Memo to 99 Cent Store: if the Kings swept, why would anyone need GAME SEVEN tickets?

June 7, 2012
By
0 Flares 0 Flares ×

In addition to the obvious embarrassment of running the ads in the first place. It occurs to me, though, that there is no “just kidding” clause in consumer law. Shouldn’t they compound their embarrassment by having to sell us something comparable for 99 cents? Otherwise, it’s a classic bait-and-switch. “I know you came here looking for the playoff tickets. But that was a joke. Instead, how about some gum?”

Evernote lets you save all the interesting things you see online into a single place. Access all those saved pages from your computer, phone or the web. Sign up now or learn more. It's free!

 
0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 Reddit 0 StumbleUpon 0 0 Flares ×

Some posts the robot says are related, but I'll let you be the judge of that:

  1. LA Kings Game Log (2011-12)
  2. Memo to Penner: KEEP THIS
  3. KINGS 2, Devils 1 (OT) – SCF Game 1 Real-Time Bullets
  4. MEMO TO HARE FROM TORTOISE RE RACE
  5. Kings Take Game One, 4-2 (post-game bullets)
  6. LA Kings Game Log (2013)
  7. Visnovsky of the Oilers is about 23.43 per cent – Cult of Hockey

Tags:

This entry was posted on June 7, 2012 at 5:32 PM and is filed under Dumbass, Latest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

  • Garrett79

    There is a “just kidding” clause in the law though. It is black letter law that if an advertisement is clearly a joke the person putting it out there doesn’t have to make good. Remember that Pepsi Points thing a decade or so ago with the Harrier jet you could supposedly win with 700,000,000 points? Some kid collected all those points and demanded his jet; that defense is how Pepsi got out of giving him a Harrier jet.

    • https://twitter.com/FlubberMcGee Flubber McGee

      “Where’s my elephant?! Where’s my elephant?! Where’s my elephant?!”
      – Bart Simpson