AggieDiver once bubbled...
Look back up the thread...the LDS that kicked him out for buying online...sells online! How hypocritical is that?
And Northeastwrecks...look farther back at DrewSailbum's post. PADI specifically prohibits denying somebody certification for personal reasons or economic gear purchase reasons. She let him get 2 hours into the class, then denied him the right to complete his certification because of economic reasons over where he purchased past gear. Seems like a pretty straight-forward case of violating PADI's rules for instructors to me.
PADI prohibits an instructor from refusing to issue a certification after the student successfully completes the class. This student didn't finish the class.
FWIW, I'm not suggesting that the LDS was smart to do this. Personally, I'd have advised them to finish the course. However, there is nothing illegal about what they've done. I'm also not convinced that it violates PADI standards.
Also, as somebody else said in the other LDS rant thread, there is a law that prohibits attachment marketing. Basically says you can't force somebody to buy one product in order to allow them to buy another. So if they are saying he has to buy gear there in order to "buy" the class, they are violating the law (if you assume the class is a "product").
Somebody did say that. More specifically, someone who has no idea what they are talking about. I responded in that thread and am not in the mood to retype my response. On these facts, there is nothing illegal about the practice.
Moreover, I do not assume that the class is a product and I don't know why you would.
I consider the class a product the way most LDS instructors teach, because they commit to a predetermined number of hours of class room and a predetermined number of dives. If they sold "training" (i.e. however many hours and dives it takes to be proficient), I would accept that they were not selling a product. So while she may or may not have the legal right to refuse to serve him...she does not have the legal right to offer an item for sale with the condition that you also buy other items from her shop.
Once again, this is incorrect as a matter of fact and law and wholly irrelevant.
Instructors don't commit to certify you after a certain number of hours or a certain number of dives. They tell you the minimum requirements that you will need in order to obtain certification. At least at my LDS, people who don't pass in the time scheduled for the class are brought back for remedial training.
You also need to recognize that the fact that you believe a training class is a product is irrelevant to whether it actually is a product. The only relevant question is what the law provides.
Article 2 of the UCC, enacted in one form or another in most states, provides the definition of a good, i.e., a product. In general, a good is a tangible item. When looking at a transaction that involves goods and services, you look to the dominant feature of the transaction to determine whether you are dealing with the sale of a good.
In a Nitrox class, you get a book and some tables. However, the vast majority of the course is instruction. So this is not a sale of goods.
Regardless, this is irrelevant. A shop could easily say that it would not sell piecemeal gear and that they would only sell complete rigs. This would be stupid, but it would not be illegal.
A shop could also offer a discount to customers who agreed to purchase all their gear through the shop and refuse the discount to those who don't. This happens all the time in business.
Face the fact that you are dealing with a private business. You have no guaranteed right to purchase from them. They can refuse to do business for any reason or no reason at all, so long as it is not unlawful discrimination.
It is not unlawful discrimination to refuse to sell to someone who bought products elsewhere. Stupid, yes. Unlawful, no.
