nycman

Get new friends. 

Get new friends. 

Chalk it up as a lesson.
"Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry."
- Polonius, Hamlet Scene 1, Act 3

Chalk it up as a lesson.
"Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry."
- Polonius, Hamlet Scene 1, Act 3

yeah, but have you seen their gift boxes?

Throw a rock in Tangier (really most any largish city) and your bound to hit a Guinness heiress. They multiplied like yeast at one point. 😏 

What is this "sex" of which you speak?

If the clerk figures it out, and can prove it while you are in the store, then yes I think you are obligated to return the money. 
Mistakes are not lottery tickets. 
Obviously, if they can’t prove it or if they never figure it out, well then it’s just your conscience we’re dealing with, not the law. 
But back to the original case:
As @BuffaloKyle pointed out, a "contract" between the buyer and seller doesn’t exist until the goods are paid for. Most intelligent companies have a "terms of use" section on their online website that states a contract doesn’t exist until the goods are paid for and delivered. They also have a statement explicitly stating that they don’t have to honor any clerical mistakes. 
That doesn’t mean local jurisdictions (include Mexico), won’t have laws that say goods must be sold at their advertised price, even if it’s a mistake. And anyone who works in the international market knows laws and judges will favor the local party. Period.
Also, if a company is routinely making "clerical errors", and pattern can be identified, there’s little doubt the judge will charge the seller with false advertising and rule in the purchasers favor. 
In the end, right or wrong, Cartier was smart to settle and lick their wounds.

At $1k per session…..I am not. 
Even with the @Coolwave35 golden seal of approval, which we all know is basically priceless.
If @Coolwave35 likes you, you’re fun….. but often pricey. 
And yes, the "sub" part of the ad has me second-guessing myself….grin

If the clerk figures it out, and can prove it while you are in the store, then yes I think you are obligated to return the money. 
Mistakes are not lottery tickets. 
Obviously, if they can’t prove it or if they never figure it out, well then it’s just your conscience we’re dealing with, not the law. 
But back to the original case:
As @BuffaloKyle pointed out, a "contract" between the buyer and seller doesn’t exist until the goods are paid for. Most intelligent companies have a "terms of use" section on their online website that states a contract doesn’t exist until the goods are paid for and delivered. They also have a statement explicitly stating that they don’t have to honor any clerical mistakes. 
That doesn’t mean local jurisdictions (include Mexico), won’t have laws that say goods must be sold at their advertised price, even if it’s a mistake. And anyone who works in the international market knows laws and judges will favor the local party. Period.
Also, if a company is routinely making "clerical errors", and pattern can be identified, there’s little doubt the judge will charge the seller with false advertising and rule in the purchasers favor. 
In the end, right or wrong, Cartier was smart to settle and lick their wounds.

I’m not a lawyer.
I think the principle is that the purchaser knew (or should have known) that the offer was a typo / mistake, thus the "contract" isn’t enforceable. I believe Cartier would have gotten away (under US law, no clue about Mexico), with not fulfilling the order and simply refunding the $13. The PR aspect is another matter, and Cartier was smart to just write off the fuck up.
Had he ordered 20 pair, I have no doubt Cartier would have fought harder (and had an even stronger case that the purchaser was attempting to exploit a clerical error). 

Get new friends. 

You asked about legal problems.  Apart from a couple of stories I've read about online (i.e., no personal knowledge), I think that risk is very low. 
What seems to be a larger risk is extortion or, at least, attempts at extortion.  If you have a lot to lose if your hiring habit becomes known to others, then someone attempting to extort you puts you at risk.  That's why you'll see some here advocating the use of a burner phone and never meeting anyone where they live.  I didn't take either of those precautions and never had anyone try to extort me, but I did almost hire someone whom I subsequently read about here who did threaten to expose clients to their families.  I felt like I dodged a bullet there even though I don't think that being exposed to colleagues or family would have caused any problems for me other than whatever gossip people might have engaged in following the disclosure.

Was there ever a "good" time?……grin

I’m not a lawyer.
I think the principle is that the purchaser knew (or should have known) that the offer was a typo / mistake, thus the "contract" isn’t enforceable. I believe Cartier would have gotten away (under US law, no clue about Mexico), with not fulfilling the order and simply refunding the $13. The PR aspect is another matter, and Cartier was smart to just write off the fuck up.
Had he ordered 20 pair, I have no doubt Cartier would have fought harder (and had an even stronger case that the purchaser was attempting to exploit a clerical error). 

Was there ever a "good" time?……grin

Was there ever a "good" time?……grin

I’ve missed your jealousy motivated snark on my comments. It’s good to be the subject of your contempt again. 

I’m unsure.  This was how it was left. He had messaged me and invited me to lunch. Then the plan just kinda didn’t happen. No more was said. He’s still in my will though. 
 
 

Was there ever a "good" time?……grin

Actually, it looks like the results aren’t so bad. I mean, DoxyPEP had very good reduction in chlamydia and syphilis rates, and a significant (although not great) reduction in gonorrhea rates. Unfortunately, I predict wide spread DoxyPEP use will soon lead to near universal doxycycline resistance in gonorrhea, making it useless for gonorrhea prevention. And although the meningitis vaccine didn’t show a great reduction in gonorrhea, there appears to be some. Not bad for vaccine that wasn’t targeted at gonorrhea. I think people got a little too excited about the early results from this trial. Nonetheless, I think it shows a real gonorrhea vaccine might be feasible.
Overall, I’d chalk this up as good, although not great news. 

Just to add on, HIV remains rampant and often untreated in Africa. 
PREP, PEP, wrap your Willy, get routine testing, light candles, give alms to the poor. 
The "odds" are NOT in your favor. 

Just to add on, HIV remains rampant and often untreated in Africa. 
PREP, PEP, wrap your Willy, get routine testing, light candles, give alms to the poor. 
The "odds" are NOT in your favor. 

At $1k per session…..I am not. 
Even with the @Coolwave35 golden seal of approval, which we all know is basically priceless.
If @Coolwave35 likes you, you’re fun….. but often pricey. 
And yes, the "sub" part of the ad has me second-guessing myself….grin