In article <er86e331u0ek002malch@nntp.sonic.net>, malch@malch.com 
says...
> In article <MPG.20414137c6558f19989fa9@news.individual.net>, krw <krw@att.bizzzz>
wrote:
> >In article <er7l2r1lg0l8004malch@nntp.sonic.net>, malch@malch.com 
> >says...
> >> In article <x73Bh.6063$MN.3795@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, boyhowdy wrote:
> >> >There should be a Federal Law that only allows instant rebates at the 
> >> >time of purchase.  Any product returns will have the rebate (already 
> >> >received) form the return amount.
> >> 
> >> It isn't going to happen. And even if Congress passed such a law
> >> I suspect it would be found unconstitutional.
> >
> >On what grounds?
> 
> Well, for starters, although Congress has the right to
> regulate inter-State trade, it has no right to regulate
> intra-State trade.

If ay two of the buyer, seller, manufacturer, or rebate redemption 
companies are in different states it is interstate commerce.

> In addition, with some notable exceptions Congress has
> no right to regulate the selling price of a product
> or service. Discounts are a matter for the buyer and
> seller. Ditto for "delayed" discounts or rebates. Of
> course, if the seller fails to deliver on an advertised
> promise, they can be prosecuted for false advertising,
> maybe fraud and maybe more, depending on jurisdiction.
> The buyer (or party suffering the harm) can also take
> civil action for breach of contract and seek appropriate
> remedies.

1) Not a constitutional issue.

2) No one is regulating the price, only the limits of contracts 
(which the Fed does all the time).
> 
> >> Major retailers are already tiring of the complaints and some
> >> have already announced their intent to abolish mail-in rebates
> >> completely. Your voice can help that process along.
> >
> >Money talks louder.
> 
> Complaints translate into money -- time spent handling
> the complaints, loss of repeat business, negative word
> of mouth, damage to brand etc.

Money talks.  Bullshit walks.

> >> Happily, I do believe consumers are starting to win this
> >> particular battle.
> >
> >I hope you're right.  I'm not as confident as you though.  There 
> >are entirely too many whiners who are unable to do anything for 
> >themselves.  They need the government to protect them from 
> >themselves.
> 
> Whiners may want the government to protect them; that
> doesn't mean the government should.

Agreed, though there is nothing in the constitution preventing such 
abominations.

-- 
  Keith