Retailer Threatens Legal Action for Using 90% off Coupon

fortunecookie on 12/08/2025 - 20:41
Last edited 12/08/2025 - 20:41

I recently found a 90% off coupon code that worked on a retailer's website. I placed an order with the code to test it out. It went through and the item got delivered.

A few weeks later, the retailer came back to me asking for the full payment of the item and threatened legal actions.

From a legal perspective, my understanding is that:

  • If the coupon code is not authorised as they claimed, they should have cancelled the transaction before sending out the goods.
  • Given the order is already delivered, the transaction is complete. As such they have no right to ask for payments retrospectively.

What are your thoughts on this?

General Discussion

Comments

        • Muppet Detector on 15/08/2025 - 00:23

          I agree with you.

          But if they wanted to challenge the legality of the contract, they now have some proof towards challenging it.

          I don't know if they would win, but because they can prove that they told you they did not agree to a contract with you with that term in it, they've got a damn good argument.

          Might matter when they try to terminate or enforce the contract?

        • Muppet Detector on 15/08/2025 - 00:37

          If you did do it, presumably you're intending to make a payment to them.

          If they do refuse to send you the item, legally they would have to give you your money back, but if they don't do it voluntarily, how inconvenient (or expensive) is it going to be for you to make them?

          Once a contract is created, it can only be completed by:

          1) performance
          2) mutual agreement
          3) court order.

          If you managed to create the contract, the legal challenge would be around getting a court order saying the contract is void (because no intention to be legally bound).

          Obviously, if they perform or reach a mutual agreement with you, then they don't need to do choice 3.

  • Excelsior on 13/08/2025 - 15:17
    +7

    Transaction has completed on both ends so they can cry all they want. Whether or not they intended for the coupon to be used or not is irrelevant IMO, if it's in the system and they actually fulfilled the order then what's there to argue about?

    They're just panicking because they didn't do their due diligence and are trying to recoup their loss.

  • sauce2k on 13/08/2025 - 15:41
    +1

    Who is this clown retailer lol

  • xylarr on 13/08/2025 - 16:22

    A lot of people threaten legal action. Wait for actual legal action.

  • wetsandwich on 13/08/2025 - 16:36

    Their fault for not expiring the code or not linking it to specific people who are 'allowed' to use it.

    I wouldn't answer any forms of contact from them at all.

  • MessyG on 13/08/2025 - 16:38
    +1

    How did you get the code?

    • belongsinforums on 13/08/2025 - 18:51

      is there a way to scrape websites for codes?

      • fortunecookie on 13/08/2025 - 19:49
        +2

        I'm not clever enough to know how to do that

        • belongsinforums on 13/08/2025 - 20:34
          +1

          fair enough. enjoy your well earned bounty. we are all professionals on this blessed day

      • Nametab on 14/08/2025 - 19:08

        I remember when people did that for domino's vouchers, including stacking 🤭

    • nightelves on 16/08/2025 - 23:39

      He found it in a fortune cookie.

  • miicah on 13/08/2025 - 16:51
    +4

    What's reverse caveat emptor?

    • califrag on 13/08/2025 - 16:58
      +7

      caveat venditor

    • zealmax on 13/08/2025 - 17:08
      +16

      rotpme taevac

  • DIVISIONX on 13/08/2025 - 17:09
    +2

    Centrecom laptop deal?

  • brendanm on 13/08/2025 - 17:57
    +3

    Come on tell.ua who it was and what the item was, you've got yourself a great deal.

  • Downvoter on 13/08/2025 - 18:06

    Depends if your $900 saving is worth a ban from buying there I guess

    • fortunecookie on 13/08/2025 - 19:48
      +10

      No interest in buying from them ever again

      • WhyAmICommenting on 15/08/2025 - 22:12
        +1

        We would like to join you in this medium sized business vendetta ;)

  • DoctorCalculon on 13/08/2025 - 19:08

    What are they going to do? Send in a debt collector?

