Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Any honest, ethical, dealers out there - NOT Sweetwater.

Don is right. The shipping to the final customer is free, though the shipping back is not, which then results in the original free shipping being revoked.

We can ask, why is that, and is that fair? When you buy something, you make a deal with the seller. That deal has certain terms, like rights and obligations for both parties.

When something that has been bought, is returned, the deal that was made, is off. That means the terms of the deal no longer apply. It's like that deal was never made, in a way, at least for the seller. Since the gain he was promised in the original deal, has been taken back, it seems fair that his expenses are also nullified.

Hope I'm making myself clear, though I maybe shouldn't be getting all excited about this. I never thought I would defend the seller, since I'm in the same boat as Pologuy, in that I sometimes feel I've been treated unfairly by sellers, though not when buying a digital piano, only other smaller things.

Though finally, I decided just to swallow my pride and resentments, and just move on. As long as the dealer is not breaking any laws, like consumer laws, one can't really complain. They also have to make their share, as they're offering services that make life easier for us as consumers.

Most of them strive to please the customer, especially if they remember, a happy customer comes back, and a dissatisfied one may not. My two (or a bit more) cents.

IMHO there's a BIG difference between "you pay for return shipping" and "we deduct the cost of the original shipping to you if you choose to return it."

The former is expected, the latter is NOT industry practice anywhere and it definitely raises a red flag to me. I think it's a matter of clear disclosure, and I'm OK with that if it's made known to the buyer ahead of time and not just buried in fine print.

That said, I would fully expect a retailer to eat the return shipping cost completely if there was something wrong with the item purchased, and if they didn't honor that, I'd start a chargeback claim with my issuer.

Sweetwater clearly discloses its shipping terms and conditions on its website. It is one the best written disclosures I have seen from a major on-line retailer. If merchandise received is defective, it will cover the shipping costs for 30 days subject to compliance with their product return procedure. This is also explained.

If the buyer has not bothered to invest a few minutes to review terms and conditions before putting down a couple of thousand dollars, that is his or her problem. Trust me, I have litigated a few of these consumer matters.thefirst thing the judge looks at is any written contract and any written terms and conditions published. When the claimant states he did not read them or “assumed” something different, the case is over with judgment for the seller.

I'm disappointed if not surprised by the response of many on here. One of my favourite expressions is "evil prospers when good men do nothing", and unfortunately standing back and allowing sharp practices to exist has become the norm these days. I applaud the OP for actually standing up for honesty.

As there seems to be some misunderstanding of what the OP has said, let me give a clear cut example. I find a piano that costs $100, and I order it from somewhere. They tell me they have free shipping.

Here's what should happen:-

1. I pay $100 and the product arrives.
2. If I want to return it even though it's not faulty, and the returns policy allows me to do this, then I pay the cost of the return shipping (because it's not the retailer's fault) and then they refund me the full $100.

That's an example of free shipping - the cost of shipping the product to me was met by somebody other than me, i.e. it was *free* to me (free as in costs me no money in any way).

Here's what should NOT happen:-

1. The retailer asks where I live and then tells me the product will actually cost me $105. Clearly the extra $5 is to pay for my "free" shipping.
2. If I want to return it, then I pay the cost of the return shipping (because it's not the retailer's fault) and then they refund me only $100, i.e. they keep $5 of my purchase price, even though the return has not cost them anything. Clearly they are keeping the amount that was paid for the original shipping.

This is an example of paid-for shipping, NOT free shipping. I am paying $5 more, and not getting that back if I return the product, and this $5 is due to the shipping costs. As I am paying this, it is not clearly free to me.

I'm sure everyone on here is easily able to understand the difference between those two scenarios. It is also clear that in the second scenario, I am being lied to; I have been told something is free (i.e. will not cost me money) and clearly it is not free (it does directly cost me money).

Now to clear up a few of the other points:-

1. To those who essentially said this is expected behaviour: that's true, but you're addressing a different point. Whether or not the behaviour is commonplace and expected answers the question: DOES this behaviour happen? The OP clearly knows it happens. His question was: SHOULD this behaviour happen? That isn't answered by saying it does happen - that answers the first question only.

