Samsung "Gift with Purchase" Promotion

HillStreetBlues

RefluentBeans said:

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

No they wouldn’t. If the consumer is asking for money, they need to say why they are entitled to that money - it’s not on Samsung to prove how much it’s worth to them. In reality, the headphones cost Samsung what £50 landed cost, if that? 

I really do not see any path where you can isolate the headphones. They’re not on the invoice at all, and so you can’t say how much they’re worth to Samsung. 

This is a legal grey area, with the only (reliable) sources being legal journals used in teaching (and hidden behind pay walls). The OP has a better chance to reject the whole order saying it’s bundled. 

It's not really a grey area, it's breach of contract, as the "free" item as been used to induced the contact.
So it's how the breach is rectified.
I agree with rejecting the whole order, as that would be the simplest.
As the first part, not really understating as a person would claim the £159 the headphones are selling for, as that was  the intensive.  So Samsung would have to then state their figure on what they believe it's worth. If they cost Samsung £50, they would be admitting there is a £109 mark up.

It is a grey area. I don’t disagree that it is a breach of contract, so the contract, the whole contract, can be withdrawn by the consumer. The value of the headphones in the contract is nil. They are a gift. Any refund of just the headphones is going to be that. You can’t claim the headphones at full RRP as the value. The value is whatever the value is stated in the contract - so nil. 

Reject the whole order OP. Going after just headphones is a waste of time, and will likely just get you a 100% refund of nothing, as that is the value of a free gift. 

If the phone that broke OP and kept the headphones as they have zero value, there is no way a full refund would be issued. If they weren't returned the the cost of  headphones would be deducted.

RefluentBeans

user1977 said:

They're not a "gift", unless Samsung were dishing them out free without a purchase. The OP has bought a bundle of items, it's legally a nonsense for part of that bundle to be deemed "free" and therefore not have any consumer rights attached to them - any more than Samsung could claim that the headphones were the product being paid for and the phone was "free".

If you "buy one get one free" in a supermarket and have a problem with one item, do you think the supermarket could claim that was the "free" item and ignore you?

Except buy one get one free attributes value to each of those items. You couldn’t get a full refund on one of those items and keep the other, which is what some here are suggesting. 

PHK

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

No they wouldn’t. If the consumer is asking for money, they need to say why they are entitled to that money - it’s not on Samsung to prove how much it’s worth to them. In reality, the headphones cost Samsung what £50 landed cost, if that? 

I really do not see any path where you can isolate the headphones. They’re not on the invoice at all, and so you can’t say how much they’re worth to Samsung. 

This is a legal grey area, with the only (reliable) sources being legal journals used in teaching (and hidden behind pay walls). The OP has a better chance to reject the whole order saying it’s bundled. 

It's not really a grey area, it's breach of contract, as the "free" item as been used to induced the contact.
So it's how the breach is rectified.
I agree with rejecting the whole order, as that would be the simplest.
As the first part, not really understating as a person would claim the £159 the headphones are selling for, as that was  the intensive.  So Samsung would have to then state their figure on what they believe it's worth. If they cost Samsung £50, they would be admitting there is a £109 mark up.

That makes no sense. It isn’t up to Samsung to prove anything. It’s up to the OP to prove they have  suffered a loss, to quantify that loss, prove the amount and show that Samsung’s actions are unreasonable. 

It isn’t at all clear how a court would deal with an item that a purchaser didn’t pay anything for but now wishes to reject. 

Dealing with it as a whole purchase doesn’t put the purchaser in the position they should be because they won’t have a phone or headphones and only the cash to buy a phone. 

If I was in the position I would either accept a repair or replacement. 

HillStreetBlues

PHK said:

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

No they wouldn’t. If the consumer is asking for money, they need to say why they are entitled to that money - it’s not on Samsung to prove how much it’s worth to them. In reality, the headphones cost Samsung what £50 landed cost, if that? 

I really do not see any path where you can isolate the headphones. They’re not on the invoice at all, and so you can’t say how much they’re worth to Samsung. 

This is a legal grey area, with the only (reliable) sources being legal journals used in teaching (and hidden behind pay walls). The OP has a better chance to reject the whole order saying it’s bundled. 

It's not really a grey area, it's breach of contract, as the "free" item as been used to induced the contact.
So it's how the breach is rectified.
I agree with rejecting the whole order, as that would be the simplest.
As the first part, not really understating as a person would claim the £159 the headphones are selling for, as that was  the intensive.  So Samsung would have to then state their figure on what they believe it's worth. If they cost Samsung £50, they would be admitting there is a £109 mark up.

That makes no sense. It isn’t up to Samsung to prove anything. It’s up to the OP to prove they have  suffered a loss, to quantify that loss, prove the amount and show that Samsung’s actions are unreasonable. 

It isn’t at all clear how a court would deal with an item that a purchaser didn’t pay anything for but now wishes to reject. 

Dealing with it as a whole purchase doesn’t put the purchaser in the position they should be because they won’t have a phone or headphones and only the cash to buy a phone. 

If I was in the position I would either accept a repair or replacement. 

What makes no sense it's claiming there is no value to a "free" item, when it's included in a total price.

