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?

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?

In article , M Berger 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". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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?

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 11:15:15 -0600, M Berger 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).

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 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).

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.

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

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

In article ,
jJim McLaughlin 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

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.

Bob wrote:
In article ,
jJim McLaughlin 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.

"clifto" wrote in message
...
-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.

"Michael Black" wrote in message
...
Barry Watzman ) 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.

Matt Clara wrote:

"clifto" wrote in message
...

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

Please join my team in the fight against cancer.
http://www.grid.org/services/teams/t...3-AEB0DD18A6CE
"Bill" wrote in message
...


Matt Clara wrote:

"clifto" wrote in message
...

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.

In article ,
Ken Davey 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.

"Bill" wrote in message
...


Matt Clara wrote:

"clifto" wrote in message
...

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.

"Matt Clara" ) 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

Matt Clara wrote:
"clifto" wrote in message
...
-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`

Michael Black wrote:

"Matt Clara" ) 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

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

"Bill" wrote in message
...
Michael Black wrote:

"Matt Clara" ) 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.

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

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 (||)