Olympus E-1 Digital SLR - £98.70 (Apple Education Store) [CLOSED]

harryc_3

cause i dont think... in my humble opinion and slag it to death for all its worth ...that you did in fact have a valid order..and have followed this thread because you wanted to see us all fail .....i base this on all the postings that you have made on this entire topic...If im wrong i apologise... but if i am right then this is of not iterest to you and ask why the negativity.Even if i am wrong why such negativity...

may i refer you and everyone to this website ...that is carrying the story ....i assume that the journalist involved checked his facts before he put pen to paper .....yet apple didnt want to answer even his questions.

http://comment.silicon.com/weeklyroundup/0,39024756,39155408,00.htm

LB1985

I've had a brief read of the last few posts on legal issues here, but am left with a question. When I spoke to Apple, their supervisor told me there was stock available, but not at £98.70, and that I would be welcome to contact her once they put the cameras on sale again at the normal price. So were they really out of stock? Who knows, I suppose...

deary65

hi StudentOflaw,
When i read legal history(a long time ago) i always remeber the case of derry v peek(1889) H.L,where it is well known that counsel for the plaintiff vertually dragged the plaintiff in to court,in order to clarify the law on fraud once and for all.That case whent to the house of lords.

As a student of law you should be excited at the prospect that such a grey area of the law could be clarified once and for all. Your interest seems to be more in defence of apple.

kinster_2

harryc wrote:

cause i dont think... in my humble opinion and slag it to death for all its worth ...that you did in fact have a valid order..and have followed this thread because you wanted to see us all fail .....i base this on all the postings that you have made on this entire topic...If im wrong i apologise... but if i am right then this is of not iterest to you and ask why the negativity.Even if i am wrong why such negativity...

may i refer you and everyone to this website ...that is carrying the story ....i assume that the journalist involved checked his facts before he put pen to paper .....yet apple didnt want to answer even his questions.

http://comment.silicon.com/weeklyroundup/0,39024756,39155408,00.htm

Apology accepted.

What makes your order more valid then my friends?

If you feel the negativity, it maybe because I have a dislike to people who think they are entitled to everything, when there are worst things happening in life.

harryc_3

LB1985 wrote:

I've had a brief read of the last few posts on legal issues here, but am left with a question. When I spoke to Apple, their supervisor told me there was stock available, but not at £98.70, and that I would be welcome to contact her once they put the cameras on sale again at the normal price. So were they really out of stock? Who knows, I suppose...

cheers for that , you where not alone others where also told that they would be able to puirchase the camera at alater date at the 'correct price '

Comfortably_Numb

POET wrote:

Originally Posted by Comfortably Numb
Thats it, stick your head in the sand when someone disagrees, and come up with a conspiracy theory.

Do you really think Apple would bother trying to infiltrate this forum to try and put off 3 or 4 people?




91664 views of this thread alone, add to that the dvd forums and the Irish forum.

i think we can safely say its more than 3 or 4 people...
So to answer your question, they would be mad not to.

That is not the amount pursuing this though is it, and its hardly made media headlines. I still think you are chasing a lost cause, but good luck. The trouble is, that until you start proceedings Apple will just keep quiet, and do nothing. Are you prepared to risk a court action? You need proper legal advice though rather than relying on bits picked up online, and discounting opinions that differ to yours.

Thirdfox

Unfortunately talk is cheap, so get their statements in writing.

I had established an e-mail communication with them and they kept asking me for my phone number lol.

I agree with StudentofLaw that it is a rather grey area and I'm sure some of my law professors in college would love to have it clarified once and for all.

harryc_3

kinster wrote:

Apology accepted.

What makes your order more valid then my friends?

If you feel the negativity, it maybe because I have a dislike to people who think they are entitled to everything, when there are worst things happening in life.

i cant speak for your friends order. Im glad you accept my apology , but how do you know i wasnt lying...

cant you see thats the real issue here ...is it ok for companies to make the rules up and then change them when the going gets tough.

POET_3

To COMFOTABLY NUMB

I am actually happy to challenge differing opinions, but why should it matter to anyone else if i decide to discount their opinion? It certainly doesnt upset me if you think my opinion is rubish.
I think we will have to agree to differ on this, as i will be pursuing this case to the small claims court unless in the meantime i am convinced that it is not worthwhile, which at the moment is highly unlikely.

kinster_2

harryc wrote:

i cant speak for your friends order. Im glad you accept my apology , but how do you know i wasnt lying...

cant you see thats the real issue here ...is it ok for companies to make the rules up and then change them when the going gets tough.

what are you lying about now?

I just see it as a pricing error.