 per roll times 16= $400.00

You over paid $16.00

In article . com,
Jack wrote:
...snipped...
Needed insulation, went to Lowes because a newspaper ad said they had a
special "buy 3, get one free" That is 33% off.
...snipped...

I would be interested to hear if anyone else has examples of Lowes
raising prices in order to then offer "sale prices".


By my arithmetic, "buy 3, get one free" is 25% off. Even so, 25% of
$32 should still have been $8 off.



--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland

In article et,
YYZedd wrote:

"Jim Rusling" wrote

snip

It is really 25% off not 33%.

3 items at normal price X .25 = 75% of the normal price

3 items at normal price X .333 = 99.9% of the normal price (call it 100%)

Therefore the first three are really at 33% off making the 4th one "free".



Well, really, if the sale was described as the OP said, the first 3
were at their regular price, and the 4th was free. If you bought 5 or
6 rolls, the 5th & 6th would still be at regular price, right?


--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland

"Monty" wrote in message
. ..

"Jack" wrote in message
I believe Lowes was not playing exactly fair with it's pricing. here
is what happened, you decide(prices rounded off for simplicity, and
since I left receipt with exact prices at home):

Needed insulation, went to Lowes because a newspaper ad said they had a
special "buy 3, get one free" That is 33% off.

Rolls had price sticker of $32s. I put 16 rolls on the flatbed.

Got up to register, rang up at 28 bucks per roll. That was supposed
to be the "sale price" which reflected the 4 for 3 deal. I am no math
genius, but the way I saw it I should have gotten 33% off per roll, and
$28 is not 33% off of $32. I asked about this, and they said the
price-per-roll in the "computer" was $38 bucks per roll, therefore the
28 bucks per roll reflected the sale price.

Fortunately Michigan has pretty strict "item pricing" consumer law, and
if a price tag is affixed to an item the store must charge that price,
regardless of what the "computer" says the price should be. Once I
pointed it out manager was very good, charged me 25 bucks per roll and
I left satisfied, but suspicious.

WHAT I THINK HAPPENED:
In anticipation of the 4 for 3 sale, Lowes raised the price of the roll
from 32 to 38 bucks, but this store missed marking up the rolls, so
they got caught and had to give me the better deal. If that is what
they did, they are trying to pull a fast one.. and I am glad I caught
them!

They still got you. Forget percentage. Buy 3, get 1 free was the ad. Price
per advertised "marked" roll was $32 per, times you bought 12 rolls, you
get 4 free = $384.00

They charged you $25 per roll times 16= $400.00

You over paid $16.00


The 25 bucks includes sales tax. He didn't overpay.

wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Jack wrote:
...snipped...
Needed insulation, went to Lowes because a newspaper ad said they had a
special "buy 3, get one free" That is 33% off.
...snipped...

I would be interested to hear if anyone else has examples of Lowes
raising prices in order to then offer "sale prices".


By my arithmetic, "buy 3, get one free" is 25% off. Even so, 25% of
$32 should still have been $8 off.



As it was.

"TakenEvent" wrote

The 25 bucks includes sales tax. He didn't overpay.

Actually, I missed the OP's other post where he said

"I was buying 16 rolls. with a 4 for 3 deal I should have been paying
for 12 rolls. I multiplied 12 times the sticker price(+tax), and
decided that is what I should have paid. The "percent off" was
irrelevant at that point."

Which is the same I was implying.