47" LED Widescreen 1080p HD TV - £199 @ Pixmania price error

pretzelnut

I cant buy another TV yet, paypal still has my money on hold.

System

As has already been stated t is a French registered company operating under French Law. Pixmania have already stated the French take on this. UK law has no jurisdiction in this case as Pixmania have decided to trade under their home country's law.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

!!!!!! wrote: »

As has already been stated t is a French registered company operating under French Law. Pixmania have already stated the French take on this. UK law has no jurisdiction in this case as Pixmania have decided to trade under their home country's law.

Where do Pixmania say that please?

mystic_trev

!!!!!! wrote: »

As has already been stated t is a French registered company operating under French Law. Pixmania have already stated the French take on this. UK law has no jurisdiction in this case as Pixmania have decided to trade under their home country's law.

This is correct. Pixmania is a French registered company located at 183 rue Chealeret 75013 Paris.

PockettMoney

TaZmAn wrote: »

J
I would advise everyone here to be fully aware that people representing the interests of DSG and Pixmania will no doubt be posting in this thread.

If people are confident they're legally in the right and deserve a £200 television or £800 for the pain and suffering of having an order cancelled it shouldn't be a problem who posts and where they are from. Do you think anyone has already infiltrated the board? I've not really noticed people with April 2010 join dates popping up and advising against taking action. I doubt DSG or Pixmania would have registered accounts years in advance in case the situation arose?

I think there is middle ground between being a representative of DSG/Pixmania and being a wronged consumer with no cheap television. I can't stand the company, it took ages to get a refund on a faulty home cinema set-up a while back, and a previous order took 3 weeks to arrive! It's one of the reasons I took the gamble on this, would have been nice to get one back on them. However, they cancelled the order, I got my money back, that's the end of it for moi. I'm not advising anyone not to take action if they are having sleepless nights about their TV, I do however think the scenario presented on the LOB website is very inaccurate and doesn't represent the fact that this message board, the HUKD one, and various others the deal had spilled onto, were awash with people fully aware this was a glitch/misprice. To present the fact we all thought this was a genuine offer, especially as they also had an MP3 player on sale at 70% off, seems wrong to me.

But good luck anyways. Especially those that haven't had their refund processed yet.

System

DTI's interpretation and guide to business on the EC directive states that if it is not a UK company then Regulation 4 of the EC directive (UK Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 2013) means that services provided from elsewhere in the EEA will be regulated by the enforcement authorities in those Member States.

It therefore falls within French law.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

!!!!!! wrote: »

DTI's interpretation and guide to business on the EC directive states that if it is not a UK company then Regulation 4 of the EC directive (UK Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 2013) means that services provided from elsewhere in the EEA will be regulated by the enforcement authorities in those Member States.

It therefore falls within French law.

I didn't think the DTI even existed anymore.

System

Lineage
Written by the DTI in 2002.
DTI renamed Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) in 2007. BERR taken over by Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in 2009.

The document is still valid as far as DBIS are concerned.

TBeckett100

Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, the card company is ‘jointly and severally liable’. This means it is equally responsible along with the retailer or trader for the goods or service, and you can contact the card company to sort out your problem.
In a landmark ruling, the House of Lords has confirmed that section 75 does apply to foreign transactions. In 2004 the High Court said the act didn't apply when people made purchases abroad. But that has now been overturned by the Court of Appeal.
The House of Lords has confirmed the protection also applies if you buy goods for delivery to the UK from overseas by telephone, mail order or over the internet.
Which? has always believed section 75 applied whether a card is being used in the UK or overseas.

TaZmAn

mark_dumpleton wrote: »

I don't understand why some people are getting so uppy about this - you've got (or will get) your money back, and the only reason you're pursuing this further is because you know damn well that you're trying to cheat a cheap TV out of a company - you all know very well it was a misprice, so what you're doing is extremely dishonest and even illegal if you lie in court and say you didn't know it was mispriced.

Firstly, I can't speak for everyone else, but I didn't even see this thread before I placed my order. I actually found this thread 'after' placing my order, and I imagine there are plenty of other people in exactly the same position.

When I bought the TV, I thought the item was a genuine item for sale at a heavily discounted price and not a misprice. I assumed they were getting rid of stock or just running this promotion as some kind of limited stock loss leader. I wouldn't have even bothered ordering if I thought it was a misprice. I've bought plenty of cheap goods online at similar discounts before without any problems and I assumed their website was trustworthy (especially being a large retailer owned by DSG).

Also - if I was trying to con them, I would have blatantly ordered loads of TVs - I actually only ordered one TV, and I bought that in good faith. Just for the record, I don't have any sympathy for people who thought it was a genuine misprice and then ordered loads of TVs. For me, this issue is about justice for the people who genuinely bought one TV.

The way the item was listed made it completely believable and completely legitimate - It was listed in a special discount section with the price clearly displayed as being heavily discounted. This offer was advertised as being available for a very limited time only with a large prominent countdown timer next to it. There were also large graphics saying 85% off. The item was listed in more than one place on their website at that price and Pixmania basically did everything in their power to not only make us aware of the offer available, but to make sure we knew the price was 85% discounted for a limited time only. There were also other items and large banners at 70% discount (items which weren't cancelled), so why anyone would just assume this was a misprice when placing their order is beyond me.

Pixmania advertised a product at a special time limited discounted price, they then accepted the order, took and received my money as cleared funds, their staff personally reviewed the order and accepted the contract of sale by later validating it, they even told me I can no longer cancel the order, and then promised delivery within 28 days - Anyone who can do all that and then refuse to send any item out shouldn't be allowed to trade!!

I'm still not even convinced this was a genuine misprice - I think Pixmania knew exactly what they were doing and listed the item on purpose at that price. They run offers like this routinely - the 70% discount banners on their homepage highlights this business approach. They effectively ran the promotion as a 'loss leader' (as is common place among large retailers), to get free advertising, word of mouth, increased search engine hits and traffic, and to increase other sales. I believe they intended to have only a limited number available at this price, but then messed up the stock control on their ordering system - there doesn't appear to have been any stock controls present in their ordering system at all. The fact that so many people were able to place an order without any Out of Stock warnings shows that they are completely useless, untrustworthy and unprofessional as a retailer. Also - if it was a genuine misprice, there is no way in hell their staff would have validated all the orders many hours later - Validation was not an automated process which happened there and then, but something which was personally reviewed and actioned by their staff many hours later. It seems to me that the orders only got cancelled when they suddenly realised they had sold far more than the stock allocated for this specific promotion. They then needed a way out and decided to use any means possible. Even worse than this is immediately then targetting all the new customers and trying to milk us for even more money with a sham voucher - That voucher felt pre-planned...