2. To those who said the retailer involved has a great reputation so it's not a problem: you're also answering a different question, and that's also a strangely contrary action to take. How do you imagine a reputation will ever be adjusted for current practice if the response to evidence of that practice is just enter denial and declare the retailer to be fine based on their previous reputation? That's the very embodiment of "get a reputation as an early riser and you can stay in bed 'til noon". If a firm has a good reputation, that doesn't give them a free pass to lie to their customers, or mean that when they do it's somehow not as bad.

3. To those who said - so people lied to get your money, what's the big deal: that's great, and I have a bottle of snake-oil here which acts as the elixir of life. If you send me a cheque for $999 and your home address, I'd be delighted to send you some. I'll even include free shipping once I know where you live. ;-)

Where? All I see is this: https://www.sweetwater.com/about/free-shipping/. There is no evidence that the OP has not read that page, because nothing there mentions any of the problems that the buyer has encountered, so clearly that cannot be it. So perhaps you could provide a link to the terms and conditions you are referring to?

That is not how contract law works.



Sweetwater's advertisements and statements in its emails are the very legal definition of false, deceptive, and misleading advertising.

As everyone agrees - Sweetwater's "free shipping" is not free.



You need to get a better lawyer then

Because appeals courts reverse these decisions made by the trial courts all the time.

Very few people go to the "Returns" page when purchasing an item. Most people (except the dishonest or truly paranoid) aren't thinking of returning the item they are looking to purchase.

Now, if Sweetwater would have an asterisk next to their MANY, MANY, screaming, in-bold, headlines stating "free shipping" - that would inform the consumer that if they returned the product they would be charged for the "free shipping costs" - then they would have a little more plausible leg to stand on.

But they won't do that - as it defeats their entire purpose of stating they are offering "free shipping".

In any event, as stated previously - there are reasons we have consumer protection laws - they are to "protect the gullible as well as the shrewd" and the "least sophisticated consumers" among us.

Way to very succinctly put it.

I assume all the ethical and honest online buyers promptly send a check to their state treasurer to cover all sales tax not collected by the online seller.

Why would anyone expect return shipping to be free?
Even more ... why would anyone expect that the seller would even accept a product return for any reason? He's not obligated to do so except to the extent provided by law.

If it's not spelled out in the seller's terms & conditions, and if there are no specific regulations, the buyer ought not invent expectations.

And we ought not give any credence to wording that includes the word "free".

Others may lie to you, but you must never lie to yourself.

Next ... karvala, your argument rests upon a flawed assumption. You try to distinguish free shipping from not-free shipping. The latter does not exist, so your point is moot.

Am I mis-understanding something here?

My understanding (subject to one of you fine folks correcting me) is that this outfit advertises free shipping when you order something, along the same line as Amazon and whatnot.

So when an item is advertised for $100 on their website and a customer orders it, he is then charged $100 plus an undetermined extra amount on top of that as well for shipping?

If so, that's not obviously free shipping since the shipping is not included in the price advertised on the website. If the amount for shipping varies depending on destination, then that's just a straight-up shipping charge.

And there's nothing wrong with that, but it's shouldn't be advertised as free shipping.

What am I missing?

Is that so?? Can you cite a federal or state statute, administrative regulation or court decision that supports your contention?

“You need to get a better lawyer then :)”

I guess I need to fire myself.

“Because appeals courts reverse these decisions made by the trial courts all the time.”

Really?? Any citations to offer here?

My biggest frustration when handling these matters is client failure to research the terms and conditions underlying the purchase of a product or service. If a legal claim is ftled, the claimant bears the burden of proof and the judge is neutral. He or she will look at the “four corners.” Of the contract, including terms and conditions. The claimant’s idea of what is “fair” or “just” is irrelevant.

I'm not quite sure I understand the problem here. I went to 3 online dealers and looked up the Roland RD-2000:

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/RD2000

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/keyboards-midi/roland-rd-2000-digital-stage-piano

https://www.kraftmusic.com/brands/roland/pianos-keyboards/stage-pianos/rd2000

Each of them list the instrument at $2,499.99, with Free Shipping on all 3. If I go to check out and I put in my address, the price of the instrument doesn't suddenly change. Yet it would clearly cost them more to send to a person who is out of the state in which their warehouse is. This tells me that they are eating that cost - or rather, that they have priced the instrument to compensate for the cost of shipping, as I'm sure the cost of the instrument also includes the rest of their overhead costs.

