I have multiple Gift Cards for a retailer but they refuse to let me apply more than one per order. Is this legal? We were recently given a couple dozen gift cards from multiple web sites, but as far as I can tell the same parent company (website design is the same, about us page is the same etc.). I've already determined they're actually just a scam (each gift card for each website is almost exactly the cost of the item on that site, but shipping is exorbitantly high; e.g., $16 for a single bath towel). My question is the following: These were given to me specifically labeled in multiple locations as "Gift Cards", with codes on each card labeled "Gift Card Number: ". However, when I try to apply multiple gift cards to my account, it's not allowed. I could understand if these were marketed to me as promotions or discounts or something else, but they go out of their way in the package to explain how these are "gift cards" and have already been "paid in full". Are there specific terms that define what is and isn't a "gift card"? My assumption was that if I have two $50 gift cards to a company, these are considered $50-same-as-cash -- however, the company insists these are ineligible to both be applied to the same order. How legal is this? Quick Note: The terms on the back do say they can't be combined or used for shipping costs. But I'm just curious if these sorts of terms are legal in conjunction with what's considered and labeled as a "gift card".
It would depend on the terms and conditions of the gift card. If the gift card is a present of the shop owner, then they can set (within reason) the terms and conditions they like. If I buy a gift card for a shop to give to someone as a birthday present, I wouldn't expect any restrictions. If there were restrictions, I'd likely not buy that gift card. If the restrictions are hidden in the small print, consumer protection laws might make the restrictions illegal.
If the situation described is accurate, then maybe First, let's deal with the implicit assumption that sales tax is not payable on gifts. Whether that is true or not depends on the law in your jurisdiction. For example, in australia there is no Goods and Services Tax (GST) payable on a gift because a gift is not a &quot;supply&quot; under the law. Technically, a value-added tax like the GST is not a sales tax but close enough. However, exchanging a &quot;gift&quot; for something of value (airline points, for example) is not a gift. Of course, Australian States and Territories levy Stamp Duty on the transfer of a vehicle's registration, and this is calculated on the sale price or the market price whichever is the greater. Also, technically, that's not a sales tax either. If it's a tax avoidance scheme, then no and it's a crime Assuming that there is no sales tax payable on a gift; if John and David entered into this arrangement (not a contract because of its illegal purpose) to avoid tax, then tax is payable and they are now criminals. If the relevant tax authority learns what happened and decides to investigate, then John and David might have some explaining to do. If David can show that he has routinely given John large cash gifts on John's birthday, then they may convince the authority not to prosecute. If they can't, then they get to try to convince a judge. It is not atypical for tax law to reverse the onus of proof: the government doesn't have to prove tax is payable, John and Dave have to prove it isn't.
If you were an adult, the risk would be a lot higher. You can get away with things when you are 13. And since you are not an adult, the purchase contract is voidable so your parents can void your purchase. Don't do this ever again. It's not a "prank". You say you have no money and your parents have no money. The money on that card could be the last bit of money that the card owner had. Worst case someone has become homeless, had a bit of money in his card account, and you took the last of their savings. Does that make you feel bad? It should.
This would probably be legally considered &quot;gambling' Gam,bling is prohibited in many US states and a good many non-US jurisdictions. It is significantly regulated in most US jurisdictions where it is legal, often requiring a specific license. Analyzing laws on this subject in all 50 US states would be beyond the scope of an answer here. This is definitional the sort of thing where consulting a local lawyer, experienced in this area of law, would be wise. Maryland law As an example I will cite the specific laws which I think woulds apply to the situation described n the question in teh US state oof Maryland. The Maryland criminal code Section 12-201 provides that: In this subtitle, &quot;lottery device&quot; means a policy, certificate, or other thing by which a person promises or guarantees that a number, character, ticket, or certificate will, when an event or contingency occurs, entitle the purchaser or holder to receive money, property, or evidence of debt. Thus an entry or ticket issues by such an app, would be &quot;lottery device&quot; if winners were paid in money or things exchangeable for money or property, which would include gift cards. Section 12-203 provides that: (a) Prohibited.- A person may not: (a) (1) hold a lottery in this State; or (a) (2) sell a lottery device in the State for a lottery drawn in this State or elsewhere. Section 12-205 provides that: (b) Prohibited.- A person may not: (b)(1) bring a lottery device into the State; or (b)(2) possess a book, list, slip, or record of: (b)(2)(i) the numbers drawn in a lottery in this State or another state or country; (b)(2)(ii) a lottery device; or (b)(2)(iii) money received or to be received from the sale of a lottery device. Section 12-206 provides that: b) Prohibited.- A person may not print, write, or publish an account of a lottery that describes: (b)(1) when or where the lottery is to be drawn; (b)(2) any prize available in the lottery; (b)(3) the price of a lottery ticket or share of a lottery ticket; or (b)(4) where a lottery ticket may be obtained. Most plausible ways to advertise an app as described in the question would seem to violate this section. Section 12-208 provides that: A court shall interpret §§ 12-201 through 12-207 of this subtitle liberally to treat as a lottery ticket any ticket, part of a ticket, or lottery device by which money is paid or another item is delivered when, in the nature of a lottery, an event or contingency occurs. So if it is arguably a lottery, the court will treat it as one. Section 12-209 provides that: A grant, bargain, or transfer of real estate, goods, a right of action, or personal property is void if it occurs while engaging in, or aiding or assisting in a lottery. So winners cannot lawfully collect prizes. In short any such app would seem to viol;ate several sections of Maryland law if it is used of promoted in Maryland