    • fortunecookie on 13/08/2025 - 19:48
      +5

      That is actually one of their threats

      • DoctorCalculon on 13/08/2025 - 21:18
        +11

        They are clutching at straws.
        Just ignore them.

      • gutwagon on 14/08/2025 - 10:55
        +6

        Can't send in debt collectors as you don't owe them anything. Also can't send them if a debt is still in dispute.
        Have you tried contacting the ACCC ?

        • fortunecookie on 14/08/2025 - 12:37
          -1

          If they do end up taking further actions, I would have to contact the ACCC

          • Muppet Detector on 14/08/2025 - 18:47
            +1

            @fortunecookie: Taking it further with who though?

            Do what to take it further?

            And how would ACCC help you if they did/could?

          • smartazz104 on 15/08/2025 - 07:14
            +2

            @fortunecookie:

            I would have to contact the ACCC

            The ACCC are not relevant in your case, and at any rate they are useless overall.

        • Muppet Detector on 14/08/2025 - 19:12
          +1

          What would ACCC do?

          Obviously I know why you would contact them, but when is it actually useful to contact them?

          I don't think they do what you think they do.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/08/2025 - 18:48
        +12

        they’re trying to shake you down
        I would recommend:
        1. Replying that they accepted the code and your money and shipped the item and provided the goods.
        Anyone including paid representatives of their company are not authorised to come to your residence and it will be considered trespassing you are now fearful for yours and your family’s lives.
        2. Contact the police, get a TRO taken out on these muppets - give them the company’s number (the police won’t do anything, but at least it’s on their radar) they might call them but that’s it.
        3. Contact them back and remind them they still have to honour the warranty for at least 12 months if the item breaks. Troll the shit out of them - ask them questions about the product and how to fix x and y.
        Send them pictures of (google broken products on internet) every few months and ask them how to fix X and Y and tell them it’s under warranty.
        Waste their time (they’re wasting yours)

    • Muppet Detector on 14/08/2025 - 19:16
      +4

      LOL.

      Admittedly, I don't know how debt collectors work, but there would need to be proof that there was a debt to collect.

      I mean, I can't just tell Joey he owes me $50 and send a debt collector, at some stage here, I actually have to prove that Joey really does owe me $50 and I'm not just making shit up.

  • paulusjr on 13/08/2025 - 19:56
    +7

    the consumer law is on your side and it sounds like they're trying to blackmail you with threats like that which is criminal not just a civil offense.

    If the retailer fails to price correctly their the one that can be dragged into court. I'm curious.. is it mwave? I recall the owner of that dodgy business use to threaten customers when their website screwed up rather than taking accountability for not managing their website and packing process properly. I recall getting threats of legal action.. then a few days letter, an email saying I'm off the hook as they realised they confused consumers but no apology for being threatened due to their own mistakes.

    Suprising number of business owners around that think the customer has no rights out there and should be happy to be allowed to trade with them.

    • Muppet Detector on 14/08/2025 - 18:51

      I think blackmail is a stretch.

      More than likely they just don't know the law.

      Whilst ignorance of the law is no excuse, it's not a crime or illegal if you don't know it.

      Jesus, by your reckoning, nobody would ever lose a court case/be unsuccessful with legal action.

  • rompastompa on 13/08/2025 - 20:10
    +15

    As we don't know the real answers here, I'm going to make an assumption.

    I'm guessing that this retailer set up a 'one off' 90% code to OP's friend (probably because they've stuffed them around or replacing a semi-faulty item), but the system isn't configured for a one off purchase.

    OP's friend uses the coupon successfully for a replacement, say, $50 item, then OP uses it for a significantly more expensive item ($1000 item for $100). As it's a one off and not normal practice, it's over looked by the dispatch team.

    Boss looks over the books and finds the discrepancy and is now fuming.

