A question of business ethicss, practices

[Jacob D]

Scenario: you buy fish food that is sold by weight and the weight is 15% less than stated. You contact the manufacturer who states it's difficult for them to accurately measure the weight and their target weight is actually slightly *under* the label weight. No information on actual deviation is presented by them.


If this was true, how would you feel about it as a customer paying for more than you're getting? Knowing that this could involve more customers than yourself does it affect your opinion? If the company admits as much as they don't, won't, or can't accurately control their package weights would you voice a complaint with their local regulatory agency?

 

[Stuart60611]

I would at least complain. It is called fraud. If the packaging states they are selling you a certain amount of the food in weight, and you do not get the amount of food in weight that you pay for, then it can be contended that the manufacturer misrepresented the weight on the package for the food so as to wrongfully induce you to purchase it for the price being offered. Common law fraud is defined as (1) a knowing or reckless misrepresentation of fact which is intended to be relied upon by others; (2) which is reasonably relied upon by another to the other's detriment; and (3) which results in the other suffering damages.

For example, if you purchase some food for $1.00 under the written representation of the seller that you purchased 1 gram of the food and ultimately only received 1/2 of a gram of the food, then you have been defrauded if it can be shown that the misrepresentation of the food's weight on the packaging was intentional or reckless, and you have suffered damages in this example by paying twice the price for the food than advertised. The seller may take the position in this example that it never intended to mislead you because it cannot control accurately how much food gets ultimately put into its packaging and therefore any inaccuracies were inadvertant or an innocent mistake. However, based on your posting, it is clear that this situation at best is reckless (defined as a conscious disregard of an unjustifiable risk) on part of the manufacturer because the manufacturer appears to know full well that it often puts the incorrect weight of food in its package for sale because it does not have an effective means of control and therefore knowingly sells food which has a reasonably liklihood of not weighing what the food is described as weighing on the packaging. As such, the manufacturer should put some language on the package label indicating that the weight may not be exact or better may vary to a specified degree, or otherwise the manufacturer can be subject to a claim for fraud if the discrepancies between the actual food weight sold and the package describing the food weight are materially different (small discrepancy would not likely be actionable).

 

[JHemdal]

I think that example isn't a question of ethics, like Stuart said, there are legal controls on product descriptions when it comes to objectively measurable criteria such as weight. They could get around this by selling the food as "a portion" or by volume - but a better practice would be to simply overfill the containers so that everyone gets a bit more than stated. Given modern manufacturing techniques, I can't see this happening except perhaps in specialty foods - brine shrimp, live algae, tubifex, etc. have usually been sold as "portions" to avoid this problem.


Here is another example that I was told actually happened ten or 15 years ago:

A sea salt manuafacturer labels their product in big letters that it is a "50 gallon mix". In tiny letters, on the back is the net weight of the salt.

Prices of raw material increase, so the manufacturer decides that to control costs, their 50 gallon mix is now only going to have 90% as much salt in it. They only change the tiny wording of the net weight on their label from 16 pounds to 14.4 pounds. It still says "50 gallon mix" in big letters on the package. In fact it DOES still make 50 gallons, just at a lower salinity!

Apparently there is no fraud in this ruse because they stated the true weight on the product. I think they do this with human food where "serves four" means nothing if the serving sizes are not defined.

Jay

 

[James77]

I'd feel a bit jipped on the food, but if there is a legal and legitimate reason for it, then the company is not really doing anything shady.

You could research under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act and see what that states. A quick glance showed me pet supplies are exempt, but I do not know if fish food would fall under supplies or if they consider it pet food.

Its like food labels, they are allowed to get away with quite a bit, and adjust their servings to sell better. Like "zero calorie" butter spray....but the entire bottle contains over 800 calories- they are allowed to list anyhting with less than 5 calories as 0 calories.

 

[Jacob D]

Interesting responses so far.

Stuart has the best analogy. This is a simple situation of buying X units and getting less than X. I don't know the regulations behind pet foods either, however the company rep. sounded a little agitated when I mentioned weights and measures and my background in the food and packaging industry.

 

[Stuart60611]

Interesting responses so far.

Stuart has the best analogy. This is a simple situation of buying X units and getting less than X. I don't know the regulations behind pet foods either, however the company rep. sounded a little agitated when I mentioned weights and measures and my background in the food and packaging industry.

As James77 points out, any common law fraud claim rights that one could have in this situation in the U.S. is superceded by any particular applicable federal or state statutory regulation, such as the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. However, such statutory preemption cuts both ways. For example, such a claim could also be possibly premised on the Uniform Trade Practices Act and a variety of other statutory schemes which often provide less stringent requirements of proof and for the enhanced recovery of damages when compared to the common law theory I described above.

 

[Stuart60611]

Here is another example that I was told actually happened ten or 15 years ago:

A sea salt manuafacturer labels their product in big letters that it is a "50 gallon mix". In tiny letters, on the back is the net weight of the salt.

Prices of raw material increase, so the manufacturer decides that to control costs, their 50 gallon mix is now only going to have 90% as much salt in it. They only change the tiny wording of the net weight on their label from 16 pounds to 14.4 pounds. It still says "50 gallon mix" in big letters on the package. In fact it DOES still make 50 gallons, just at a lower salinity!

