Argos nintendo dsi in black £79.99!

Cheshire_Carper

It is very nice to see the issue resolved. A shame (but not unexpected) the vendor needed pointing in the correct (legal) direction but they have done the decent thing by now u-turning their position.

That displays the strength of the consumers position when a contract is formed. If there were in reality any scope of avoidance, the vendor would have relied on it but, as I kept saying, the contract was formed and the case was 'eminently winnable'. (I should stop using that phrase ).

It has saved more effort on both sides, however I would have followed it up if the decision had not gone the consumer's way as there was a very important commercial principle at stake. A conclusion one way or another was going to happen, so at least the market knew where it stood.

mittenkitten

not resolved for me at all. they have point blank refused to honour the contract. the lady claims that only items that were dispatched and then recalled are being honoured. she states mine was never dispatched. i doubt this as i was due for delivery 31st dec between 7am and 1pm and they phoned me at @12 noon. think they're trying to muddy the waters, but she would not budge an inch...

what to do now?

foxyloxy

Call your local home delivery network depot (saynoto0870.com) - give them your address details and innocently ask them if they can track your parcel - then ask
"just in case you need to call back" for the tracking number.

mittenkitten wrote: »

not resolved for me at all. they have point blank refused to honour the contract. the lady claims that only items that were dispatched and then recalled are being honoured. she states mine was never dispatched. i doubt this as i was due for delivery 31st dec between 7am and 1pm and they phoned me at @12 noon. think they're trying to muddy the waters, but she would not budge an inch...

what to do now?

mittenkitten

thanks foxyloxy, have just called thdnl and they have no records of anything ordered with them at all...

*starts to wail*

doesn't make sense, as i was due for delivery on the 31st dec

FloFlo

mittenkitten wrote: »

thanks foxyloxy, have just called thdnl and they have no records of anything ordered with them at all...

*starts to wail*

doesn't make sense, as i was due for delivery on the 31st dec

Do you have your order number? If so put it into the Argos track your order service - its at the bottom of their home page.

Also ring back hdnl, give them the date you were expecting delivery - it took them a while to find mine but the girl was lovely - perhaps you got some one who could not be bothered to check correctly.

aliasojo

mittenkitten wrote: »

not resolved for me at all. they have point blank refused to honour the contract. the lady claims that only items that were dispatched and then recalled are being honoured. she states mine was never dispatched. i doubt this as i was due for delivery 31st dec between 7am and 1pm and they phoned me at @12 noon. think they're trying to muddy the waters, but she would not budge an inch...

what to do now?

Who did you call? Mine was never dispatched either, in fact it was cancelled around 6 hours after ordering.

As jellycattwo did, I also made it clear their point about the contract being formed at dispatch was only in their terms, it did not overrule contract law and that I was prepared to go to small claims if necessary purely on principle.

My feeling is that there is no point trying to speak to anyone other than those in the director's office. These are the only people who have the power to do anything. The usual customer service team have to stick to their script.

I picked mine up this morning, I'll keep my fingers firmly crossed for the rest of you.

aliasojo

Cheshire_Carper wrote: »

It is very nice to see the issue resolved. A shame (but not unexpected) the vendor needed pointing in the correct (legal) direction but they have done the decent thing by now u-turning their position.

In my opinion, Argos knew fine what their legal position was, in fact one person told me that in her view a contract was entered when my payment was taken but she was overruled from above.

I supect it was all down to immediate damage limitation. By initially refusing to honour orders, they were hoping people would give up / move on/ buy elsewhere. Then all they had to deal with were the lesser number of pushy diehards like us. Much more cost effective to dig your heels in for a week or so, from their pov.

But then, I'm a hardened cynic these days. :rolleyes:

debtmess

they only 'gave in' as such with me when i provided a screen shot of there own site stateing dispatched

ive had a phone call from Melissa 15mins ago to take payment and mine should now arrive monday

eezy1

debtmess wrote: »

they only 'gave in' as such with me when i provided a screen shot of there own site stateing dispatched

ive had a phone call from Melissa 15mins ago to take payment and mine should now arrive monday

An email alert has just told me stock is now available for home del to my area code, so Im just waiting for the call now. I hope its in the next 5 mins lol

Ironside

If anyone is feeling a bit sore at losing out on this deal, imagine how this guy must feel

Ladbrokes, the bookmaker, has refused to pay out an accumulator bet worth £7.1 million to a man who wagered snow would fall on Christmas Day because it was accepted by mistake.

Officials at Ladbrokes’ head office told him that he was owed just a measly £31.78


Cliff Bryant, 52, from Southampton, placed two £5 accumulators on snow falling across 24 towns and cities in the North and Midlands on December 25.

But staff at the bookmakers accepted the gamble by mistake as the company rules state such a wager can only be a single bet.


The graphic designer is now seeking legal advice over the error and said he was ''gutted'' at the decision.

''This is a genuine mistake and if I make a mistake in my work like that it costs me dearly and I think the offer should be a lot more generous than they have made,'' he said.

''They are one of the leading bookmakers in the country and I think they ought to do their homework a bit better in future.''

He urged the company to make its rules clearer.

A spokesman for Ladbrokes said company rules state that ''snow at Christmas'' bets must be singles only, rather than accumulators.

''We have apologised to the customer for any confusion and for mistakenly accepting an accumulator bet when our own rules state that only single bets are available on a market of this nature,'' he explained.

''We are happy to void the bets and to pay the customer his winnings on the relevant singles.''

Under the Gambling Act 2005 a bet is now an enforceable contract and Section 334 repealed the old provisions preventing enforcement.

However, Section 335 of the Act, relating to the enforceability of gambling contracts, states ''...gambling contracts may be void on the same basis as any other contract (for example, on the basis of lack of intention, mistake or illegality)''.