Shorted 15 autos in a Topps Chrome case - now what?

[A_Pharis]

Honestly, I agree. At this point it is not about the missing auto(s) but the overall experience. The inherent value was obviously decimated by the lack of 'guaranteed' auto's, but so was the experience (The actual value of the product Topps claims) due to the gross negligence.

Topps guarantees no value. The only guarantee hits. All Topps would have to say is that the secondary market value of autographs that may be contained have no bearing on the value of the cards that were present.

Topps is a crappy company, but sending back a case for a whole new case? Come on, now.

 

[Super Mario]

I'm sorry, but excuse me??? When a product states right on the box in huge letters "2 autographs per box" with no disclaimer or asterix or "on average" following it, I should expect what is advertised. If you go to the store and buy a sealed blu-ray only to find out the case is empty, is that the buyers fault? Do you go home, shrug your shoulders, and tell yourself it's your fault for buying the movie?

I realize this isn't the end of the world, but to claim that it's "buyer beware" is a bit ridiculous. All I want is the company to provide to me what they stated they would provide to me.

To be fair, I always make sure there is a disc in a Blu-Ray or DVD box before leaving the store. And that it isn't freely moving around in the box getting scratched.



But this situation sucks. And is a cautionary tale for me.

I don't waste my money on the unknown anymore. Not full boxes, NEVER a case for Christs sake. The odds are just terrible. I'll just get my fix buying the singles I want off eBay, or a blaster from WalMart. I've been burned too many times, and suffered too much buyers remorse.

 

[ChasHawk]

Topps guarantees no value. The only guarantee hits. All Topps would have to say is that the secondary market value of autographs that may be contained have no bearing on the value of the cards that were present.

Topps is a crappy company, but sending back a case for a whole new case? Come on, now.

Why not?

The entire experience of opening a case of cards was ruined by the fact that soooo many cards were missing.

 

[ballerskrip]

Sorry man, this stinks. Personally I would accept nothing short of a fresh case. I know the odds are slim, but they didn't live up to their end of the bargain, and 12 $2 autos will NOT cure the sickness

 

[rum151man]

Think at the least they should send you 8 new boxes which should hopefully have your shorted hits in them. Least they could do for your troubles

 

[nyc3]

Think at the least they should send you 8 new boxes which should hopefully have your shorted hits in them. Least they could do for your troubles

No way they do that every entitled dingbat over at BO will claim every case was missing hits.

 

[ballerskrip]

So, if you bought a dozen eggs, and got home and there was only 3 eggs in the pack, what would the store do? Bet your ass they would give you a new dozen of eggs. Not go pick out 9 crappy eggs from the back, put them in a sack and send you on your way. Some how these card companies work under different rules than every other company out there.

 

[Fandruw25]

So, if you bought a dozen eggs, and got home and there was only 3 eggs in the pack, what would the store do? Bet your ass they would give you a new dozen of eggs. Not go pick out 9 crappy eggs from the back, put them in a sack and send you on your way. Some how these card companies work under different rules than every other company out there.

'
Sure, lets give the OP his 'hits'...and those that make the same claim..true or false....next year when Topps can't afford anymore of this BS where will you be? Still a "Rip King"???
A

 

[A_Pharis]

Why not?

The entire experience of opening a case of cards was ruined by the fact that soooo many cards were missing.

They owe him autographs. Any business would know that by not defining value that they will be able to argue that not receiving odds in no way diminishes the experience of the other cards.

If that were the case... let me order cases and see how many I can return for not leaving me feeling great about the experience.

 

[matfanofold]

They owe him autographs. Any business would know that by not defining value that they will be able to argue that not receiving odds in no way diminishes the experience of the other cards.

If that were the case... let me order cases and see how many I can return for not leaving me feeling great about the experience.

They owe him the experience of ripping a case open and NOT being bent over due to gross negligence, this is seemingly the point you are missing/avoiding.

 

[ballerskrip]

'
Sure, lets give the OP his 'hits'...and those that make the same claim..true or false....next year when Topps can't afford anymore of this BS where will you be? Still a "Rip King"???
A

I get it, trust me. I know there are very dishonest people out there. But does that mean an honest person who got hosed should get doubles stiffed by Topps? Topps is making plenty of money on products like Bowman Chrome, how much do you think it costs to land 5,000 Jeremy Baltz Autographs? $.75 each? Oh, and that is your HIT in your $60-$70 box.