Apparently there is no fraud in this ruse because they stated the true weight on the product. I think they do this with human food where "serves four" means nothing if the serving sizes are not defined.

Jay

Jay:

You make an interesting point here that I wanted to respond to not only for is importance here but also because it is very relevant to our "other" discussion. Not that I am suggesting necessarily that this type of analysis would hold up as it applies to your above example, but I do want to point out that particularlly the statutory schemes I describe in my above post can provide for a much lower threashold of proof where non-misrepresentations and even misrepresentations of opinion can give rise to a legal claim. These statutory remedies often apply to non-misrepresentations which create confusion among reasonably minded consumers or misrepresentations of opinons which are disseminated by an author or in a way where reasonable consumers would believe that they are intended to be relied upon as actual fact. Your above example certainly would not pass muster as common law fraud, but it very well may give rise to a claim under a variety of statutory basis. I think you can surmize how this has substantial relevance to our "other" discussion.

 

[DoubleM 10]

all i gotta say is O BOY!!!

anyways i would contact them. see what they wll do. if they do something great

if they dont you will have to take it to the proper athorities

thats it

 

[JHemdal]

Stuart,

Ahh, but we are talking here about getting LESS than one pays for, not more!

Jay

 

[Jacob D]

all i gotta say is O BOY!!!

anyways i would contact them. see what they wll do. if they do something great

if they dont you will have to take it to the proper athorities

thats it

As I mentioned, I did contact them. Their response was in my first post.

I should add that they DID offer to send me some free product... if I ordered about 30x more than I would ever use They are not a retailer so they only sell in large quantities.

They suggested I contact the vendor who I purchased it from. I did of course, but the point isn't whether or not I got reimbursed. I did get reimbursed (by the vendor) based on the amount shorted. Now, how many other people have been shorted, how much have they been shorted by, and should the vendor (not the manufacturer) be responsible for reimbursing all of them? Does it matter?

I have no intention of pursuing any law suits etc... I am curious to hear what other people think regarding it though.

 

[Stuart60611]

Stuart,

Ahh, but we are talking here about getting LESS than one pays for, not more!

Jay

I see. :bigeyes:

 

[TampaSnooker]

Isn't this why term baker's dozen was coined? As I was told, they gave 13 muffins or whatever to make certain the customer got what they paid for, else they might get shot over it. Cereal boxes are always labeled "product is sold by weight, not volume. Some settling may have occurred....." I believe that it is fraud for a company to provide less product than the labeling states and they should simply correct their packaging. Or at least mail Jacob and the other "squeaky wheels" some free cans of food for hush money - it'd be a lot cheaper than litigation or repackaging...

 

[ackee]

Regarding the lesser amount of salt, as I recall this packaging change happened when the general opinion of 'experts' was that marine fish did not need a specific gravity higher than 1.020. Several companies took advantage of this widespread belief by listing the number of gallons the amount of salt should make based on a s.g. of 1.020, instead of the usual oceanic standard of 1.025.

More importantly, though, I'd love to hear more from Stuart about his opinions regarding the responsibility of internet fish sellers to provide accurate information about the aquarium space and gallonage requirements of the fish they offer for sale. I'm still not sure if he fully explained his perspective on this topic in the other string.

 

[Stuart60611]

More importantly, though, I'd love to hear more from Stuart about his opinions regarding the responsibility of internet fish sellers to provide accurate information about the aquarium space and gallonage requirements of the fish they offer for sale. I'm still not sure if he fully explained his perspective on this topic in the other string.

Don't worry. If you or anyone else actually manages to post something there that I feel I need to respond to you will hear from me loud and clear.

 

[ackee]

I have no doubt about that.

On another topic entirely, and not in connection with anything previously discussed, does anybody remember who did that old Memphis Blues song " Your Brain Is On Vacation, So Your Mouth Working Overtime"? I know this is not the correct forum for such unrelated questions. I thought someone might know.

 

[JHemdal]

Ackee,

That may be correct, but a few companies DIDN'T drop their salt package weights, and they paid for their fairness by the perception that their product was more expensive than the diluted brands. I only vaguely recall who the bad actors were, but IO was one that didn't cave.

Jay

 

[ackee]

Jay, I know I/O has always kept the same weight/gallon ratio. They even used the fact that their salt made a 'full strenth' sea water substitute in their advertising.

T.M. was the first offender I realized was packaging less salt. I became aware of the light count because I did and still do use their product. In effect, an expensive salt became even more expensive. The fine print on the T.M. packaging mentioned "at a specific Gravity of 1.020."

 

[Chris27]

So let's sue the fish food company - that way they can increase the cost of their product to cover the cost of new processing, packaging and calibration equipment as well as the fees their law firm is charging them to handle the case.

Before the lawsuit you got charged $4.99 for a 3.5 oz pack that was really only 3 oz - now it's $7.99 but you actually get 3.5 oz.

The LAW can be a great thing.....but it can also be crippling in some aspects.

My thoughts on the matter - to many other issues in this world that are more important then a 1/2 oz. of frozen fish guts :thumbsup:

 

[JHemdal]

Chris27,

Just to play devil's advocate here, but fish nutrition is pretty complicated. Do we really want to buy food from a company that can't afford procesessing, packaging and calibration equipment? Do you think they might cut corners elsewhere? What if they buy last year's krill harvest to save costs? (It happens, and the old product can cause real health issues in fish)

Jay