    1) You've obviously found a loop hole that is now looked at and hopefully fixed so it doesn't happen again. You've potentially saved them $$$$$ and a whole lot of time / bad publicity in the future.
    2) You know you've done wrong, the sales rep is probably going to get a bollocking for making the mistake (and they probably won't fix the problem).

    As for the answer, the contract has been fulfilled with a code that has been accepted. They can't force more money from you unless you both have accepted the contract that states otherwise (eg. pay 10% now, 90% later). What does your invoice say? Outstanding balance or $0 owing?

    • belongsinforums on 13/08/2025 - 20:39
      +6

      or it was just some code that wasn't meant to apply to the product/cart OP bought, but it worked anyhow.

      there's often workarounds posted on ozb where people fill a cart to satisfy a code's conditions, apply the code, then alter the contents of the cart and finalise the purchase. the thing is, these workarounds often get figured out quickly as someone posts it as a deal, professionals do what they do best, and most orders end up getting cancelled.

      OP's order went through this time, got fulfilled and the boss later saw it and asked the lowly employees for a pauline hanson.

      could have been many ways this went down.

    • jason101 on 13/08/2025 - 21:02
      +4

      I think this is it - I've set up a few codes for similar circumstances on our website and not taken the time to click the box for "1 use only" and or haven't correctly bound the high discount code to a specific registered customer - then peeps share the code around, very frustrating as a retailer….but not sure threatening legal action is the way to go.

    • JumpingUnicorns on 14/08/2025 - 15:59

      @fortunecookie pls reply to this comment

  • garetz on 13/08/2025 - 20:19
    +2

    Tell them to kick rocks, they have no legal standing.

    • DoctorCalculon on 13/08/2025 - 20:51

      Yes. By their own T&Cs, they don't dispatch the goods until paid in full.

    • DoctorCalculon on 13/08/2025 - 21:24
      +5

      So the practical position you may choose to adopt is to simply ignore them unless and until you get sued.

      Sued for what exactly? Using a coupon code that was accepted by their shitty ecommerce platform?

        • Randolph Duke on 14/08/2025 - 06:17
          +14

          You’ve given no detail on what grounds you think the retailer could actually sue OP for, just “trust me bro” and “I’ve rustled you nrg voters”

          • DoctorCalculon on 14/08/2025 - 08:25

            @Randolph Duke:

            You’ve given no detail on what grounds you think the retailer could actually sue OP for

            According the genius 🙄 legal scholar above, we are all "bushman lawyers" here leading the OP astray.

          • dwarves on 14/08/2025 - 09:56
            -3

            @Randolph Duke: Your patent unfamiliarity with the legal term ‘mistake’ only further confirms my point.

            • Randolph Duke on 14/08/2025 - 12:31
              +1

              @dwarves:

              Your patent unfamiliarity with the legal term ‘mistake’ only further confirms my point.

              Why don't you enlighten us with your wisdom, rather than snippy one liners?

            • Muppet Detector on 14/08/2025 - 21:13

              @dwarves:

              Your patent unfamiliarity with the legal term ‘mistake’ only further confirms my point.

              What do you think the legal term "mistake" is, how do you think it is legally applied and when is it legally applied?

        • Muppet Detector on 14/08/2025 - 18:55

          Ok, I'll bite.

          How is the defence of mistake applicable to contract law?

          • dwarves on 14/08/2025 - 20:42
            -1

            @Muppet Detector: It’s not a defence. It’s a basis for arguing the contract should be voided, and the parties returned to their original positions.

            • Muppet Detector on 14/08/2025 - 21:09
              +3

              @dwarves: I don't think that's true.

              "I made a mistake" is definitely not a legal basis to have a contract voided.

              I'm familiar with legal defences such as mistake of fact or mistake of law, but these aren't applicable to contract law.

              So, please tell me, how does "mistake" apply to contract law?

