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

gromituk

Amba_Gambla wrote:

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

Why not, if you took the money from those other 299 people? If your stock control system worked, this could not happen. The first person would be able to pay and the rest would be unable to make the purchase.

So, either Apple's stock control system is broken, or it really did have 300 (as per your example) cameras in stock, and now it's trying to find other ways of not supplying them.

Which do you think?

Amba_Gambla

Aiadi wrote:

........ 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!!.

Total word population: 6,000,000,000
Total current registered users on MSE: 72,244

Total of world's population currently not registered on MSE: 5,999,927,756

Total percentage of world's population not registered on MSE: 99.998%

Total percentage of world's population registered on MSE: 0.0012%

yes, it seems that it very plausable

The_Negotiator

Completely irrelevant, as you know full well. Most people who went for this deal would have done so after seeing it on a forum, no?

Also, why don't you reply to the important points rather than showing everybody you can use a calculator?! I am welcoming to constructive posts but right now I don't feel you're being constructive and if you took a step back and thought for a moment, you would probably agree.

davilown

Am I the only person to have received a letter from apple so far or have others got one but just not saying so?
Please, if pos, let me know as it feels like I am the only one who has written to complain. Don't mind if I am but it would better if I wasn't.

Cheers

:beer: monster

Amba_Gambla

The_Negotiator wrote:

Completely irrelevant, as you know full well. Most people who went for this deal would have done so after seeing it on a forum, no?...........

I bring to your attention post #326 on page 9 of this thread

spongebobsquarepants wrote:

shipped, 14:29

maybe that was Apple's one that they had in stock?

harryc_3

davilown wrote:

Am I the only person to have received a letter from apple so far or have others got one but just not saying so?
Please, if pos, let me know as it feels like I am the only one who has written to complain. Don't mind if I am but it would better if I wasn't.

Cheers

:beer: monster

I have also recvd a copy of apples letter. Not that it says anyhting that we couldnt have anticpated.

They have a story and they are sticking to it . and before amba gambla jumps in , nothing will convince me that it is a truthful story that we have been told.

The question of what to do now is the crunch. I had hoped that perhaps watchdog would have considered the story news worthy. i assumed that a large number of online compalints would have wetted thier appetitie. But it appears not.

I appreciate the few online news articles that in effect put the boot into apple. But thats now yesterdays news.

I wont be taking this onward . From what i have been told by trading standards yes i have a case in that this is a very murcky area that needs clarifying but they couldnt say for sure that i would win.

For the record its not the issue of the small claims cost but more the case i couldnt give apple the chance of walking away with a' victory'. for whatever the rights and wrongs of contract law the loser here once again was moral decency.A simple honest explanation from apple would have been honourable and both brave. It would have sufficed and would also have won respect. apple decided that decency wasnt required.


before anyone else takes a pot at me and yes i am sticking my head up here , I could have not posted anything and remained in the background, in some peoples eyes apple wins ,however ......

I keep both my money and respect ....apple well they just keep the camera.

gizmoleeds

harryc wrote:

for whatever the rights and wrongs of contract law the loser here once again was moral decency.

Wouldn't moral decency have also involved informing Apple of their mistake so that they could rectify it, not ordering the camera in the knowledge that it was a misprice (ie. exploiting their mistake)..?

davilown

Harryc - thanks for your honestyas i bet you are fed up to the back teeth about this bloody slr. I've written them a second letter that will be sent tomorrow (recorde of course) basically saying thati intend to proceed legally. What they will say is anyones guess but i believe that they will rebuff once again. Once this occurs, i think I will read the associated paperwork from the small claims court with regards to costs and who has to pay (ADVICE ANYONE PLEASE! - no moaning though about how silly it is to carry on with this). At the end of the day, whatever outcome, it will at least solve any future problems that may occur in a similar light - in fact i would risk losing by going to court even if they make a monetary offer just to clear up the matter.

Good day to all

:beer: monster

hesjane

gizmoleeds wrote:

Wouldn't moral decency have also involved informing Apple of their mistake so that they could rectify it, not ordering the camera in the knowledge that it was a misprice (ie. exploiting their mistake)..?

but Apple never said it was a misprice, just a stock issue. Anyway, the confirmation I got showed the correct full price, just a large educational discount - final total cost of camera was still the £600 ish shown elsewhere on Apple site - definitely not a misprice then:rolleyes:

davilown

gizmoleeds wrote:

Wouldn't moral decency have also involved informing Apple of their mistake so that they could rectify it, not ordering the camera in the knowledge that it was a misprice (ie. exploiting their mistake)..?

Apple knew about it by lunchtime on the day of the first post - see the earlier posts - and did not take the chance then to remove the item.

:beer: monster