 

[A_Pharis]

So, if you bought a dozen eggs, and got home and there was only 3 eggs in the pack, what would the store do? Bet your ass they would give you a new dozen of eggs. Not go pick out 9 crappy eggs from the back, put them in a sack and send you on your way. Some how these card companies work under different rules than every other company out there.

You can check the number of eggs in a carton at the store.
The process of replacing the eggs is in no way akin to replacing missing hits.

A more apt comparison would be ordering a box of cards and finding that - upon arrival - you were shorted 15 cards, and the company sends you those 15 cards at random.

Oh, wait - that's what is happening. Seriously, so because he missed out on 15 autos you think he should just have a whole new round of cards to try? So, if he hits a superfractor without opening the amount of packs listed as the odds for a superfractor... should he send that superfractor back since the odds stated he shouldn't hit it?


Come on. This is such a can of worms that the suggestion is nonsensical. He is owed 15 autographs. They will send him 15 autographs as per the standard.

 

[A_Pharis]

They owe him the experience of ripping a case open and NOT being bent over due to gross negligence, this is seemingly the point you are missing/avoiding.

How is this any different from people that box out cases? If each person that bought a single box was shorted an auto - all they'd get is a single auto replacement. Topps doesn't owe him anything more because he purchased the whole case from a distributor.

 

[A_Pharis]

Quick question.
Let's say that someone brings a laptop to me that needs hardware replacement.
I replace the piece of hardware and tell them I will cover the warranty offered by the part's manufacturer.

If they get home, and the part goes bad a week later... should I give them a whole new laptop because their experience browsing the internet was ruined?

 

[BBCgalaxee]

Sooooooooooo, how many Refractors should he get among the 15?

Sent from my HTCONE using Freedom Card Board mobile app

 

[matfanofold]

How is this any different from people that box out cases? If each person that bought a single box was shorted an auto - all they'd get is a single auto replacement. Topps doesn't owe him anything more because he purchased the whole case from a distributor.

I'm glad you asked! Please let me explain...

Buying a box of cards and being shorted an auto, although ugly is still a far cry from being treated to the experience the op had with regards to a case that was borderline blasphemy. Being shorted an auto in a single box is not so outlandish that separate and total satisfaction need be remedied. A simple replacement in this event usually suffices but even then the experience is less than ideal for the end user. I think we both can agree that the experience the op was subjected to far outweighs the random and somewhat commonplace event of being shorted in a single box, a event that takes place all too often really, but somewhat understandable.

But to get to meat of how this really differs...

I think we also both agree that Topps makes no claims or reservation towards value, not now or for future reference. In fact they sell their product as a form of entertainment along side and separate of any stated odds. Odds placed on particular 'hits' that fall under the umbrella of entertainment being sold by Topps. Now, what constitutes as entertainment you ask? Well, I feel (and obviously many above as well) that this not only applies to the merchandise inside the packaging but the actual act of opening the product as well. I believe this is inherently applied by the nature of Topps presenting stated odds and touting the possibility of 'pulling a BIG hit'. We could split hairs here but understanding the experience of opening/busting wax with a real and reasonable expectation to at least have a opportunity to pull one of the advertised 'monster' hits has value.

Now, as we take a look back at the op's situation where not only was he shorted well and far beyond the usual missing hit here and there we all have come accustom to, but he was shorted to the tune of gross negligence. By analogy, if somebody has been grossly negligent, that means they have fallen so far below the ordinary standard of care that one can expect, to warrant the label of being "gross". This is what the op experienced. Topps was so far below the ordinary standard of care with regards to his purchase that not only was any secondary value dismantled but the overall experience (READ: entertainment) reasonably associated with buying/busting their product was robbed.

To that end, settling for simple replacement(s) as a means to 'fix' this is short of satisfaction. All the hopes and dreams that coalesce during a product rip (on a case level) are gone forever, never to be had nor to be recouped by usual Topps sub-standard substitutes with regards to this case. The entire experience here has been ruined beyond repair. As someone who is a regional sales manager for a fortune 500 company, I would expect and demand of all my territory sales reps to replace fully not only the product but the full experience if I ever came across such gross negligence on the part of my product(s). To disagree is your right and I am OK with that, I will just never understand or agree with it. It is crystal clear the op had an experience that was well beyond the normal 'oops' moment and deserves total satisfaction, and in this case that means total replacement. And obviously, this is my opinion.