                • Randolph Duke on 15/08/2025 - 12:39

                  @dwarves: Why not provide the cliff notes with the relevant parts as it pertains to OP?

                  • dwarves on 15/08/2025 - 12:43
                    -1

                    @Randolph Duke: Because I have things to do other than pander to the countless troglodytes who keep peppering me with insults and also questions despite seemingly having an inability to successfully comprehend the answers.

                    • Randolph Duke on 15/08/2025 - 12:56

                      @dwarves:

                      despite seemingly having an inability to successfully comprehend the answers.

                      You haven't given any answers, just a vague response and a link to a doco without any points of reference

                      who keep peppering me with insults

                      Also you:

                      So many bush lawyers here blithely giving terrible advice.

                      Also, shoutout to the dopes who’ve negged my original comment because they are upset I’ve called out their ignorance. Enjoy your day at the shelter, kids.

                    • Muppet Detector on 15/08/2025 - 13:08
                      +1

                      @dwarves:

                      Because I have things to do other than pander to the countless troglodytes who keep peppering me with insults and also questions despite seemingly having an inability to successfully comprehend the answers.

                      I just revisited my posts and was prepared to apologise if I had provided even an offensive response, far less "peppered you with insults", and I can not find one instance.

                      The posts I'm able to see show that I have been very polite towards you, perhaps even respectful.

                      Your posts on the other hand…

                  • Muppet Detector on 15/08/2025 - 13:04

                    @Randolph Duke:

                    Why not provide the cliff notes with the relevant parts as it pertains to OP?

                    Because the Cliff notes aren't going to say what he wants them to say either.

                    Clearly he didn't even read the introduction.

                • Muppet Detector on 15/08/2025 - 13:02

                  @dwarves:

                  Enjoy the bedtime read

                  Did you even read the introduction to that?

            • Muppet Detector on 15/08/2025 - 14:42

              @dwarves:

              It’s a basis for arguing the contract should be voided, and the parties returned to their original positions.

              How does the law of equity apply weeks after both parties have fulfilled the terms of the contract that they agreed to?

              For example, say the product in question is a bottle of wine, or some other consumable product (or yikes - a contract killing - yikes) (yes I know that equity cannot apply to a contract for an illegal good/service)..

              But say the contract was for a bottle of wine.

              Upon receiving the wine, the buyer drinks the wine.

              Now two weeks later, the seller comes back and says "I want more money".

              How would the law of equity be able to void that contract and return both parties to the same position they would have been in had the contract never been created?

              Assuming all things are legal, the laws of equity apply before the contract has been discharged/performed.

              But kudos to you for at least considering the laws of equity. Whilst I did consider them, I also discarded them very quickly and decided they didn't apply in this situation without giving them very much consideration at all.

              Hence, I did fail to mention the laws or equity, but then I also didn't mention a lot of other irrelevant information.

              So yes, on revision of my posts, you have caught me short as I did say that mistake didn't apply to contract law, I accept that and acknowledge that I was wrong in saying that and leading others to believe that may be true.

              However, the laws of equity do not apply for this situation, primarily because the contract has been performed and discharged according to the terms agreed upon and we are not contemplating that either party did so in an illegal manner.

              • dwarves on 15/08/2025 - 15:35

                @Muppet Detector: Mistake doesn't only apply to illegal contracts.

                And the whole point of arguing mistake is to say that you didn't truly / knowingly agree to what the contract provided.

                • Muppet Detector on 15/08/2025 - 15:50

                  @dwarves: I didn't say that.

                  I understand the point of arguing mistake, but it doesn't apply here.

                  We are way past the point of having a legally valid contract on foot.

                  The contract has apparently been legally discharged.

                  Equity can't wind this back now and declare that the entire contract is void.

                  Also note, a contract killing isn't necessarily an illegal contract. It might be a contract for an illegal product/service though.

                  Good luck getting any court to enforce that contract though, especially using the laws of equity.

                  Unless of course it is a legally sanctioned killing I suppose, or a killing of something/somebody allowed to be lawfully killed.

                  Not all killing is illegal.

                  Sometimes it is just as legal to kill a human as it is to kill the chicken or potato that you roasted for dinner last night.

      • resisting the urge on 14/08/2025 - 10:45
        +1

        Fraud? Only guessing…

        There seems to be a lot of context missing from this thread.

    • brendanm on 14/08/2025 - 18:46
      +1

      Lol. The item was offered at a price. OP paid that price. They accepted his payment and sent the goods. Not much grey area there.

      • Muppet Detector on 14/08/2025 - 18:57

        Apparently somebody's "grey area" doesn't know how eContracts are created or performed.

      • Muppet Detector on 15/08/2025 - 14:55
        +1

        For the purposes of contract, in this situation:

        Seller announced that he wanted to sell something and then stated the terms he would be interested in considering (the advertisement) an advertisement is not an offer, it is only an invitation to treat/do trade.

        Buyer made an offer (or at best, a counter offer) stating the terms that he wanted as part of that contract.

        Seller could reject that offer (or make a counter offer) at any time prior to acceptance.

        However, seller accepted the offer.

        It appears that all five elements for the creation of a contract have been satisfied.

        1. Offer
        2. Acceptance
        3. Capacity
        4. Consideration
        5. Intention to be legally bound

        We now have a contract on foot.

        But in this situation, both parties have met the terms of the contract to which they both agreed.

        Apparently, there is no proof of illegal actions

        The contract has now been legally discharged.

        => too late to change the terms of that contract now, at best, the two parties would need to create another contract, but obviously, neither party has to do this if they don't want to.

        • brendanm on 15/08/2025 - 16:49
          +1

          That's exactly how I looked at it.

          • Muppet Detector on 15/08/2025 - 17:02
            +1

            @brendanm: I presumed as much.

            My contribution was more for the folks who were following at home because a lot of people apparently disagreed with what you were saying despite your contributions being true and accurate.

            So, I thought if I set it out and explained it in a pretty basic format, it may make it easier for more people to realise that what you are saying is true, even if they don't think this is how things should be or are.

  • nosey on 13/08/2025 - 21:45
    +7

    When i buy something and i see a coupon/voucher field i usually try a few that come up in a google search.

    If one somehow worked at 90% off and payment was received, processed and item delivered thats on them and id ignore any further corro.

    Id only shit myself under 2 circumstances:
    1. I actually get a letter from a lawyer (because getting involved in legal system is a big hell no). Or
    2. Company was potentially involved with bikies eg tobacco or protein powder because they'll know where i live :)

  • summer1 on 13/08/2025 - 22:04
    +6

    If I were OP, I would be a tad concerned as they would have my personal details with address, mobile, card details etc.

    • fortunecookie on 13/08/2025 - 22:12
      +1

      I see your point. So they're going to send someone to knock on my door and beat the sh*t out of me?

      • Randolph Duke on 14/08/2025 - 06:17

        The reverse bikies.

      • MrFrugalSpend on 14/08/2025 - 17:47
        +3

        The problem is debt collectors are annoying, I've had them chase me over mistaken identity - but they have to follow some strict rules.
        They will give up quick and go onto someone else if you have a legit claim and you can explain to the debt collector you don't actually owe them the money.

        Keep screenshots / records.

        • Water Bearer on 17/08/2025 - 08:37
          +1

          Debt collectors effectively take over from the business. Only giving the company a percentage of what they recover.

          Debt collectors for individual cases need to know if they will be liable for taking on any cases. As they now become the responsible party and owner of the property/debt. Nobody would take this case on seeing what happened. So no debt collectors would be involved.

          This person has nothing to worry about, in fact if the company is so stupid to try and take him to court, the fees for small claims would be half of the cost of the item.

