- This topic has 8 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Ona’ah (Bava Metziah 52) prohibits overcharging (or undercharging) merchandise more than 1/6 of its fair market value.
Daas Yochid:
In addition, to establish that something is asur because of ona’ah, you have to take into account a number of factors, including:
— prevalent selling price (not just compared to one or two stores)
— location
— level of service
Chances are, a claim of ona’ah in this case would not stand up in B.D.
DY: Are you certain that “level of service” is a factor? If so, how would a merchant ever be guilty of ona’ah? Level of service is quite subjective and not unambiguously measurable. Anyone can always get away with charging more than 1/6 with claiming this defense.
I asked this particular shaila once when it was relevant to me. The example of the shoe store is analogous to my situation, so I’ll use it.
Marshall’s sells the shoes off the shelf; the customer fits himself and pays for it. The typical “heimish” shoe store has a professional fitter who dedicates time and expertise to helping the customer decide what to buy based on his particular needs, and will advise as to quality, comfort, and durability, and make sure the shoe fits properly.. He can therefore charge more.
On the other hand, if there are two competing grocery stores, one cannot knowingly charge more than the other on the same package of cookies. they could charge more if the store is upper scale, with nicer decor, valet parking, etc., because the entire shopping experience is taken into consideration.
As far as your point regarding subjectivity, a dayan would have to decide. Very possibly, an industry which is very service oriented is much less subject to ona’ah than one which is product oriented, and the line differentiating between them can sometimes be blurry.
To illustrate a clear cut case which I think anyone would agree to, I don’t think anyone would doubt that a full service gas station can charge more than a self-serve station.
BS”D
The Marshalls example is not valid. Sorry.
Marshalls is a liquidator. They bought the shoes for pennies on the dollar, either from Rockport (Reebok) or from a store or distributor who had overstock or was going out of business.
Anyone who knows retail would assume that the haimishe store owner bought his stock at full wholesale price and was simply unaware that they are now available at Marshalls as overstock.
Small shops keep their old stock until it is gone, or they have two clearance sales, one in spring and one in fall. Could be that next week he will get his new styles and then he’ll put these on sale as well, albeit not at Marshalls prices.
If, on the other hand, you see that his shoes have Marshalls tags on them, or you know that he, too, purchased them at liquidation, then there is an inyan.
What it seems to me is that the store owner is a simple small business owner who does not pay much attention to what is going on out there. He may not care that they are last year’s stock, because he still gets enough customers for them to keep them at full price, and he isn’t interested in more than having a parnosso for himself and his family.
(Then again, there are some haimishe [and other “ethnic”] store owners in NY who are actually running or having their wives and children run clothing, food or hardware stores for cash to live on while their real money is tied up in buildings or other investments. These owners can be the best or the worst when it comes to keeping up with prices, styles etc – it depends how badly they need the cash).
In the example given, Marshall’s may actually be violating the rules against *under*charging.
Level of service should certainly be a factor. Ever shop in a 7-11 or other store open to all hours of the night? ever buy something at a rest area on the highway? The prices are higher because they are extending a level of service that others do not and incur a cost in passing along that service as well.
The Marshalls example is not valid. Sorry.
Grandmaster only quoted part of my original post; in the sentence before “In addition…”, I noted that Marshalls sells closeouts.
However, it bears (pardon the pun) further explanation. If a particular item is widely available at a closeout price, and a store carries it at full price, it might still be ona’ah, despite the fact that the owner might be taking a loss. However, going to a regular shoe store, where you’re likely to find what you need, is a different shopping experience than going to Marshalls, which is more “hit and miss”. A store owner, I think, has a right to charge more for a particular item if he provides a better selection; it’s the same idea as better service.
This from Money – The Bottom Line (Rabbi Kaufman):
Market price for the identical object will vary from store to
store due to such factors as service, store ambiance, and
knowledgeable sales staff [50].
50. Pischei Choshen 4:10:(11 ).
In the example given, Marshall’s may actually be violating the rules against *under*charging.
The rules of under”charging” (underpaying) apply to a buyer, not a seller. In this case, a store like Marshall’s is certainly aware that they are selling below retail, so there would be no problem buying from a closeout store.
Level of service should certainly be a factor. Ever shop in a 7-11 or other store open to all hours of the night? ever buy something at a rest area on the highway? The prices are higher because they are extending a level of service that others do not and incur a cost in passing along that service as well.
100% correct. A rest stop would have an additional factor; it’s a different market (unless there were two stores in the same rest area competing with each other).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.