 

[matfanofold]

Quick question.
Let's say that someone brings a laptop to me that needs hardware replacement.
I replace the piece of hardware and tell them I will cover the warranty offered by the part's manufacturer.

If they get home, and the part goes bad a week later... should I give them a whole new laptop because their experience browsing the internet was ruined?

Apples to oranges. I think you should be able to tell why, but if you need me to explain that as well, let me know.

 

[A_Pharis]

I'm glad you asked! Please let me explain...

Buying a box of cards and being shorted an auto, although ugly is still a far cry from being treated to the experience the op had with regards to a case that was borderline blasphemy. Being shorted an auto in a single box is not so outlandish that separate and total satisfaction need be remedied. A simple replacement in this event usually suffices but even then the experience is less than ideal for the end user. I think we both can agree that the experience the op was subjected to far outweighs the random and somewhat commonplace event of being shorted in a single box, a event that takes place all too often really, but somewhat understandable.

But to get to meat of how this really differs...

I think we also both agree that Topps makes no claims or reservation towards value, not now or for future reference. In fact they sell their product as a form of entertainment along side and separate of any stated odds. Odds placed on particular 'hits' that fall under the umbrella of entertainment being sold by Topps. Now, what constitutes as entertainment you ask? Well, I feel (and obviously many above as well) that this not only applies to the merchandise inside the packaging but the actual act of opening the product as well. I believe this is inherently applied by the nature of Topps presenting stated odds and touting the possibility of 'pulling a BIG hit'. We could split hairs here but understanding the experience of opening/busting wax with a real and reasonable expectation to at least have a opportunity to pull one of the advertised 'monster' hits has value.

Now, as we take a look back at the op's situation where not only was he shorted well and far beyond the usual missing hit here and there we all have come accustom to, but he was shorted to the tune of gross negligence. By analogy, if somebody has been grossly negligent, that means they have fallen so far below the ordinary standard of care that one can expect, to warrant the label of being "gross". This is what the op experienced. Topps was so far below the ordinary standard of care with regards to his purchase that not only was any secondary value dismantled but the overall experience (READ: entertainment) reasonably associated with buying/busting their product was robbed.

To that end, settling for simple replacement(s) as a means to 'fix' this is short of satisfaction. All the hopes and dreams that coalesce during a product rip (on a case level) are gone forever, never to be had nor to be recouped by usual Topps sub-standard substitutes with regards to this case. The entire experience here has been ruined beyond repair. As someone who is a regional sales manager for a fortune 500 company, I would expect and demand of all my territory sales reps to replace fully not only the product but the full experience if I ever came across such gross negligence on the part of my product(s). To disagree is your right and I am OK with that, I will just never understand or agree with it. It is crystal clear the op had an experience that was well beyond the normal 'oops' moment and deserves total satisfaction, and in this case that means total replacement. And obviously, this is my opinion.

I stopped reading when you said they sell them for entertainment. I would say they are selling a product for whatever a person gets out of buying them. To say that the entire experience was diminished to 0 by the lack of autos is absurd. So - had he hit a super, would he not be owed the autos since, clearly, a super would have had him enjoy the break?
Let's say - for hypothetical purposes - that is was the Puig auto super.

And, furthermore, Topps could argue that the odds of getting good replacements are just as likely as odds out of the box - and that makes the receiving the replacements just as exciting.

It's such a poor argument.

 

[matfanofold]

I stopped reading when you said they sell them for entertainment. I would say they are selling a product for whatever a person gets out of buying them. To say that the entire experience was diminished to 0 by the lack of autos is absurd. So - had he hit a super, would he not be owed the autos since, clearly, a super would have had him enjoy the break?
Let's say - for hypothetical purposes - that is was the Puig auto super.

I stopped reading when you said hypothetical.

I deal in reality and facts, the facts are presented above. Topps sells entertainment, an experience, not value, the absurd part is you do not know that.

 

[phillyfan0417]

Apples to oranges. I think you should be able to tell why, but if you need me to explain that as well, let me know.

Sorry, there is no logical way to think a new case is an adequate replacement.

Do you realize how many people would pull this if they are unhappy?