We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Currys Price Stitch Up
Comments
-
Which make / model plasma tv was it ?0
-
So if the Blueray player costs about £150, the TV online is £799, you paid £978.
Whats the problem?
If your out of pocket anything, its about £30! Not bad considering you benefitted from being able to inspect the product before parting with your cash if you ask me!0 -
Bondmaster wrote: »What I should have said to you all is that the Bluray player in question was 3D to go with the TV and it costs £150. There is no option of buying one for under £50 and savinf money.
I HAVE READ ALL YOUR COMMENTS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTS.
THE MATTER IS CONCLUDED.
please tell us what the conclusion was0 -
... This is all pure speculation....
Why speculate? The facts are as stated;Bondmaster wrote: »... I asked the salesman if the TV was the same price online and he checked and said yes it was.... When I got home I saw that the TV on it's own was in fact only £799 on their website and not the £949 as advertised instore.
And whether or not the salesmen made a 'genuine mistake' or deliberately lied is of no consequence - we're not talking about the criminal law here.I'm not sure I agree. Their contract is for product A at £x, this hasn't been misrepresented in anyway.
I don't think the fact they claimed to be cheaper than another buying option would be classed as misrepresenting a product.
The misrepresentation doesn't have to be about anything in particular; it simply has to be (a) a false statement and (b) made in order to induce the other party to contract.
In any event it is all rather academic. The only reason I mentioned misrepresentation was because that would be the legal remedy available to the OP in the circumstances outlined, and that therefore, the best that they could hope for would be to return the goods that comprised the bundle, get a refund, and then (presumably) proceed to purchase the required televsion at the discount price of £799.
As it happens, that is precisely the remedy proffered by Currys, so there is nothing much to argue about from a legal perspective. The OP has the choice between;
1) accepting the offered deal and returning the bluray player,
2) keeping both the tv and the player and putting it down to experience,
3) keeping both and writing a letter of complaint to Currys Central Command in the hope that they'll offer some additional 'compensation'
That's about it I think.0 -
Why speculate? The facts are as stated;
And whether or not the salesmen made a 'genuine mistake' or deliberately lied is of no consequence - we're not talking about the criminal law here.
The misrepresentation doesn't have to be about anything in particular; it simply has to be (a) a false statement and (b) made in order to induce the other party to contract.
In any event it is all rather academic. The only reason I mentioned misrepresentation was because that would be the legal remedy available to the OP in the circumstances outlined, and that therefore, the best that they could hope for would be to return the goods that comprised the bundle, get a refund, and then (presumably) proceed to purchase the required televsion at the discount price of £799.
As it happens, that is precisely the remedy proffered by Currys, so there is nothing much to argue about from a legal perspective. The OP has the choice between;
1) accepting the offered deal and returning the bluray player,
2) keeping both the tv and the player and putting it down to experience,
3) keeping both and writing a letter of complaint to Currys Central Command in the hope that they'll offer some additional 'compensation'
That's about it I think.
Have you considered that as it would be one persons word against the other and there is no proof either way, the OP doesn't actually have any case for misrepresentation at all ?0 -
Bondmaster wrote: »Redped - The salesman checked on a computer and came back to me saying it was the same price as online.
Fergie - I did not know what TV I wanted until I was in the store as I wanted to see the quality. I tried to view the online price on the Currys website while in the store but the page I needed was in Flash and my iphone does not sipaly flash.
Jakg - I checked the price online the night I ordered and it was £799 (Sunday 8pm) the TV was being delivered next morning from 8am to 12 so I did not have a chance to cancel etc.
Doing my homework is completely irrelivant as I ask the salesman and he said it was the same price. He represents the company and they should honor what he says.
I don't have any problems with currys web site on my iPhone (using Safari)0 -
Have you considered that as it would be one persons word against the other and there is no proof either way, the OP doesn't actually have any case for misrepresentation at all ?
Yes, but that doesn't change anything does it? On the facts as stated it amounts to misrepresentation. If someone says "this is what happened" and asks for advice, you can only advise them on the basis of what they say happened. And to repeat myself;The only reason I mentioned misrepresentation was because that would be the legal remedy available to the OP in the circumstances outlined, and that therefore, the best that they could hope for would be to return the goods that comprised the bundle, get a refund, and then (presumably) proceed to purchase the required televsion at the discount price of £799.
As it happens, that is precisely the remedy proffered by Currys, so there is nothing much to argue about from a legal perspective.
Or to put it another way, the law offers no further remedy to the OP. Therefore it doesn't matter one little bit what can be proved one way or the other, or whether or not it was misrepresentation, because even if it was the OP would be no better off.0 -
Bondmaster wrote: »He represents the company and they should honor what he says.
And what is that, exactly?
You can view the prices of items on an iPhone using Curry's website without flash...Bondmaster wrote: »I tried to view the online price on the Currys website while in the store but the page I needed was in Flash and my iphone does not sipaly flash.Nothing I say represents any past, present or future employer.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards