Sold me wrong product Currys - Wants it back

halljkl

I've spoken to a friend that is a solicitor and she is certain that they can not ask for the camera back, and they never should have phoned to ask for it back. As Regards to the guarantee, I now have the option to ring the company that I took out the extra insurance with and explain to them what's happened and they should insure the camera for just £2.99 a month, which I think it worth it so at least I know that I am covered.

Also wouldn't it be the manufacturer that would cover it for 12 months?

phlogeston

You placed an order for an item on-line, at that point there was no contract.
You could have turned up at the store and Curry's could have been out of stock, or you could have changed your mind and not bought the camera.

You went into the shop, you paid for a camera, they gave you a camera.
There is now a contact for the supply of the camera.

Curry's only option is to now claim that the contract is void due to a mistake.
Legally, they may be able to show the contact is void, but if one looks at
Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 1 All ER 693, the chances are very slim.

"However that said they are well within their rights to refuse service if anything goes wrong with the camera." --> This comment is of course absolute rubbish, you have a contact with Curry's and still have all the consume rights afforded you by law.

Morally, well if you want to take the high ground; ask then to arrange to deliver your new camera and collect the second hand camera at a mutually convenient time.

I am sure that Curry's would not even consider trying to sell the second hand goods as new.

Put your offer in writing to their head office and express how inconvenient this is to you. You could throw in that the camera has now had some use and is no longer in perfect condition.

Time2Go_25

halljkl wrote: »

I've spoken to a friend that is a solicitor and she is certain that they can not ask for the camera back, and they never should have phoned to ask for it back. As Regards to the guarantee, I now have the option to ring the company that I took out the extra insurance with and explain to them what's happened and they should insure the camera for just £2.99 a month, which I think it worth it so at least I know that I am covered.

Also wouldn't it be the manufacturer that would cover it for 12 months?

Well your solicitor friend is wrong, of course they can ask for it back. You are obviously not compelled to do so.

Anyway you have clearly decided to keep it so I hope you enjoy it and never make a mistake that relies on someone elses honest to sort out.

happywarmgun

Depending on how much pride and respect you have -

Technically they have sent you 'unsolicited goods'. Under the distance selling law that came in - in 2000 they have no right to insist you either pay the extra or incur cost in returning it. You are able to treat it as an unconditional gift. At an extreme interpretation of the law you could demand the camera you paid for also - but I think that would be pushing your luck and a pretty low thing to do.

It is up to you. Your good luck is probably some sales persons written warning at work for making a mistake. If it isn't massivley out of your way - you could return it - or at the least offer them the option to come and collect it and make the swap (rather than you going out your way). Your call. I suspect the vast majority of the UK would keep it. Not sure what that says about us a nation!

stugib

happywarmgun wrote: »

Technically they have sent you 'unsolicited goods'. Under the distance selling law that came in - in 2000 they have no right to insist you either pay the extra or incur cost in returning it. You are able to treat it as an unconditional gift.

It wouldn't come under any definition of unsolicited goods I've ever seen!

IIRC the DSR is separate from unsolicited goods (Inertia Marketing regulations??) and doesn't cover a scenario like this either from what I can recall.

rikgear

looby75 wrote: »

I've worked in many shops over the years and have been told that as soon as an item is bought and paid for it is the property of the purchaser......if the item is the wrong item it's still the property of the purchaser, once the transaction has been completed the retailer has agreed to surrender those goods to the purchaser, it's too late for them "back out", mistakes MUST be spotted before money has exchanged hands.

I wouldn't return it tbh. The shop messed up, it's their problem not yours.

A few years ago i was walking round halford an spotted some fancy car seats for a bargain price, when i got to the till an they rang it through it was double the price displayed, i quiried this and they said any customer could have put it on the wrong shelf (and therefore wrong display price) which was fair enough but in the following visits i noticed the same thing had been done. anyway a couple of months on i went to see if they'd price match on some stereo equipment, which they did. but when i got home realize instead of ringing a 12" sub woofer through at £45 (£99 halfords price) i had got it for 45p. sod 'em i wonder how many people have purchased items that are priced incorrectly in thier favour.

indierocker85

Well, as I worked at Currys

I figured I'd give away a few secrets.

When you reserve an item online a piece of software displays a window and tells you to print a sheet out in store. You then look at that sheet and run off and get whatever it is that needs reserving. You then put it aside somewhere. When you as a customer go and pay for it, the store scans the paper barcode on the printout. And not the item.

This is where the fault has been. They have clearly picked up the wrong one and they never notice because they have scanned the paper and not the item.

While I do agree that as a company they are a bunch of donkeys, and you should keep it. I think that if they have realised their error and actually advised you of it, and you keep it knowingly. They could possibly classify that as theft.

Personally, I wouldnt take it back, but thats only cause I got a bee in my bonnet about the company. It would cost them a lot than the price difference between the two cameras to pursue you over it.

aliasojo

tomwakefield wrote: »

How is that any kind of defence?

Let's say someone notices they've been sent a lower spec camera in error. They attempt to return it for the correct one, but the salesman said "why should I bother, you wouldn't have tried to return it if it was a higher spec one :rolleyes:"

Good solution?

Please point out where I offered this comment as a defence? It was a simple comment 'uttered' during a 'conversation'. End of. Dont make it out to be any more than that.

As far as I'm concerned, no defence is needed. Store stuff up, store puts up.

Jakg

halljkl wrote: »

Also wouldn't it be the manufacturer that would cover it for 12 months?

Yes and no - if you take your model of camera back to Currys with a receipt for a different model they wont be very helpful - while you *should* have a warranty, they will most likely think you are trying it on (although the manufacturers will be more helpful).

Treadway1

Alot of people have said that this cold be considered theft, but I think we need to consider the actual definiton of theft before arguing either way (Not sure if this has already been done though, As I havent read all the posts... Sorry. ).

A person commits theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another, with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it.

To complete the offence, all 5 parts of the definiton need to be in place. I was taught this as like holding a football in your hand with your palm fasing down. With all 5 figers, you can hold the ball, however, should you remove any of those fingers from the ball, you would lose grip of it, and it would be lost. Same with Theft.

I think its fair to say we all understand the dishonestly bit of the definition, but to appropriate something in the eyes of the law means to assume the rights of the owner. 'Property' is obvious, as is 'belonging to another', and 'the intent to deprive'. Its also important to mention that the dishonest part can occur at any time, and it would still be considered theft as long as the other 4 parts still apply. i.e. You borrow a neighbours lawn mower with the intention of giving it back, but after having it 3 or 4 days, you decide to keep it. It is then that the dishonesty part kicks in and you commit theft, not at the point when you first took it.

With that in mind, we should consider the Op's sitaution. He reserved a item of property online and then made his merry way to collect it. Once at the store, he was handed the property which belonged to another (At that point) and paid for it. Once he had handed over the money and been handed a bill of receipt, he had not only assumed the rights of the owner, he had legally become the owner. A few weeks later, he is informed that he was given the wrong camera, but decides to keep it. This is where the dishonesty bit comes in...... BUT (and its a very bigg but).... Whilst he has dishonestly appopriated property with the intent to permanently deprive, the property no longer belongs to someone else, as it by now belongs to him, so he has therefore not committed theft.

It would have ben a different story had he glanced down at the box on the counter, prior to paying for it, and realised that it was the wrong camera, because then the appropration would have be dishonest, but as he quite honestly appropriated it, he has no legal case to answer.

Let the hole picking in my argument commence....