The recent $100 price cut for the PlayStation 3 is supposed to boost Sony’s sales for the gaming system.  Price cuts are a very traditional way for businesses to increase their sales when faced with a sagging demand.  But in order to protect the consumer one could ask if consumers that bought their console within two months of the price cut are or are not harmed by such a policy.
Usually companies offer a one month grace period such that if a price drop occurs consumers would end up getting the difference back (as long as they ask for it).  In the case of Sony’s Playstation 3 or others, the person that bought it a month and a day ago gets nothing.  According to their sales policy there is no possible leeway.  But why does an extra day represent potential harm for the consumer?  Had he waited a day longer to buy his console, he could have had $100 back because he would have fallen into the “one-month grace period” rule from the day of purchase.   Note that consumers could potentially claim harm due to the fact that they might have received their console only a week later.
A good policy, that could prevent Sony and others to face a potential class action harm for an unexpected price decrease, would be to offer consumer a time-varying compensation:  within a month of the price drop, the consumer gets the entire difference, within the two-month period the consumer gets a half, and within the three month period, the consumer gets a quarter of it.  After three months it might be more difficult to advocate for damages, as consumers have been using their system for a while.  Such a policy might help companies content customers that feel betrayed by a sharp drop in price.