----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] State
Alignment
David
After talking with an attorney friend he reminded me that in our
jurisdiction the burden is on the store. That is it is their responsibility to
make sure their agent (the cashier) enforces their offer of BOGO. This
conversation segued my thinking to the issue of isLegallyBinding.
There are nuances in the law in different jurisdictions. Our objective I
believe should be to provide the means to enable a contractual arrangement. We
should not take on the responsibility of insuring that the transaction is
legal or anything that implies that.
I am not suggesting the situation I described is big. In fact just the
opposite. Its simplicity and commonness makes it easier to see &
understand the issue. When that happens more people can participate and
propose ideas that will lead to a solution.
Sally
David RR Webber <david@drrw.info>
wrote:
Sally,
Ah yes - but - and its big "but" - in the world
of BPSS and ebMS -
there is a thread ID in the envelope header so
you know that the
Vit E does not go with the Vit A, but is
starting a new transaction.
BTW - with BOGOs I always make sure I stack
"like items" on
the check-out stand on top of each
other.
Dare I say - case closed? ;
-)
A much more interesting store use case model is
reverse
shoplifting - that I first learned from Jeff
Duntemann of
PC Techniques fame - but that's another whole
story...
Basically this is taking something into the
store that
they do not sell - and then presenting it at
the check out
and paying for it - (works best with
magazines). The fun
does not really start till their backend
accounting
tries to reconcile receivables with payables
and inventory...
DW
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:06
PM
Subject: [ebxml-bp] State
Alignment
Hi all
Just an FYI
This morning I went out
to pick up the Sunday paper. And 2 coffees & a muffin. The
super market sales for this week included vitamins --buy one get one free.
I bought 2 multi-vitamins @ $5.29 and 2 vitamin E @ $6.49.
The
stuff was rung up in this order: coffee1, coffee2, muffin, 1 multivitamin,
1 VitaminE, 1 multivitamin, 1 vitamin E, and a newspaper. The fine print
of a buy-one get-one deal is that you pay the higher price and get the
lower priced item free. So in this transaction I got credit for 2 $5.29
transactions, even though I bought two identical pairs. This transaction
cost me $1.20 more than I expected.
The
store I purchased this at has an internet channel (Pea Pod). Assuming they
use the same checkout software, they have a state alignment problem.
Unless they are willing to rely on human intervention.
I
obviously had a problem which I addressed by going to the customer service
counter. I will spare you the details. However a copy of my receipt is
available for viewing, or I can provide the details.
I
would suggest this is a real world approximation of Anders Purchase Order
example.
No
I did not point out that there was a state alignment issue to the guy
behind the counter. My pointing out the physical evidence & the
obvious inconsistency on the register receipt caused enough
confusion.
Sally