You are on page 1of 1

Richard T.

De George
BUSINESS ETHICS, 6TH edition
Pearson-Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NewJersey, 2006

The May D&F Case


Practica 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.

You might also like