Richard T. De George

BUSINESS ETHICS, 6TH edition

Pearson-Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NewJersey, 2006

The May D&F CasePractica dubioas const n a oferta n magazine anumite mrfuri la un pre iniial exagerat de mare pentru cteva zile, dup care luni de zile aceeai marf este ofertat la un pre de sales, mai convenabil pentru cumprtori. Mai multe lanuri de magazine au fost acuzate de aceast practic; majoritatea au optat pentru settlement out of court. May D&F a fost singurul retailer care s-a judecat la tribunal.The store was officially charged in June 1989. Three counts involved printing inflated prices on its tags, inflating its prices to make its mardowns look larger than they were, and keeping merchandise on continuous sale. As examples, one set of cutlery had been on sale for two years; luggage was continuously sold at a special introductory price; and bedding was kept on sale for eight months.May D&F claimed that its policy was to offer an item for sale for at least ten days at the beginning of each six-month period. That would establish the original price. Few items sold at that price, which was usually not competitive. The store would then place the item on sale for the remaining 170 days, sometimes offering special short-term reductions from that price. At the end of the 180-day cycle, it would raise the price to the original price for ten days and then repeat the cycle. In August 1989, two months after the court case began, it revised its policy so as to charge the original price for 28 out of every 90 days. It further claimed that in a survey 90% of its customers did not care whether the item had actually been sold at the original price.On June 28, 1990, Judge Larry J. Naves of the Colorado State Court decided the case against May D&F, stating that The clear expectation of May D&F was to sell all or practically all merchandise at its sale price. He fined the company $8,000.