We all know that consumers often times get themselves in trouble by not reading the small print - the small print is intentful and not by mistake. Company’s often highlight all the things consumers want to see because if they highlighted the small print, they would likely not make a sale Full disclosure: I did not read ALL of the fine print - but let me lay everything out before you raise a brow. I typically scan for numbers (percentages and when payoff is scheduled) and I rarely finance unless it’s 0% interest - I can keep the money in an investment to pay off the purchase and the longer the term, typically, the better (inflation). I happened to purchase a massage chair from Massage Chair Planet (MCP) during their pre-labor day sale, which did not qualify for the 0% 48 month term, but qualifies for their 0% 12 month term. Okay, my bad. But what makes this situation really terrible on their end are 4 things; 1) I called to verify their terms, which brings me to my second point 2) their instructions were unclear, but to their credit, they updated their site after I called it out. The intergration from a technical standpoint is fine, as it posts a transaction to Synchrony bank. But from a completeness and customer service standpoint a) Synchrony didn’t show the financing terms on their side, but they do have an area for this, which likely means, massage chair planet is not sending (or did not send at the time of the approval process), what terms I signed up for b) massage chair planet posted (later) that I was approved for 6 months 0% financing - they fixed this. I just want to be clear that they resolved that issue, but companies should not get credit for doing what is right, as it’s the bare minimum c) MCP did not make explicit the terms during the checkout. After I called, MCP confirmed that, “*Your purchase* qualifies for the 0% 48 month term. It’s not that I qualify, but the purchase that is in progress qualifies. 3) I sent an email, as their process was so nebulous that I wanted to cover my own a**, so I emailed to get clarity in writing. They confirmed again that my purchase qualified for 0% 48 month and was sent an invoice which I was told to look it over and I replied, “As long as I get 0% at 48 months, it looks fine” 4) the invoice failed to spell out the terms/special and they failed to correct any misunderstandings. Did I miss the terms? Yes. BUT, so did they, on two occasions and they had a third opportunity after I replied to the invoice email. I offered to split the financing cost of $750 (financing charge passed down to MCP from Synchrony), as they were wanting me to pay $500, so I declined. Even though they made the mistake 2 times, and I, once, I figure that we could both share the mistake and cost. They declined. I figured I was at least fair, and if I paid more than half, it would be saying, “We will make our mistake right by you paying more”, because, I did verify on two occasions and if they don’t know their terms, then how clear is it to the consumer? So what’s the big fuss? For the sake of argument, they have terms written out that I signed up for. Well, they also written out through email and verbally, what those terms were. However, maybe it’s a false dichotomy, but I can only reduce this issue into 1 of 2 scenarios; 1) they mislead me and misrepresented the terms on purpose, or 2) they didn’t know the terms themselves If either one of these cases exist, then they should split the cost. After all, it should be the bare minimum thing to do.