>Sure, you can do that. Or, you could simply list the price that lets you have some margin while still being competitive. Why would you do the former rather than the latter? Only because of a clear intent to abuse the customer.
JCPenney tried it, lost a ton of business, and had to reverse course. Turns out, buyers like being given a fake marked up price and then buying at a "discount". See my other comment for source, it was a very famous example of a famous Apple executive trying to do what makes sense on paper, but not in practice.
>Words have meanings. I can't tell you what exactly "quickly" is defined, but I believe everyone reasonable would assume it's something around minutes to hours in this particular business. Ask yourself, what would you assume?
I wouldn't assume anything, because there is not enough information given by the seller. I also know that a seller's incentive is to sell, and that as a buyer, the only thing I need to be concerned with is how much I'm paying.
>I.e. until there's a clear and unambiguous statement that turns out to be purposefully false, you don't see a problem? Most lies aren't using clear and unambiguous language precisely because that makes them easier to spot; it doesn't change the fact that the intent is malicious towards your fellow human beings.
How are the courts supposed to prove intent? Especially when a seller has the legal right to change the price of their goods anytime they like. Intent also doesn't have to be malicious. As I showed in my earlier example, the sellers that use discounts make more money...because certain people like shopping at places that give big discounts, they like the feeling of getting a discount. I don't think the harm to society rises to the level of involving the courts in this case.