And if I decided to return an instrument within their respective return periods, then I would expect to have the shipping cost deducted since I took advantage of a promo and returned the item purchased. Since this is clearly stated in their disclaimers on their website, it should not be a surprise if they do what they said they would do if you returned the item. With anything, if you sign a contract without reading it, you are still culpable for what it says.

Now it appears you were trying to talk them down to a lower price. That's different, because then you are eating into their pricing which was made considering overhead costs and profit margin. Then they *are* going to specifically look at shipping to make sure the price offered doesn't put them in the red after all is said and done. To me, that says that they aren't going to necessarily take whatever offer someone wants to make that would be detrimental to the business. Usually your average salesman is allowed to negotiate a price within a certain amount, and anything lower than that would have to be authorized by a manager.

To me, when you start negotiating than everything is up for negotiation - including said "free" shipping promo.

That's a strange argument. If a product costs $100 (e.g. RRP), and I buy it, and the product is then shipped to me without me handing over more money, that shipping is free to me. That happens all the time, so clearly free shipping does exist. It may not be free to *everyone*, i.e. someone has to pick up the cost of the shipping, but "free" is a targeted condition, i.e. it applies to a specific set of people. It is clearly not intended to mean "free of all labour and materials for the entirety of humankind", so I'm not entirely sure why you think free shipping in the standard usage of the term does not exist?

No. Shipping is not free. Never.

If you believe it is free, then place an order for one free shipping. And pay $0. That's free, right?
(What the heck! Place an order for 100 free shippings! And pay $0.)

Let's see what the UPS guy delivers.

You didn't address my example, or explain why that is not free shipping. I can't place an order for "atmospheric air" online either, but I'm pretty sure I'm still breathing some. ;-)

Something is free if it is given freely, with no charge.
You cannot order a piano with free shipping ... because they don't offer free shipping.
They offer a piano with shipping. The price you pay is for a piano with shipping.

When they say "free shipping" they really mean "shipping included".
If you wish think of "free shipping" as a lie or a deception, so be it.
You may view that lie with disdain if you wish.
But you ought not be drawn into believing that shipping (or anything else) is free. It's not.

If you wish you can think of it as a free console piano enclosure and 88 keys for free ... plus $3000 shipping.
Or a free console enclosure plus free shipping, plus $34.09 each for 88 keys ... total $3000.

But they don't offer either of those package deals.

You cannot buy just the enclosure. They don't offer that for sale.
You cannot buy 88 keys. They do not offer that for sale.
You cannot buy shipping. They do not offer that for sale. (That was the point of my previous post.)

The only thing they offer is a piano with shipping. Total $3000.
And $3000 is not free.

First World Problem . . . coupled with too much free time.

I would like to spend thousands of dollars on my hobby but the chore of finding the right retailer is bringing to light the fact that evil in the world is flourishing because good people remain silent on the topic of "is free shipping really free shipping". First they made me pay for my internet and now this!!!

Then you really should have gone to a better law school

Oddly enough I see you are in Chicago.

Your "four corners" argument fails for several reasons.

“The Four Corners Rule” deals almost exclusively with written contracts.

There also has to be what is called a "meeting of the minds" regarding both parties. Without getting too technical, in the broadest sense - if one party thinks they are truly getting "free shipping" and the other party falsely states that they are giving "free shipping" - all the while knowing they are really not - there has been no "meeting of the minds" - it actually could be considered fraud - fraudulent concealment, etc..

Courts first look to the four corners of the agreement to determine the intentions of the parties.

Courts then look outside of the four comers of the agreement if there is any ambiguity. One party thinking that "free shipping" actually means "free shipping" - when the other party knows that the shipping is not really "free" - would be argued as ambiguity.

Moreover if for some reason a court were to follow the four corners doctrine in such a case - Sweetwater clearly states that shipping is "free" - we have already established that it is not "free" - so Sweetwater would lose.

Buy local and we won't have this discussion.

Touche'!