Thinking of trading in your old tv for a Sony at Currys..think again, they lost mine!

txjockey

maninthestreet wrote: »

Why is the nationality of the Curry's sales assistant relevant in any way???

Purely becuase I am Welsh, that's all, we shared that in common and it helped things along :-)

txjockey

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

Correct me If I am wrong but you paid for sony

£ RRP - £100 (Trade In)
When you chose the samsung I assume it was either the same net price paid or you paid extra/got a refund? In this case therefore the £100 trade in has still technically been honoured albeit probably directly by Currys now.

From what you post you actually seem to want the £100 twice.

The Sony was purchased at retail price, less the £100 trade in.

I lost this trade in because I had to opt for the Samsung as these were in stock. I paid retail for the Samsung with no discount.

Therefore I am a CRT or £100 down.

Since they cant return my old set to me I think its fair to ask for the £100.

Hope this clears things up ?

Interesting following the email copy of the letter I recieved a call from the MD's office to discuss things. They have heard my side of the story, they are checking theirs.

tbw

BillTrac wrote: »

Your comment makes no sense. You state how a fair number (your words) have low spelling abilities/standards because their teachers didn't correct them. Well, in that case we should be correcting poor spelling etc. Because if no-one corrects the spelling mistakes then it just carries on down the line.

I was taught how to spell, read and write. Hopefully, my girls can spell, read and write(youngest one just about to commence a teaching career). Why should we accept poor spelling just because those that can't, don't like it?

Its certainly OK to correct your childrens spelling and grammar - and fair play to you for taking the trouble to do so , you are absolutely right that, if more people did this then standards would improve.

However, I still reckon that it not OK to correct the spelling of other adults either on these forums (where it is so often done in a 'picky', patronising manner (nb I am not suggesting that you are patronising!) or in the real world. I don't feel that we have the right to imply that others have low standards of spelling and make out that we are better educated (even if its true and we are having to grit our teeth at the mistakes).

Its just my feeling and I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

marleyboy

txjockey wrote: »

Interesting following the email copy of the letter I recieved a call from the MD's office to discuss things. They have heard my side of the story, they are checking theirs.

Do keep us all updated on how it proceeds.

Crazy_Jamie

txjockey wrote: »

The Sony was purchased at retail price, less the £100 trade in.

I lost this trade in because I had to opt for the Samsung as these were in stock. I paid retail for the Samsung with no discount.

Therefore I am a CRT or £100 down.

Since they cant return my old set to me I think its fair to ask for the £100.

Hope this clears things up ?

With respect, I do still disagree that you are £100 down. You paid £100 less for the tv, so you haven't lost that. You have lost the CRT television. Now it is perfectly correct that you should either have the television returned or be given the value of the television. But the value of the television is not £100. It was only that value within the realm of that transaction, which was canceled. If they cannot return the television they should pay you damages equal to what you need to replace it. If that is £100 (or more) then great. But if it is less (which I suspect it is) you should only recover what you need to replace it.

That said, you can make a decent enough argument to recover £100, so there's no reason why you should alter your stance at this point. Just don't be surprised if they come back with a lower offer of compensation in settlement.

Riccal

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

With respect, I do still disagree that you are £100 down. You paid £100 less for the tv, so you haven't lost that. You have lost the CRT television. Now it is perfectly correct that you should either have the television returned or be given the value of the television. But the value of the television is not £100. It was only that value within the realm of that transaction, which was canceled. If they cannot return the television they should pay you damages equal to what you need to replace it. If that is £100 (or more) then great. But if it is less (which I suspect it is) you should only recover what you need to replace it.

That said, you can make a decent enough argument to recover £100, so there's no reason why you should alter your stance at this point. Just don't be surprised if they come back with a lower offer of compensation in settlement.

How can you quote the OPs post where he tells us that he didnt get a discount on the Samsung and completely ignore it.

He didnt get the discount cos it wasnt on offer for the Samsung. Simples. Then they lost his CRT. Surely they have to put him back in his original position if they were unable to fulfil their side of the deal. They made the original error on the spec on the first TV.

Riccal

maninthestreet

txjockey wrote: »

Purely becuase I am Welsh, that's all, we shared that in common and it helped things along :-)

It's totally irrelevant to the complaint you are making.

Storck

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

With respect, I do still disagree that you are £100 down. You paid £100 less for the tv, so you haven't lost that. You have lost the CRT television. Now it is perfectly correct that you should either have the television returned or be given the value of the television. But the value of the television is not £100. It was only that value within the realm of that transaction, which was canceled. If they cannot return the television they should pay you damages equal to what you need to replace it. If that is £100 (or more) then great. But if it is less (which I suspect it is) you should only recover what you need to replace it.

That said, you can make a decent enough argument to recover £100, so there's no reason why you should alter your stance at this point. Just don't be surprised if they come back with a lower offer of compensation in settlement.

Not sure how you can say it will be less the £100 to replace the old TV as they are probably not made anymore and that is possibly the issue. Currys can not replace it like for like and therefore should give the OP the £100 or a TV of the same or better specification. The OP should not be left out of pocket or facilities.

Crazy_Jamie

Riccal wrote: »

How can you quote the OPs post where he tells us that he didnt get a discount on the Samsung and completely ignore it.

He didnt get the discount cos it wasnt on offer for the Samsung. Simples. Then they lost his CRT. Surely they have to put him back in his original position if they were unable to fulfil their side of the deal. They made the original error on the spec on the first TV.

Riccal

I can only conclude that you've misinterpreted my point here, because nothing that you've said contradicts what I've said. I know there was no deal on the Samsung and I know they made the original error with the Sony tv. Neither is a relevant point particularly. They do need to put him back in the position he was in as you say. My point is that if they cannot return his television it is incorrect to state that the value of that television is automatically £100 because that was its 'trade in' value against a different brand of television.

Storck wrote:

Not sure how you can say it will be less the £100 to replace the old TV as they are probably not made anymore and that is possibly the issue. Currys can not replace it like for like and therefore should give the OP the £100 or a TV of the same or better specification. The OP should not be left out of pocket or facilities.

This leap of logic is, in my opinion, faulty. They will not be able to replace it like for like, so why is the value then £100? As I said, that is a 'trade in' value based on a specific deal offered by a different manufacturer. The compensation value should be the value of the television, which can be established by simply looking at the second hand market. A quick search of Ebay actually reveals a couple of 36" Philips CRT televisions selling for around the £50 mark. That is just research of convenience, but if further evidence was needed on the value of a 36" Philips CRT television it could be obtained in a variety of ways.

kiddy_guy

Not at all. To put him back in the same position, would be to give him the TV back, or failing that, to buy one off Ebay then deliver it. £50 to buy the TV, plus I'd estimate approx £50 to deliver it. Which would mean £100, or exactly what the OP is looking for.