On November 17, 2006 I purchased an Olevia Model 232V 32 inch LCD TV from Circuit City (110 Federal Rd., Danbury, CT), for $899.99. Prior to making the purchase I asked the sales associate whether I would be entitled to a partial refund should Circuit City put this item on sale on Black Friday, November 24th. (I had learned from an Internet search earlier that day that Circuit City reportedly planned to sell this item on Black Friday for $474.99.) The sales associate assured me that Circuit City has a price guarantee policy and that I would be entitled to a partial refund should Circuit City actually advertise the item for sale at a lower price on Black Friday.
Relying upon this representation, I purchased the TV on November 17th, rather than waiting for Black Friday. Note that Circuit City has a written price guarantee which appears on its web site. As of 11/24 it read as follows: If you see a lower advertised price (including our own sale prices) within 30 days of your purchase, we'll refund 110% of the difference. Circuit City did in fact place the Olevia Model 232V on sale for $474.99 on Black Friday.
I went to Circuit City on Black Friday, before the expiration of the 6 Hour Special, and sought the refund I had been promised by Circuit City's sales associate the previous week. (The refund I requested was (899.99-474.99) x 1.1 = $467.50.) The store manager declined to honor the sales associate's oral promise and the store's written policy, asserting by fiat that Circuit City's price protection guarantee is not applicable to the Black Friday sale.
Moreover, when I asked whether I could purchase another TV at the sale price the store manager asserted that there were actually none in stock. One would tend to conclude that that there were none or very few of these items in stock on the eve of the sale and that Circuit City intended to bait and then switch its customers. While I was at Circuit City I met another gentleman from Danbury who had a nearly identical complaint.
I have filed a small claims suit against Circuit City alleging breach of contract, detrimental reliance and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.