In Australia, the overall representations of the website must not be misleading or deceptive when it comes to the provision of goods or services, in order to comply with Australian Consumer Law. The length of the terms matters. In a very recent case against a homeopathy website, it was noted that (at [47]): The terms and conditions were exceedingly lengthy and it was highly unlikely that any visitor would trawl through them merely to access another part of the Website for free. In this case the significance of the length was not specifically tested. The position of the terms also matters. In another case against a major retailer, it was noted (at [37]) that the conditions visible: a user accessed a link at the bottom of each page of the HN Website titled “Website Terms and Conditions”, such that it was unlikely either condition would be found by a normal reader reading the HN Catalogue or viewing the HN Website This specific matter related to a very specific claim made by the retailer, and so I can't say whether it applies in general to website terms and conditions. Apart from the above cases, I can't find any good examples where the exact form of a website's terms have been considered in determining a case. There are some United States cases referred to in the Wikipedia article for browse wrap. These seem to have been judged in favour of the website operator only when the terms are conspicuous, and/or when the user has had repeated exposure to them (or a link to them), for example over a number of pages. Even where the terms are linked at the bottom of the website, and a user is not required to scroll to the bottom to use the site, terms have been found unenforceable. As far as I know, there's no statutory requirements - in Australia, at least, and quite likely anywhere else - that specify the manner and form that disclaimers may take.
The contract between you and the company is for the supply of the goods. How they get them to you is irrelevant; they may have them in stock, or they may order them and ship them on, or they may send an order to the factory to ship them directly to you. There is nothing saying that they have to be in stock anywhere. The law you refer to says that they must ship within 30 days unless they provide a specific date. In effect "shipped within 30 days" is an implicit term in the contract. If after 30 days they have not shipped the goods then you are entitled to rescind the contract (i.e. get your money back). Where things get interesting is if they took your money knowing that they would not be able to ship within 30 days, or at least being reckless (i.e. not caring) about it. It does rather sound like this may be the case. If so then it may rise to the level of fraud, and the FTC or state authorities may take action. Try writing to the FTC. A single event won't get any action, but if they get lots of complaints then they might.
Who in the fraternity would be prosecuted if this became an issue? A lot of people could be held liable for this, including people who are not even in the fraternity. Anyone who has knowledge of the machine or the fact that it was possible for minors to access alcohol through it could technically be held liable if a prosecutor wanted to make that case. Presumably the building is owned by someone else and just leased out to fraternity members, and they very well could be held liable for sale to minors also. Would the machine be safer if it just accepted cash (so that no electronic paper trail was created), with a big warning sign WINK WINK that anyone under the age of 21 was strictly prohibited from purchasing from it? No. Payment method is irrelevant here. There are a number of states that legally allow vending machines to sell alcohol, but vendors are required to verify the age of any person accessing them and ensure that those cards aren't being used by people not authorized. What you describe is an extremely relaxed environment where admittedly no one is attempting to verify identities. The "accepting cash" scenario is no different than a liquor store selling alcohol to anyone that comes in just because they're willing to pay with cash instead of a credit card. Sales to minors laws are not "as long as you warn them, you're safe" laws. They require vendors to actively check IDs and ensure that alcohol is not landing in the hands of minors. Accepting cash just to erase the evidence doesn't meet that burden. There are a lot of legal troubles with the situation that could get a lot of people charged with multiple offenses. That you have underage fraternity members living there suggests you should not have alcohol readily accessible in the house at all, as most state laws expressly forbid providing access to alcohol, not just serving or selling. Them being there provides access to it, even if it's just a case in the fridge with a note on it. Not to mention, you technically cannot sell alcohol, as I highly doubt your fraternity has a liquor license to be able to do so. There's a big difference between asking everyone to pitch in to buy the case versus actively selling individual cans through a vending machine. The vending machine itself is violating liquor laws in your state merely by existing.
This would not be "legal jeopardy" per-se, really the only remedy that Stack Exchange would have in a case like this would be to ban both accounts. It would be different if you caused SE some kind of monetary/reputation damages to the site itself. From SE's Acceptable Use Policy: Identity Theft and Privacy. Users that misleadingly appropriate the identity of another person are not permitted. It seems your described scheme would violate that term. But this isn't a legal problem, just an operational one. You aren't violating any law (unless there are local laws against this) by paying somebody to "be you" on SE. The most that this would earn you and your cohort would be a ban and probably removal of the contributions.