HMV administration and returning goods?

dalesrider

Zinger549 wrote: »

Giftcards accepted from tomorrow.

HMV gift cards can be redeemed from January 22- the pressure has paid off people

Not sure pressure anyone put on the administrators has caused this.
More that they have had time to look at the books and can see light at the end of the tunnel. Given 50 parties are interested in taking on either all or part of HMV.
Taking the vouchers will lead to a upturn in sales and boost any purchase price.

railbuff

dalesrider wrote: »

Not sure pressure anyone put on the administrators has caused this.
More that they have had time to look at the books and can see light at the end of the tunnel. Given 50 parties are interested in taking on either all or part of HMV.
Taking the vouchers will lead to a upturn in sales and boost any purchase price.

stopping gift vouchers is usually the first step administrators take until then have a chance to see how the finances stack up and this is what they have done with HMV

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21118711

Deloitte said it was able to honour the vouchers after assessing HMV's financial position.

prowla

dalesrider wrote: »

Not sure pressure anyone put on the administrators has caused this.
More that they have had time to look at the books and can see light at the end of the tunnel. Given 50 parties are interested in taking on either all or part of HMV.
Taking the vouchers will lead to a upturn in sales and boost any purchase price.

Yes - (thought it is good news) hopefully they have taken the decision on a sound commercial basis.

Zandoni

OlliesDad wrote: »

While yes they can have it written in to the contract that there is sale or return, I'm not convinced this can be enforced if administration arises (i guess it depends who holds title to the goods).

Also, this only applies to suppliers of physical stock. What about providers of services (cleaners/window cleaners/land lords etc)? How would they reclaim their money?

There have been shops trading with stickers on boxes that state they are the property of whoever supplied them. Not sure if HMV have been doing this, Jessops certainly did.

Providers of services in my opinion should be at the bottom of the list, it's up to them to weigh the risks in their own companies.

Zandoni

railbuff wrote: »

How wrong you are. would you keep visiting a highstreet store if their were no stock on the shelves.


when administrators have finsihed their work and if the bussiness canot be saved then they will decide a % of the £ to give to creditors

if you a re a consumer with a £20 gift card or a supplier with a £20,000 invoice you are both unsecured creditors and will be treat the same way and get the same % to the £

I'm not wrong at all.

railbuff

Zandoni wrote: »

I'm not wrong at all.

so you would visit a high street store when they had empty shelves

a shop needs stock to exist, no stock then no shop, no shop then no consumers. so stock is needed before consumers.

OlliesDad

Zandoni wrote: »

Providers of services in my opinion should be at the bottom of the list, it's up to them to weigh the risks in their own companies.

I guess this is an issue where many people will disagree. I personally believe that the fact somebody won't get a £20 game or DVD is less important than a company getting revenue to pay wages etc. The fact there are so many differing opinions will likely be the reason the government won't change the law.

wealdroam

Zandoni wrote: »

Providers of services in my opinion should be at the bottom of the list, it's up to them to weigh the risks in their own companies.

In the same way that consumers should weigh up the risks before buying gift cards.

This was a message given in a MSE News Item linked to earlier...

Consumers who buy gift cards or vouchers for themselves or as a Christmas present have been urged to double-check the stability of the retailer before splashing out, to minimise the risk of losing cash.

Wicked_witch

Wicked_witch wrote: »

Out of interest, is it possible for suppliers of goods or services to insure against losses from clients going bankrupt?

Having googled, apparently not. So perhaps that is a way forward? Companies get insurance that covers staff wages and redundancy (so no cost to the tax payer) and open customer interactions (orders, returns, giftcards). Suppliers get insurance to cover the costs of a client becoming bankrupt- payment for stock delivered and any other expenses. Everyone gets fair treatment and no one out of pocket except the administrators, who won't really be needed so can look into selling insurance instead

Jakg

Wicked_witch wrote: »

Out of interest, is it possible for suppliers of goods or services to insure against losses from clients going bankrupt?

Yes - a lot of retailers buy goods on credit, i.e. Comet will be 1,000 laptops, have them sent through their distribution channels to stores, sell them (giving them the money to pay the supplier back) and then pay the bill. Very easy to sell stock like this, as no up-front cost is requires from the retailer.

Because of the risk of the retailer not paying the bill and going under, companies offer credit insurance, so that if the company don't pay the bill - they will.

One retailer (Comet iirc) very nearly went bust because insurers looked at their financial figures and refused to provide credit insurance - they thought there was a strong chance of them going under and not seeing a return on their investment. Because of this, no supplier wanted to sell them with the risk of going unpaid, leaving them with pretty much no stock to sell.