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

etting

manhattan wrote:

mine doesnt show on my balance?

maybe they took it when i ordered but sneakily refunded over the last few days?
hey! ive just noticed that it looks like i have nearly posted a 100 times on this thread!

it doesnt show up on my statement, but now my available balance and current balance "balance"...

withabix

Email received from Olympus in the last 5 minutes confirms that the Olympus E-1 HAS NOT BEED DISCONTINUED....

Chew on that Apple.....

Heir_2_Hesjane

Interesting. Was that Olympus UK division or the Worldwide one? Just to clarify - I phoned the UK division.

PS: Mum says hello

FF99

manhattan wrote:

maybe get someone to bribe a worker to photograph the stock in the warehouse? lol

pay him a pound each towards the bribe?

ok who lives near the warehouse then?

Available is not the same as in stock. That is the problem that Apple has. Apple would have to show that they cannot obtain these from a supplier in order to honour the contracts they have entered into. This is why it would be difficult and costly for them to prove that they are not 'available'. See my earlier posts.

withabix

Was from a chappy at

@olympus.uk.com

harryc_3

iainkirk wrote:

Email received from Olympus in the last 5 minutes confirms that the Olympus E-1 HAS NOT BEED DISCONTINUED....

Chew on that Apple.....

well done ....iain...

youve confirmed that apple are not to be trusted . I stand by what i said earlier I was told by an apple employee this morning that the camera wasnt made anymore and they wouldnt be getting anymore.

harryc_3

FF99 wrote:

Available is not the same as in stock. That is the problem that Apple has. Apple would have to show that they cannot obtain these from a supplier in order to honour the contracts they have entered into. This is why it would be difficult and costly for them to prove that they are not 'available'. See my earlier posts.

given that you where indeed spot on , any suggestions how you think this matter should be carried forward.

again not with the intention of getting the camera for I still think that is a lost cause but for simply the sport of letting apple see that it cant lie and cheat and take amoral high ground when its in the wrong.

bring on the hounds tally ho and all that for ive got the smell of apple in my nostrils ...and perhaps a little roast pork .....and maybe afew roast spuds ....

opps lunchtime has arrived ...

rst

iainkirk wrote:

Was from a chappy at

@olympus.uk.com

could i have a copy please.....

paulbezzant AT ntlworld DOT com

kinster_2

harryc wrote:

because they made a mistake , Im a believer that when you make a honest mistake you put your hands up and move on.....apple have known for serveral days now but did nothing to move things on.. I know it was a bank holiday weekend but all they needed to do was put some sort of explanation on thier website or on our order staus page acknowledging the mistake. That woud had sufficed me .

But they didnt ..in fact the email this morn by its tone is as if they have taken the moral high ground ..they know thier rights ....and then to compound it with a lie when i phoned this morning only makes matters worse.

so put down that apple juice that your drinking ,,,make mine a double orange and long live pc's ......macs are only good on rainy days !!!!

I don't own anything Apple. But what I'm getting at it's just a mistake and even though they've fobbed you off. Just get on with life and don't have the entitlement mentality

Regards

garichd

sdmitch wrote:

A previous post referred to this link:

http://www.venables.co.uk/n0203mistakes.htm

It is worth reading because there are remarkable similarities between the Kodak case and the Apple one - a bit of a web campaign might make them capitulate.

the following website is available for registration - https://www.dontbuyfromapple.com

with over 60,000 views on this log alone, who knows?

FROM THIS WEBSITE:

Possible criminal offences
It is not just the civil proceedings with which Kodak found themselves faced. It is arguable that criminal offences have been committed under Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (the provision of a false or misleading price indication). Action under this Act would be taken by the Trading Standards Authority. If found guilty of a breach, Kodak might also have found themselves liable for a fine based on the number of cases of deception carried out - in these circumstances a particularly substantial number (a maximum fine of £5,000 per consumer misled).
Sounds Intresting ....!