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

TBeckett100

mark_dumpleton wrote: »

My god, what is your problem with Pixmania? Tom, are you trying to help people claim for a TV, or are you single-handedly trying to confuse people?

So far today, you've tried to argue that a contract has been formed and that's the main arguing point; that they're a French company and are therefore acting illegally; that because they emailed saying they had to cancel as they were running at a loss; that even the credit card company is at fault and has to pay for the TV.
Tom - make your mind up as to exactly what you want and exactly what point you're trying to argue. Your posts are laden with indecision and anger against a company for apparently no reason.

Get real.

I have no anger with Pixmania.

The forum is about debating and comments. You are quite entitled to your opinion and only a judge can rule one way or another. We can only speculate.

Credit card companies are equally liable under s.75 however it was just a point made, no declaring all out war. Personally i think credit card companies should be obligated when the company itself cannot meet its obligation.

I am annoyed that Pixmania emailed customers to say they had to cancel the order as it was against the law to sell at a loss. It is such tactics from corporates that lead people not to question whether they have any right. The customer may not have any right, but rather than personally attack each other, lets just accept I believe x and you believe y,

I have seen employees of their uk companies try and sell elderly people overpriced insurance in case their £400 freezer breaks after a year. Did that person tell the couple that actually the trader is still liable if the item doesnt last for a resonable period? No. I know some things because i have looked into them, the bulk of the nation isnt born with the sale of goods act imprinted.

Let us also see how Pixmania handle this. Maybe they will respond to people more apologetically or offer a £10 voucher, whatever, and I am sure the bulk of people will leave it at that, once they have been treated properly and listened to. Half of the last fiasco could have been avoided with some diplomacy.

Part of the reason I havent gone all out to stick on the website court claim details is to give Pixmania a chance to deal with customers a hell of a lot better than they have done already. You only have to look at google to find that they have a long history of taking money and cancelling orders...

Anyway, as I don't have a personal claim with Pixmania I leave the decision making to other customers. It should be up to others to decide whether they wish to take any further action and let them do so. Having been through it, it is hard work and certainly my judge wasnt warm to me dredging out what she called "ancient law" If customer cannot because of the french law business, then hopefully people will reconsider using the company in the future if they find out that they are not protected under uk legislation.

My part on this forum ends now. It's over to you guys.

MyUserNamesTaken

TBeckett100 wrote: »

I am annoyed that Pixmania emailed customers to say they had to cancel the order as it was against the law to sell at a loss. It is such tactics from corporates that lead people not to question whether they have any right. The customer may not have any right, but rather than personally attack each other, lets just accept I believe x and you believe y,

.

It's illegal to sell at a loss in France (Galland Law). Same in Germany, too. Pixmania weren't lying to their customers.

Galland law is being reformed, but Pixmania couldn't possibly sell for such a loss even under the proposed reforms.

http://innovation-regulation.enst.fr/uploads/media/chambolle.pdf

biglugs

"Pixmania has been featured several times in both Danish and Swedish consumer television programs for failure to comply with their respective laws of Internet commerce." - from Wikipedia.

I wouldn't take everything you read on Wikipedia as the Gospel truth!
The comment that makes that assertion is unattributed and awaiting a citation.

System

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I have read their terms 3 times now & I cannot find anything that states the contract is formed under French law.

By not stating that the contract is under any other country's law it automatically defaults to the country that the company is registered in

You only tend to see 'governed by the laws of England & Wales' on UK sites because we also have Scottish & NI law all within a single country so it needs to be explicitly stated..

MyUserNamesTaken

!!!!!! wrote: »

By not stating that the contract is under any other country's law it automatically defaults to the country that the company is registered in

You only tend to see 'governed by the laws of England & Wales' on UK sites because we also have Scottish & NI law all within a single country so it needs to be explicitly stated..

That and the repeated references to French Law in their terms and conditions...


For example:

- Article L.211-4 (French Consumer Code): The seller is required to deliver a product that complies with the description given in the contract. The seller is also responsible for dealing with any conformity complaints regarding the product that may arise upon delivery. The seller is also responsible for conformity complaints that may arise from packaging, mounting instructions or installation, when this has been assigned to the seller in accordance with the contract or has been carried out by the seller.
- Article L.211-5 (French Consumer Code): To comply with the terms of the contract, the product must:

TBeckett100

As Columbo once said, "Just one more thing"

Exceptions to Country of Origin Rule - Rome Convention
http://books.google.com/books?id=LhQbQJ9TF7gC&pg=PT412&lpg=PT412&dq=country+reception+law+e-commerce&source=bl&ots=sgFiRVehDO&sig=5pWlaJchmzHstksxttOR5VSuhZo&hl=en&ei=bpbZS_yXJdOD-Qb5_Yn7DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=country%20reception%20law%20e-commerce&f=false

also
Article 5 - Certain consumer contracts

38 1. This Article applies to a contract the object of which is the supply of goods or services to a person ("the consumer") for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, or a contract for the provision of credit for that object.

39 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3, a choice of law made by the parties shall not have the result of depriving the consumer of the protection afforded to him by the mandatory rules of the law of the country in which he has his habitual residence:

40 - if in that country the conclusion of the contract was preceded by a specific invitation addressed to him or by advertising, and he had taken in that country all the steps necessary on his part for the conclusion of the contract,

would we say a website is an advert? would 85% off constitue an advert?

Enfieldian

All gone quiet on here.

When is the class action taking place?

After the Bank Holiday sales perhaps?

pretzelnut

We keep quiet so we dont give pixmania too much info.

Class action would take quite a bot of time to get together, whereas those of us who have sent a letter before action are awaiting pixmanias reply, then we'll take it from there.

Im surprised though, its friday night and theirs no trolls about!

System

I think even the trolls have realised that you are p****ng into the wind

biglugs

The trolls have better things to do on a Friday night. Looking forward to all you guys receiving your TVs though - let us know how you get on.