HMV administration and returning goods?

OlliesDad

Zandoni wrote: »

Agree 110%

The problem is that you are seeing it with a "consumer head" so you will always want what is best for yourself. I am struggling to see how it would be fair to allow some creditors to get a full payout, where as others do not?

There are ways to protect yourself when buying gift vouchers by using a card, but as a supplier/contractor there is no such protection.

Edit: I do agree however that directors should not get paid if the company is in administration.

Zandoni

OlliesDad wrote: »

The problem is that you are seeing it with a "consumer head" so you will always want what is best for yourself. I am struggling to see how it would be fair to allow some creditors to get a full payout, where as others do not?

There are ways to protect yourself when buying gift vouchers by using a card, but as a supplier/contractor there is no such protection.

Edit: I do agree however that directors should not get paid if the company is in administration.

You're right of course but I feel the consumer is the reason shops exist. So they should get priority to maintain confidence in buying from shops.

I believe that suppliers do have protection in the way they supply goods. I understand that Jessops were trading at the end with a sort of sale or return policy on their goods.

timbstoke

OlliesDad wrote: »

The problem is that you are seeing it with a "consumer head" so you will always want what is best for yourself. I am struggling to see how it would be fair to allow some creditors to get a full payout, where as others do not?

There are ways to protect yourself when buying gift vouchers by using a card, but as a supplier/contractor there is no such protection.

Edit: I do agree however that directors should not get paid if the company is in administration.

The difference is, businesses enter into contracts and expose themselves to risk on a day to day basis, in the normal course of their business. They're also supposedly run by people with an understanding of the intricacies of running a business, and so should be in a position to evaluate the risk they're exposing themselves to.

As far as the law is concerned, consumers are "just another unsecured creditor." But they never wanted to be creditors - they just wanted to buy nice things. The only reason they're out of pocket is because the company lied to them about their situation.

If a company is trading normally, there is a raft of consumer protection law to protect people. I don't think that protection should disappear just because the company goes into administration. If they want to deprive customers of that protection, they should cease trading.

OlliesDad

Zandoni wrote: »

You're right of course but I feel the consumer is the reason shops exist. So they should get priority to maintain confidence in buying from shops.

I believe that suppliers do have protection in the way they supply goods. I understand that Jessops were trading at the end with a sort of sale or return policy on their goods.

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?

railbuff

OlliesDad wrote: »

Edit: I do agree however that directors should not get paid if the company is in administration.

i agree with this, but some companies that go into administration are actually bought out of administration by the same directors which is something else i dont agree with as which directors were the ones to place the company into administration in the first place.

railbuff

Zandoni wrote: »

You're right of course but I feel the consumer is the reason shops exist.

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 £

OlliesDad

timbstoke wrote: »

As far as the law is concerned, consumers are "just another unsecured creditor." But they never wanted to be creditors - they just wanted to buy nice things.

They always were a creditor, they willingly became one when they gave the company money in order to get credit to use at a later date.

Wicked_witch

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

Zinger549

Giftcards accepted from tomorrow.

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

railbuff

Another glimer of hope for HMV
Rallying to the rescue of HMV music stores