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

davilown

Aiadi wrote:

But if demand exceeded supply then surely they should have supplied with whatever they had in stock at the time to some customers. Another blatant lie from Apple.

Exactly

Legal Proceedings begin

:beer: Monster

Amba_Gambla

Aiadi wrote:

But if demand exceeded supply then surely they should have supplied with whatever they had in stock at the time to some customers. Another blatant lie from Apple.

and how do you know that they haven't supplied any at that price.

Having only one in stock and supllying at that price would get them out of this one......

The_Negotiator

Trading standards suggest that what you are saying is wrong "amba gambla" although I am not going to find the post which states as such. Jist was that the loss in this case includes loss of bargain hence allows a claim to be made up to the value of that.

davilown

Amba_Gambla wrote:

and how do you know that they haven't supplied any at that price.

Having only one in stock and supllying at that price would get them out of this one......

ehhhhhhhhhhh

after reading up on sales of goods and related laws, i think you'd find...............

no it wouldn't

:beer: monster

Aiadi

Amba_Gambla wrote:

and how do you know that they haven't supplied any at that price.

Having only one in stock and supllying at that price would get them out of this one......

And also out of the thousands who ordered the camera and who post on this forum not a single person had actually mentioned receiving the camera.

gromituk

But that doesn't mean that no-one did!

Amba_Gambla

The_Negotiator wrote:

Trading standards suggest that what you are saying is wrong amba gambla although I am not going to find the post which states as such. Jist was that the loss in this case includes loss of bargain hence allows a claim to be made up to the value of that.

But loss of bargain is different from the argument that i was talking about.

If I had an online store, and had 1 Olympus E1 in stock, I could list it at £99. If 300 try and buy it at £99, then there is no way that 299 people could sue me for loss of bargain

Amba_Gambla

gromituk wrote:

But that doesn't mean that no-one did!

my point exactly.

They may have had one in stock, and had 10,000 orders. That doesn't mean that the person who gets a camera would post on here.

Aiadi

Amba_Gambla wrote:

my point exactly.

They may have had one in stock, and had 10,000 orders. That doesn't mean that the person who gets a camera would post on here.

You are then suggesting that apple only had a couple of them left which they had a great difficulty getting rid of, when they reduced the price, for a couple of people who are not reading this or other forums to snatch without the rest of the universe knowing. Oh yes... HOW PLAUSIBLE!!.

The_Negotiator

Amba_Gambla wrote:

But loss of bargain is different from the argument that i was talking about.

If I had an online store, and had 1 Olympus E1 in stock, I could list it at £99. If 300 try and buy it at £99, then there is no way that 299 people could sue me for loss of bargain

It seems like they could if you took payment, according to trading standards at least.