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

LULUBELLE_2

Link to Guardian online article:

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1683936,00.html

simion_levi

davilown wrote:

#Is it me or have ywo new people come onto the scene to give us apples opinion on the subject like the so called laywer??

Still waiting for a reply

:beer: monster

Oh dear.

Having recently invested in an Olympus DSLR, lenses and equipment, I have a vested interest in the 4/3 system and so try to keep up-to-date with industry news and discussion - much of which is currently directed at the impending release of the replacement to the E-1.

Flimber

kinster wrote:

comedian of the year goes to this guy

I hope you're being ironic.

Tom2

peter_the_piper wrote:

Logically if it is to be discontinued soon then its a current model.

However, if it's being discontinued soon then logically production is being wound down. Which would lead to the dwindling stocks with, possibly, the inability for retailers to buy more stock in.

davilown wrote:

#Is it me or have ywo new people come onto the scene to give us apples opinion on the subject like the so called laywer??

:rotfl:

Not Apples opinion. Simply *another* opinion. Google for Olympus E-1 replacement if you need to.

The truth is out there... Somewhere?!

Tom.

bleugh

kinster wrote:

comedian of the year goes to this guy

aaaw,

I'd like to thank everyone i know, mu mum for supporting me, the credit card company for paying the money, my bank for paying the credit card and me for paying my bank and my work for paying me, and me for working and my.......................................

LULUBELLE_2

bleugh wrote:

aaaw,

I'd like to thank everyone i know, mu mum for supporting me, the credit card company for paying the money, my bank for paying the credit card and me for paying my bank and my work for paying me, and me for working and my.......................................

Thanks - you've just made me laugh and today that is no small feat!

FF99

StudentOfLaw wrote:

Have a look at todays guardian, there is an article about the Apple mistake. Apparently unless you can prove that Apple had stock at the time when money was taken from your account, you don't have a leg to stand on! I can't see how anyone can prove that as Olympus keep giving different answers and unless someone has access to Apples inventory, there is no way of knowing. Oh and the guardian reckon it'll cost £500 minimum to persue it as a legal issue.

CASE CLOSED :T

As I said in a much e arlier post, this is not the case. It will be for Apple to prove that they are entitled to rely on the 'no availability' get out.

This will be very difficult and costly for them unless there genuinely is no sotck to be had.

The_Negotiator

Article:

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1683936,00.html

This means those who had money deducted from their credit cards by Apple could have a legal case if Apple had stocks of the cameras at the time: by taking their money, the company would have concluded the customer side of the contract, and might be obliged to fulfil it. The problem would be proving the cameras were in stock - a challenge that may cost more than £500 to prove in court.

Still worth the letter at least since:

"This means those who had money deducted from their credit cards by Apple could have a legal case if Apple had stocks of the cameras at the time"

Also, their own terms state availability rather than "in stock" or similar

kinster_2

Flimber wrote:

I hope you're being ironic.

I couldn't find the irony or clenched fist up and down motion icon

deary65

Quit understandable there is confusion on this matter,being a grey area of the law.
The legal issue has been reduced to the following;Has there been a bona fide exchange of promises,if so found,then legal title in the camera has passed to the customer.In other words has consideration moved from the promise!(money taken or reserved from your account).
The action before the court will not be loss of the camera but,loss of the bargain for it.
It will cost apple a lot of money to defend these actions.