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

rowantoad

The reason most of the would-be buyers don't have a legal leg to stand on is that the price on the site is known in law as the "invitation to treat", not an "offer" in the contractual sense, and does not bind the seller to a price. Clicking "Buy" is the purchaser's attempt to see if the seller does want to enter into the contract where they'll supply, say, a camera for an amazing knock-down price. But standard retail transactions aren't concluded until money changes hands.

Guardian man not done his homework.

1. Money has changed hands.
2. Confirmation emails were sent, not just clicking buy and an acknowledgement of interest to buy. The 'Offer' was sent.
3. Contract is for making every effort to supply if available, not just in stock.

suggest he be told at tech at guardian.co.uk in your own words.

and at charles.arthur at guardian.co.uk for doing half a job.

deary65

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

The guardian artical is nothing but jounalise, a collection of words, into which, you can read just about anything you like. Which you clearly have.

rowantoad

StudentOfLaw wrote:

CASE CLOSED :T

Thank you Judge Judy.

wireframebox

rowantoad wrote:

Thank you Judge Judy.

Haha I nearly wet myself then. :T

kinster_2

Have you threatened them with court action yet?

FIL6971

Just to keep things moving along, I received this from the local Trading Standards office:

Dear Mr XXXXX
I am an advisor with XXXXX Trading Standard and your complaint has been
allocated to me for further advice.
I'm sorry to hear of your difficulties in obtaining the digital camera.
Your legal right to make a claim will vary depending on two sets of
circumstances:
1) If a confirmation email was sent but no money taken from the account
(even temporarily) then the trader in theory has a right to cancel the
transaction as it remains an "invitation to treat" at this point. This means
that they have not legally agreed to provide the goods yet. There is various
caselaw on this particular point.
2) If payment was taken - this includes a temporary withdrawal that may have
since been refunded without your consent - then you can argue that a
contract has been made. Technically, by failing to deliver the product, the
trader would be in breach of contract. This would give you a right to claim
damages.
Normally, this would be immaterial as the level of damages would only
reflect the amount to be refunded (amount paid). You would normally be
entitled to a refund in any case. However, if you have lost a bargain as a
result of the traders breach you are able to make a claim for the
difference.
This right arises from Section 51(3), Sale of Goods Act 1979 (amended),
which states that:
"(Damages for non-delivery) Where there is an available market for the goods
in question the measure of damages is ... the difference between the
contract price (+//0-98) and the market or current price (+//0-98 - +//0...?) of
the
goods at the time ... at the time of the refusal to deliver".
I would advise you to check your a/c to determine whether the money was
actually taken. If so, and you wish to make a claim for the loss of bargain,
the you should write to the trader via Recorded Delivery Letter. If you
require any further advice on this matter please do not hesitate to contact
me. You have my email address and my contact telephone number is below.
Faithfully,
XXXXXXXXX
Consumer Protection Officer
XXXXXX Trading Standards
Tel XXXXXXXXXX
Please note that this advice is subject to revision or amendment in light of
new evidence/information. XXXXXX Trading Standards wishes to make it clear
that our opinion is based on the evidence to hand on the above date. Only
the Courts can interpret statutory legislation with any authority.

harryc_3

i said i would not post anything until I had a reply from apple to the letter that i wrote.

Today I had a phone call from an apple uk representative...

suffice to say that the conversation that transpired was such that I was given what i would deem to be a lecture on why apple did not have to fufill the order that i had placed. Based on the fact that they had no stock of the product availabe.

I say say lecture in that questions that i asked where for the large part left unanswered since they apparantly did not have the relevant information available to answer said questions.

Given the tone of the conversation and the fact that i was told that this phone call was taking the place of a formal reply to my letter I asked if the conversation was being recorded ..(call me mr paranoid). Since I stated that if it was being recorded in any manner without my permission being asked for then i judged the validity of anything that was said as being worthless and asked again for a written response to my letter.

I was told by the person that he did not know if the call was being recorded...i asked again for a writen response to my letter after being placed on hold for a supervisor to be asked if this was possible i was told that a letter would be sent out.

i will decide my course of action based on this written response.

If this is apple uk's idea of good customer relations then in my judgemet they .........

I ask that no reference or quotes from what i have written be used in any way whatsover without my permission.

davilown

Thanks FL6971 and HarryC - bloody good info there. Am waiting for a reply (asked for written) from recorded delivery letter stil, but gave them till the end of the month.

Keep it up people

:beer: monster

rowantoad

http://comment.silicon.com/weeklyroundup/0,39024756,39155592,00.htm

Talks of how someone took the easy way and ripped their article, pity whoever it was didn't make a bit more effort.

jimjim79

rowantoad wrote:

Guardian man not done his homework.

1. Money has changed hands.
2. Confirmation emails were sent, not just clicking buy and an acknowledgement of interest to buy. The 'Offer' was sent.
3. Contract is for making every effort to supply if available, not just in stock.

suggest he be told at tech at guardian.co.uk in your own words.

and at charles.arthur at guardian.co.uk for doing half a job.

I sent an email to charles this morning and just got this reply.



Hi..

Did you read this online, and did you read the last paragraph?

"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."

You sue Apple and I'll be delighted to come along to the court case. Just tell me when your legal costs have exceeded the £500 that could have been saved in the transaction.

best
Charles




Seems to me he had not read the last line on the list.