A group of plaintiffs alleged that a store ran a promotion with an advertisement stating that if customers purchased merchandise for $100 or more, they would get a $50 gift card for that store within 30 days of the purchase. However, the customers who used the promotion received a “$50 off $200” coupon that required them to make a purchase of at least $200 in order to use the $50 credit. Those customers alleged that a contract existed between them and the store because the store’s advertisement was an offer they had accepted. Were they correct? Explain your answer.

Business Studies Discussion

Corporate laws, case laws, and ethical practices and decisions govern the operations of businesses. In this case, the plaintiffs are legally incorrect as the lawfully binding ‘contract’ as the customers stated was not signed. Still, ethically, the customers and plaintiffs are correct that a ‘contract’ bound the two parties and the store breached the contract. Primarily, the store just like any other store ran a promotion that seems to have changed the terms thereafter. Promotions and such campaigns are essential marketing tools for many businesses and organizations and they end up breaching their terms. Once customers realize that, they decide to keep quiet about it, withdraw their credit card, or report the case as with the plaintiffs and the customers’ rage. In this case, the store is not legally non-compliant, as the customers and the store did not sign any legal contract; hence, making the ‘contract’ or rather the promotion agreement a mere custom that the customers expected would be met with integrity and ethical operation.

The store damaged its customer relations as it breached its compliance role in integrating customs, laws, and ethics in the promotion campaign. As Fieser argues, ethical practices and principles contribute highly to the successful operations and growth of businesses. Laws, on the other hand, are required to reinforce and enforce the ethical principles that will enhance customer relations (Fieser, 2012). Therefore, in this case, the store risked its relations with its customers with a failure of meeting its ethical obligation or rather social corporate responsibility to the people, planet, and profits. The store decided to prioritize its profits as per the Triple Bottom Line at the expense of the people that are the customers by tricking them into undertaking the promotion campaign. However, when they said, the customers would receive the $50 for making any purchases more than $100; they had no right to structure the promotion only for those that purchased above the $200but also for those with purchased goods of over $100.

Reference

Fieser, J. (2012). Introduction to Business Ethics. New York: Cengage.