  • BartholemewH on 13/08/2025 - 22:27
    +10

    Tell them you have sought legal advice, and you are declining their generous offer to extort you for more money.

  • Webber000 on 13/08/2025 - 22:34
    +4

    I'm not a lawyer, and you haven't given us the full details, but from what you have said I would personally ignore them. Its going to cost them more than $900 to pursue you - but they may not be sensible enough to realise that.
    I disagree with your reply above saying that by posting the item they have "authorised you to use the code". I think it is more a case that by posting it they have accepted your order. Not that this gives you permission to use a code that you may not have been entitled to.
    If you got the code genuinely, then you didn't do anything wrong and they have no case - but I assume you found the code or searched for it or guessed it and that doesn't mean you are entitled to use it, and by you "finding" it I presume you didn't also choose to find the T&C's attached to the use of that code - so you have probably done something wrong.

    I'm split because its not illegal AFAIK to search for a code, and they should have a system to verify codes or check things before dispatch and I feel strongly that this should be the basic common sense answer. However, I also know a well known international "coloured plastic brick" company has two ordering systems and one allows store managers to order stock from their consumer website with a 100% discount code and thats an official way to restock some stores. If someone guessed/found that 100% discount code and used it then thats fraud. [No, I don't know any Lego codes so you can't have them!] But you using a 90% code is very close to that, though if you found a 90% groupon code then in that scenario it could be a genuine discount where you ended up paying about the normal price anyway so its just impossible to say without the full details!

    • dwarves on 14/08/2025 - 04:55
      +4

      You’re not a lawyer, but you’re happy to declare “they have no case”. Ok m8

      • smartazz104 on 14/08/2025 - 07:03
        +6

        You don't need to eat shit to know it tastes bad; in this case, the retailer can go pound sand.

        • Poor Ass on 14/08/2025 - 14:22
          +5

          unless it's good shit

          • tenpercent on 14/08/2025 - 21:22

            @Poor Ass: If it's overcooked does it become tough shit?

            • Muppet Detector on 15/08/2025 - 15:03

              @tenpercent: I think over cooked might be subjective.

              If overcooked resulted in an unintentional fatal over dose, I think that we're back to bad shit and that really would be tough shit.

              However, if being over cooked achieves the results that you actually wanted, then we're probably back to it being "good shit".

    • Muppet Detector on 14/08/2025 - 19:02
      -1

      I think it is more a case that by posting it they have accepted your order

      Nope, at best, posting the item is a term of the contract.

      That's not when an electronic contract is formed (unless that is a specific term of the contract.

      Contract is formed when it is accepted.

  • lilkid28 on 14/08/2025 - 00:12
    -1

    Tell them that you can only afford to pay back $50 max.

  • smartazz104 on 14/08/2025 - 07:03
    +1

    Tell them "see you in court", so they can be laughed out of the courtroom.

  • gromit on 14/08/2025 - 08:55
    +3

    really your legal position depends entirely on how you "found" this code. just because the sale was completed doesn't exclude legal action if they believe fraud has been committed against them.

    • Jolakot on 14/08/2025 - 13:00

      In what scenario could that be fraud? He made them an offer and they accepted it, no different than going to a physical retailer and offering them a price.

      Like if a disgruntled employee at Myer decided to give 90% discounts to all customers today, the business can't sue you for the actions of their representative. Instead they'd have to recover the lost money from that representative if possible.

      • gromit on 14/08/2025 - 15:01
        +10

        I can think of lots of scenarios, he "found" the code by brute force attack or a compromised server or simply worked out an exploit in how the system uses the codes. He claimed to be a person or organisation he was not in order to utilise the code. He is probably fine, however it does raise suspicions as he has thus far refused to answer anyone that asked where he found this code.

        • original15 on 15/08/2025 - 10:55

          “Not smart enough to do any of that”

          • gromit on 15/08/2025 - 15:55

            @original15: then why is he so cagey on where it came from.

