PCWorld agreed to exchange item, then ran out of stock, what can I do

shaun_from_Africa

PC World can say they'll just refund me

wealdroam wrote: »

How fascinating this poll malarkey is.

Before I voted, I could see the usernames of all who had voted and which way they had voted.... shock... horror...:eek:

Now that I have voted, I can no longer see how anyone has voted.

Doesn't matter of course, but maybe there's a flaw in this mechanism somewhere.

Just click on the number showing how many people have voted in each category and you can still see who has voted and which option they chose.

chiefnoodle

I can say I want my item back (unless they make alternative acceptable/reasonable arrangements)

stevemLS wrote: »

Haven't voted, but you might want to think about the legal definition of theft, rather than a dictionary definition of steal - you perhaps fall at the first hurdle - a requirement for dishonesty?

"1.-(1) A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly."
- marginal note to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 (alright I just found it on wikipedia)

doesn't seem to be any difference in the meaning of theft or steal - both require dishonesty

but although I agree that originally there was no intent of dishonesty, they just ran out of stock, however at this stage when I am requesting the return of my property and they are withholding it from me with no good reason (legally speaking - obviously practically they've sold it to someone else, but then they're depriving me of its monetary value which is more than the refund offered), presumably that would be considered dishonest

Obviously I understand its not completely their fault etc, I'm just looking at it from a legal point of view

stevemLS

So, you are lacking dishonesty meaning that it is not theft.

The definition of steal that you posted did not require dishonesty.

They are probably not returning the original simply because their systems are not sufficiently sophisticated to track it.

Its monetary value is the price you paid for it, not what you might be required to pay for it elsewhere, to refund you in full does not make it dishonest.

chiefnoodle

I can say I want my item back (unless they make alternative acceptable/reasonable arrangements)

stevemLS wrote: »

So, you are lacking dishonesty meaning that it is not theft.

It is surely dishonest not to return something which belongs to someone else when you know that it does, or to offer to pay its current value

stevemLS wrote: »

The definition of steal that you posted did not require dishonesty.

Have been unable to find any difference between "steal" and "theft" - Google tells me that theft, burglary and robbery are all distinct, but the quote I quoted earlier does seem to equate theft and stealing

stevemLS wrote: »

They are probably not returning the original simply because their systems are not sufficiently sophisticated to track it.

Probably true, I'm not angry with them for not being able to return it, I just think they should try to come to a satisfactory resolution as legally they are stealing

stevemLS wrote: »

Its monetary value is the price you paid for it, not what you might be required to pay for it elsewhere, to refund you in full does not make it dishonest.

I have to disagree with you here, if an item used to be on sale but isn't any more then its current value will certainly be the amount you can buy it for now. Otherwise whenever you try to find somethings value you'll have to find the lowest price its ever sold for.
The fact that I originally bought it from them won't affect its current price.

stevemLS

OK, have tried to explain why it isn't theft, you don't accept that - call the police and report this "theft".

A satisfactory resolution is a refund. In the eyes of the law, you have "rejected" the goods.

chiefnoodle

I can say I want my item back (unless they make alternative acceptable/reasonable arrangements)

stevemLS wrote: »

OK, have tried to explain why it isn't theft, you don't accept that - call the police and report this "theft".

A satisfactory resolution is a refund. In the eyes of the law, you have "rejected" the goods.

Imagine I bought a £300 TV, reduced to £100 as a complete one-off, and brought it home. While opening the door, someone picked it up on the street (thinking it was theirs), and refused to return it when asked. They just offered to pay me £100, when it is now only available at £300. You'd call that a "satisfactory resolution"? Obviously not.

Its exactly the same here, I bought something from them, its now mine. Then they send a courier to pick it up with intention to replace it. OK so far everything great. Then the justification for taking it falls through but they refuse to return. They just offer a price a third of its value. Not a satisfactory resolution. Just because the way it became mine involved them doesn't justify them keeping it from me and not offering suitable redress.

The whole point of this post (and the last one too, for the wealdroams of the world who somehow manage to keep track) was that when a company enters a contract it is binding on the company as well, just as it is binding on the customer. It isn't OK for them to just cancel and offer a refund. If companies understood this then they'd be careful not to accept a contract they can't fulfill, instead of saying they'll do it and then failing. HoF wouldn't accept a contract to deliver a small coat and a freebie when they only have a medium coat and no freebie. PCW wouldn't accept a contract to exchange an item without being sure they can do the exchange (by checking current stock levels and reserving one for when the returned item comes back). And I'm sure everyone else who reads this (if anyone does) will have their own stories like this.
I agree that once everythings happened there's not much the customer can do, but that doesn't mean its right or fair, and the very fact that this type of thing has happened to me twice in the last few weeks shows that this is not a rare occurrence. And the fact that there's not much you can do about it makes it more unfair.

PS Obviously the police isn't the right address for this, the court is what would be appropriate (if not for the fact that its absolutely not worth it)

powerful_Rogue

PC World can say they'll just refund me

chiefnoodle wrote: »

Imagine I bought a £300 TV, reduced to £100 as a complete one-off, and brought it home. While opening the door, someone picked it up on the street (thinking it was theirs), and refused to return it when asked. They just offered to pay me £100, when it is now only available at £300. You'd call that a "satisfactory resolution"? Obviously not.

Its exactly the same here

No its not, not even in the slightest.

As already pointed out, you rejected the item. Either take them to court for "Loss of a bargain" or move on. Making accustaions of theft and completely irrelevant comparisons really dosent help your cause.

chiefnoodle

I can say I want my item back (unless they make alternative acceptable/reasonable arrangements)

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

No its not, not even in the slightest.

As already pointed out, you rejected the item. Either take them to court for "Loss of a bargain" or move on. Making accustaions of theft and completely irrelevant comparisons really dosent help your cause.

? Why not the same?
"Rejected" - I asked to swap it to a colour I preferred. I didn't simply return it. I only let them have it in exchange for something else. That was the contract.

powerful_Rogue

PC World can say they'll just refund me

chiefnoodle wrote: »

? Why not the same?
"Rejected" - I asked to swap it to a colour I preferred. I didn't simply return it. I only let them have it in exchange for something else. That was the contract.

Why isnt the same? Read it back to yourself and try to compare it to PC Worlds actions. Its not even similar.

Of course you rejected it! You contacted PC World and advised them they had sent you the wrong item and allowed them to collect it - thats rejecting it.

Since they cant find you a suitable replacement, they are going to refund you.

As stated, your options are to either claim "Loss of a bargain" or move on.

Spicy_McHaggis

PC World can say they'll just refund me

chiefnoodle wrote: »

? Why not the same?
"Rejected" - I asked to swap it to a colour I preferred. I didn't simply return it. I only let them have it in exchange for something else. That was the contract.

The actual contract was a laptop in the colour you requested and it could be argued it's not formed until you get the colour you wanted. They can't supply it so they cancelled the contract and refunded your money.

Nothing dishonest there so no theft. It's their laptop and your money. They have their laptop and you have your money.