PC World 16 year court case in today's DM

VictimOfImpersonation

londonTiger wrote: »

Salesman said being the key point here. AFAIK verbal contracts are useless unless you can get a third party witness to confirm. generally we never rely on someones word in b2b and always get it written down in email or paper these days. Surprised judge decided in plaintiff's favour here because he said she said always gets more and more elaborate over passage of time.

If the Plantiffs decision making style is anything to go by, probably just made a gun ho decision when purchasing "this will do" and then read through the paperwork later and realised what he signed.

I think you just confirmed what I said.

You do not understand retail business. b2b is not retail. You would not make a very good retail sales-person. Seller maybe. But of what ? What you slipped through on paper ?

tinkerbell28

That post to me is superfluous, victim, to try and explain your lack of understanding.

I've read the case. It's pretty simple to me, he went about it the wrong way in the first place. Rather than try and correctly sort out the issue of the financial contract. He just broke it and seeks damages for his own actions.

I was answering your point and outrage about how they got away with processing the credit agreement after he cancelled and why it wasn't discussed.

That just simply wasn't possible back then. To sign the agreement it would've been processed, accepted and then printed off through repos.

So yes I've read the case, same as you, but it seems to me you don't understand it as much as you think. You're getting hung up on points which seem wholly inaccurate.

Granariesgirl

Surely Mr Durkin should be THANKING the credit supplier for trashing his credit rating & thus preventing him buying a property in Spain just at the height of the market & before the big property crash?
He would have lost FAR more in negative equity on a property bought in Spain between 2003 & 2006 than he's already paid in legal fees, wouldn't he?
:cool:

tinkerbell28

Granariesgirl wrote: »

Surely Mr Durkin should be THANKING the credit supplier for trashing his credit rating & thus preventing him buying a property in Spain just at the height of the market & before the big property crash?
He would have lost FAR more in negative equity on a property bought in Spain between 2003 & 2006 than he's already paid in legal fees, wouldn't he?
:cool:

You know I really wanted to say that as well...


He's suing for all these losses. He'd have lost far more if he'd have completed on a property in Spain :rotfl: they did him a favour.

VictimOfImpersonation

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

That post to me is superfluous, victim, to try and explain your lack of understanding.

That sentence is a mess.

I've read the case. It's pretty simple to me ...

Really? Are you sure?

... he went about it the wrong way in the first place. Rather than try and correctly sort out the issue of the financial contract. He just broke it and seeks damages for his own actions.

Ah yes, simplistic is the term you were looking for to describe your view, I think.

So yes I've read the case, same as you, but it seems to me you don't understand it as much as you think. You're getting hung up on points which seem wholly inaccurate.

I am not getting hung up on anything. I understand that the first court case concluded with PCWorld and HFC Bank both being given a well deserved smack in the mouth, and then that they decided to damage the law by exploiting their right of appeal, taking the law apart and arguing the toss with totally misleading legalistic argument that contained no good purpose. The lawyers involved should be ashamed of themselves.

The very suggestion that the two contracts must in some way be switched off simultaneously and most exactly by the wronged customer is an offence to human decency. Are you really supporting that kind of disgusting behaviour?

PCWorld should have switched off both contracts. The whole deal was the deal that never was. Durkin wanted a laptop with an internal modem and was instead sold a pig in a poke. He opened the box immediately on getting home and took it straight back in the morning.

PCWorld were the agents for the finance company when they sold the finance contract in order to seal a deal on the laptop. The laptop deal was nullified and PCWorld for reasons best known only to themselves abdicated all responsibility for tidying up the finance. Worse than that they indulged in that stupid nonsense of sending the laptop back to Durkin.

This is exactly the sort of bad thing we all have to endure when sellers and local managers are only interested in sales figures and commissions from side contracts for as long as that month's figures are under the microscope.

It sickens me that still we have so many in our society that worship these things.

londonTiger

This post is inaccurate... Please read post 39. Leaving this post here for reference purposes.

VictimOfImpersonation wrote: »

PCWorld should have switched off both contracts. The whole deal was the deal that never was. Durkin wanted a laptop with an internal modem and was instead sold a pig in a poke. He opened the box immediately on getting home and took it straight back in the morning.

I don't think that is what happened. I believe the laptop was mailed to him quite a few days later. He read the paperwork after signing the contract and went back to the store next morning.


Source: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2010/2010CSIH49.html

makes it clear that the laptop was actually mail order. Bought on 28th, went back to store on 29th. Then went offshore for work and then two weeks later comes back to find the laptop delivered.

[7] The appellant then went to work off-shore. On his return to Aberdeen, approximately two weeks later, he discovered that the first respondents had delivered the laptop to his house in Aberdeen. The appellant again returned the laptop to the first respondents' premises, where it remained. The appellant subsequently sought repayment of £50 from the first respondents. They failed to repay that sum until sued by the appellant in a small claims action. On repayment of that sum by the first respondents the small claims action was settled and dismissed.

Which makes me reiterate my original point. He would have been given some paperwork to say what the features of the laptop were. The fact that he was able to go home and deduce that the laptop had no modem from the paperwork proves that.

tinkerbell28

londonTiger wrote: »

I don't think that is what happened. I believe the laptop was mailed to him quite a few days later. He read the paperwork after signing the contract and went back to the store next morning.

This. Are you sure you've read and understood the case victim? You seem to have an agenda or issues. I'm not sure which.

You'll also realise if you read it, PC world didn't admit liability either. He only sued for the deposit.

londonTiger

Actually no sorry. Got it wrong. Rer-read that. Looks like it was not a mail order laptop. He was handed the laptop on day1. Took it with him and then returned and left the laptop at the shop.

Point 7 is DSG mailing the laptop back to him.

dannny_2

meer53 wrote: »

I've skimmed through the actual case. .

Probably more than the judges will do.

iAMaLONDONER

Slowhand wrote: »

I'm typing this on a Toshiba of that very vintage. Operating system is Windows 98. Don't remember when I last used it but when I saw your post I fired it up and it worked! One USB 1.0 slot and other modem/pcmia card slots too...things have moved on!

Just out of interest where was that toshiba built?