  • happydude on 14/08/2025 - 08:57
    +4

    51 Guarantee as to title
    52 Guarantee as to undisturbed possession

    Seems there was offer, acceptance and delivery. ACL says they cannot disturb that possession.

    I can't see any world where they can ask for more money. At absolute best they could get the contract voided, and have the goods returned but even that would be pushing shit uphill.

  • Bignudge on 14/08/2025 - 09:17
    +2

    Contractal agreement satisfied. Payment made, delivery done, invoice supplied.

    It's abit like someone giving a quote in writing to install a fence, you agreeing and paying in full, they finish the job, and now they want to sue you for more money cause they underquoted lol.

    If they wanted to change the price or adjust their quote, do it before completing the job.

  • frostman on 14/08/2025 - 10:06
    -8

    Coupon codes are a very straight forward marketing strategy.
    As a business owner, you setup 20% (or whatever % discount) and generate a silly text string like "20OFFMADNESS", and set it to expire of X months.

    Now what I suspect you've done, is you've circumvented the Coupon Policy.

    Not a single Coupon can be generated without the business owner's approval, all these websites like "Coupons.com.au" are fraudulent and fake.
    As such, there's no way on earth the business owner has approved 90% off and then changed their mind.

    You're being disingenuous.

    If you used a scam to obtain this, pay the full amount.

    • resisting the urge on 14/08/2025 - 10:46
      +2

      My thoughts precisely

    • Cluster on 14/08/2025 - 11:11
      +11

      How can you use a fake coupon at a business? Surely the business defines which coupons are effective?

      You can't take a '20OFF' coupon, change it to '90OFF' and expect it to work.

      The very first rule in setting up an ecommerce site is you never trust any input by the user. Always verify it to see if it's legitimate. But, maybe the site was vibe coded and no one checks these things any more.

    • Jolakot on 14/08/2025 - 13:14

      They could have approved a 90% off coupon for a clearance item, especially if they use inflated RRPs where 50% off is the actual price.

      I found a similar deal once where the coupon took 80% off the cart not 80% off the item, so you add the clearance item and whatever full price merchandise you want, then get 80% off of it all. Although I told the store as it was a small business, worked out well though as they gave me a $50 gift card for being honest.

      Unless OP hacked into their system then they have minimal recourse, he made them a valid offer and they accepted it. Their right to fix pricing mistakes ends once the product is recieved, with pretty minimal exceptions.

    • No ONE on 14/08/2025 - 18:30
      +1

      found the rug seller.

    • tenpercent on 14/08/2025 - 21:25

      You can't just type in any old code to gift yourself a discount. A coupon code is either valid and accepted or it isn't.

      Try this code: 100OFFMADFROSTMAN

      • frostman on 16/08/2025 - 18:40

        You can't just type in any old code to gift yourself a discount. A coupon code is either valid and accepted or it isn't.

        Read my post again mate,

        • tenpercent on 18/08/2025 - 15:36

          As such, there's no way on earth the business owner has approved 90% off and then changed their mind.

          It seems this particular business operator or employee set up a code incorectly and is now shi77y with a customer who discovered that it was set up incorrectly. No scams involved, mate.

          As you said:

          Not a single Coupon can be generated without the business owner's approval

    • smartazz104 on 15/08/2025 - 07:19

      As such, there's no way on earth the business owner has approved 90% off and then changed their mind.

      So how exactly do you think OP has pulled this off; all you've said is

      Now what I suspect you've done, is you've circumvented the Coupon Policy.

      That's like me saying that "I suspect the business owner has put you up to commenting on OzBargain", without any elaboration (like you've done).

      When people here have taken advantage of a pricing error, have you climbed onto your high horse and told them off? I think not.

      • frostman on 16/08/2025 - 18:41

        Lol for the very same reasons he hasn't posted how he used the coupon.

        If it was legit he would have shared it and vehemently defended his decision to retain the item

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join