Currys Mis - selling

Fosterdog

It's probably more that they have sold out not that that no other companies have stock. Their head office may even be holding back stock ready for Xmas bundles.

ThumbRemote

BigBopper wrote: »

Unless you were specifically told your glasses would work, the cheapest thing for Currys to do is stand their ground and do nothing.

philatio wrote: »

If you never asked.. and they never mentioned it.... tough titty I'm afraid

cono1717 wrote: »

Currys hasn't missold anything - you failed to ask. You knew, just as much as Currys that you had existing glasses. At no point did you ask if the glasses would work with this TV just that you had 3d glasses.
gBopper said, it's not cheaper for them to give you the glasses.

bris wrote: »

You went in being aware you had glasses for an LG TV then you walk out with a Sony one, didn't you think to ask that question?

societys_child wrote: »

No, it sounds like you mis-bought, unfortunately.

It is not incumbent on a consumer to ask the correct questions when purchasing a product, especially when the retailer knows this is relevant.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations states that "A commercial practice is a misleading omission if ... the commercial practice omits material information".

In the case the OP has gone into a store, made it clear that they have the LG 3D system, and been advised to buy the Sony 3D system. The retailer should have advised that glasses are required to use the 3D feature, and advised that the LG ones are not compatible (or, at the very least, raised the question of compatibility and stated that the OP would need to check up themselves).

This is a clear case of mis-selling, and OP was entitled to a refund. Currys are hardly known for their helpful after-sales service, and yet have admitted their omission straight away and offered that resolution - I'd suspect they know they don't have a leg to stand on.

cono1717

ThumbRemote wrote: »

It is not incumbent on a consumer to ask the correct questions when purchasing a product, especially when the retailer knows this is relevant.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations states that "A commercial practice is a misleading omission if ... the commercial practice omits material information".

In the case the OP has gone into a store, made it clear that they have the LG 3D system, and been advised to buy the Sony 3D system. The retailer should have advised that glasses are required to use the 3D feature, and advised that the LG ones are not compatible (or, at the very least, raised the question of compatibility and stated that the OP would need to check up themselves).

This is a clear case of mis-selling, and OP was entitled to a refund. Currys are hardly known for their helpful after-sales service, and yet have admitted their omission straight away and offered that resolution - I'd suspect they know they don't have a leg to stand on.

Or it could be argued that the consumer advised him he has 3D glasses. At which point as far as the sales person is concerned it will be compatible unless he was told which specific glasses he had then there is no sure fire way to know.

Furthermore, you'd expect that a customer would at least preview the television they are about to purchase, at which point the customer would of been presented with the 3D glasses that are made to work with that TV to which the customer could then say "Oh these are different to the ones I have now, these (do/don't) flicker where as mine (do/don't)

NotRichAtAll

sounds like you purchased an active 3d screen and your lg is possibly a passive 3d screen. my panasonic is active and the glasses were £60 each at the time.
am very surprised though that a 3d tv from sony did not come with 2 pairs of specs in the bundle, again i got 1 pair free with my tv

ThumbRemote

cono1717 wrote: »

Or it could be argued that the consumer advised him he has 3D glasses. At which point as far as the sales person is concerned it will be compatible unless he was told which specific glasses he had then there is no sure fire way to know.

Furthermore, you'd expect that a customer would at least preview the television they are about to purchase, at which point the customer would of been presented with the 3D glasses that are made to work with that TV to which the customer could then say "Oh these are different to the ones I have now, these (do/don't) flicker where as mine (do/don't)

The OP says they advised the rep that they had an LG system, with glasses, sound bar and blu-ray. They made it clear they were buying to fit in with this existing system. At this point the legal responsibility rests on the retailer, and they made a clear misleading omission.

I accept this may not have been done deliberately. The sales rep may have been poorly trained and not know there are two types of glasses, they may have thought the Sony system came with glasses, or any number of other possibilities.

But that doesn't get the retailer out of their legal responsibility, which is that they are meant to be the expert, and must ensure the customer is given sufficient and correct information.

bod1467

I know TR and I sometimes have our differences ( ) but I agree completely with what he's said in this thread. Currys are guilty by omission.

cono1717

ThumbRemote wrote: »

The OP says they advised the rep that they had an LG system, with glasses, sound bar and blu-ray. They made it clear they were buying to fit in with this existing system. At this point the legal responsibility rests on the retailer, and they made a clear misleading omission.

I accept this may not have been done deliberately. The sales rep may have been poorly trained and not know there are two types of glasses, they may have thought the Sony system came with glasses, or any number of other possibilities.

But that doesn't get the retailer out of their legal responsibility, which is that they are meant to be the expert, and must ensure the customer is given sufficient and correct information.

OK, for my own misguided interests (and to play devils advocate). Does 'passing' the customer to the Sony rep complicate things. Although he told the salesperson about the glasses does the salesperson have a legal responsibility to inform the Sony rep (who is likely employed by a promotion agency not Currys) about said glasses?

If not, lets assume it wasn't practically impossible to prove this type of mis-selling and that the customers word is correct, would currys be able to circumvent the blame by stating that Sony never advised the customer the glasses wouldn't work, since presumably Sony rep did most of the selling?

ThumbRemote

It's an interesting point. It sounds from my reading of the OPs post that the Currys rep was involved throughout. However, it's quite possible they wandered away in the middle and dealt with another customer, then came back to finish the sale to the OP. The law (as far as I can see) relates specifically to traders, so in this case as the OP spoke to the Currys rep first, and then bought the goods from the Currys rep, it's still incumbent on them.

In another case if the OP hadn't spoken to the Currys rep first, but gone straight to the Sony rep and explained their existing LG setup, it may be more complicated. In this case they get the info off the Sony rep and then buy off Currys. You could argue that by being in a Currys store the Sony rep is acting as Currys agent, but I'm not sure if the Sony rep would class as being the trader or not.

I'm not sure how 'traders' is interpreted. I'd read it as 'the retail store' in this case, but it could certainly be a point for argument where there is a third party involved.

EDIT - just found in the interpretation section of the CPUTRs
“trader” means any person who in relation to a commercial practice is acting for purposes relating to his business, and anyone acting in the name of or on behalf of a trader;

The Sony rep seems to be acting 'on behalf of' Currys in this case

agrinnall

ThumbRemote wrote: »

The Sony rep seems to be acting 'on behalf of' Currys in this case

I'm not so sure, I think if they wanted to both Sony and Currys would be prepared to argue against that view. I don't know how it works in Currys as I tend to avoid them if at all possible, but I have seen it in action in John Lewis, with Tomtom and Microsoft reps. In neither case did they appear to be there to sell anything, simply to offer advice to anyone with questions about their products. I didn't see anything to indicate that they were 'trading' at the time.

ThumbRemote

agrinnall wrote: »

I'm not so sure, I think if they wanted to both Sony and Currys would be prepared to argue against that view. I don't know how it works in Currys as I tend to avoid them if at all possible, but I have seen it in action in John Lewis, with Tomtom and Microsoft reps. In neither case did they appear to be there to sell anything, simply to offer advice to anyone with questions about their products. I didn't see anything to indicate that they were 'trading' at the time.

I agree that they are not the trader themselves, but a manufacturers rep in a shop that sells that manufacturers products is there for both their own and the retailers benefits. They are being allowed in the store by the retailer.

In the OPs case the retailer introduced the customer to the Sony rep, so I'd say there was a clear indication that the Sony rep was speaking to the customer on behalf of the retailer.

If the customer goes directly to the third-party rep it's certainly less clear. Perhaps it boils down to how you define 'on behalf of'.