RefluentBeans

HillStreetBlues said:

PHK said:

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

No they wouldn’t. If the consumer is asking for money, they need to say why they are entitled to that money - it’s not on Samsung to prove how much it’s worth to them. In reality, the headphones cost Samsung what £50 landed cost, if that? 

I really do not see any path where you can isolate the headphones. They’re not on the invoice at all, and so you can’t say how much they’re worth to Samsung. 

This is a legal grey area, with the only (reliable) sources being legal journals used in teaching (and hidden behind pay walls). The OP has a better chance to reject the whole order saying it’s bundled. 

It's not really a grey area, it's breach of contract, as the "free" item as been used to induced the contact.
So it's how the breach is rectified.
I agree with rejecting the whole order, as that would be the simplest.
As the first part, not really understating as a person would claim the £159 the headphones are selling for, as that was  the intensive.  So Samsung would have to then state their figure on what they believe it's worth. If they cost Samsung £50, they would be admitting there is a £109 mark up.

That makes no sense. It isn’t up to Samsung to prove anything. It’s up to the OP to prove they have  suffered a loss, to quantify that loss, prove the amount and show that Samsung’s actions are unreasonable. 

It isn’t at all clear how a court would deal with an item that a purchaser didn’t pay anything for but now wishes to reject. 

Dealing with it as a whole purchase doesn’t put the purchaser in the position they should be because they won’t have a phone or headphones and only the cash to buy a phone. 

If I was in the position I would either accept a repair or replacement. 

What makes no sense it's claiming there is no value to a "free" item, when it's included in a total price.

So again by your logic - the headphones break down - OP gets the £189 or whatever the RRP is back. The phone then breaks down - what do they get back then? The price they paid as been as that is what’s on the invoice? The price they paid, less £189 for the headphones? But the headphones weren’t in the invoice, says the OP, so you can’t deduct that. Your argument leads to betterment, something not allowed. 

PHK

As I said the OP has to quantify their loss. 

How much can they demonstrate they have lost? The value of buying an alternative to put them in the position they should have been? The retail price of the faulty item? A percentage of the package price? 

If it came to small claims court what do you think the judge would find as a suitable settlement (assuming they agree it’s proven Samsung have acted unreasonably)? Given the claim value it’s likely to go to mediation so the OP must be willing to negotiate. What value should they accept?

user1977

RefluentBeans said:

HillStreetBlues said:

PHK said:

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

No they wouldn’t. If the consumer is asking for money, they need to say why they are entitled to that money - it’s not on Samsung to prove how much it’s worth to them. In reality, the headphones cost Samsung what £50 landed cost, if that? 

I really do not see any path where you can isolate the headphones. They’re not on the invoice at all, and so you can’t say how much they’re worth to Samsung. 

This is a legal grey area, with the only (reliable) sources being legal journals used in teaching (and hidden behind pay walls). The OP has a better chance to reject the whole order saying it’s bundled. 

It's not really a grey area, it's breach of contract, as the "free" item as been used to induced the contact.
So it's how the breach is rectified.
I agree with rejecting the whole order, as that would be the simplest.
As the first part, not really understating as a person would claim the £159 the headphones are selling for, as that was  the intensive.  So Samsung would have to then state their figure on what they believe it's worth. If they cost Samsung £50, they would be admitting there is a £109 mark up.

That makes no sense. It isn’t up to Samsung to prove anything. It’s up to the OP to prove they have  suffered a loss, to quantify that loss, prove the amount and show that Samsung’s actions are unreasonable. 

It isn’t at all clear how a court would deal with an item that a purchaser didn’t pay anything for but now wishes to reject. 

Dealing with it as a whole purchase doesn’t put the purchaser in the position they should be because they won’t have a phone or headphones and only the cash to buy a phone. 

If I was in the position I would either accept a repair or replacement. 

What makes no sense it's claiming there is no value to a "free" item, when it's included in a total price.

So again by your logic - the headphones break down - OP gets the £189 or whatever the RRP is back. The phone then breaks down - what do they get back then? The price they paid as been as that is what’s on the invoice? The price they paid, less £189 for the headphones? But the headphones weren’t in the invoice, says the OP, so you can’t deduct that. Your argument leads to betterment, something not allowed. 

I would expect it to be apportioned, in a similar way to how you would for a multiple purchase discount. There may be room for debate as to how you do that, but the correct answer is not going to be zero.

RefluentBeans

user1977 said:

RefluentBeans said:

HillStreetBlues said:

PHK said:

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

No they wouldn’t. If the consumer is asking for money, they need to say why they are entitled to that money - it’s not on Samsung to prove how much it’s worth to them. In reality, the headphones cost Samsung what £50 landed cost, if that? 

I really do not see any path where you can isolate the headphones. They’re not on the invoice at all, and so you can’t say how much they’re worth to Samsung. 

This is a legal grey area, with the only (reliable) sources being legal journals used in teaching (and hidden behind pay walls). The OP has a better chance to reject the whole order saying it’s bundled. 

It's not really a grey area, it's breach of contract, as the "free" item as been used to induced the contact.
So it's how the breach is rectified.
I agree with rejecting the whole order, as that would be the simplest.
As the first part, not really understating as a person would claim the £159 the headphones are selling for, as that was  the intensive.  So Samsung would have to then state their figure on what they believe it's worth. If they cost Samsung £50, they would be admitting there is a £109 mark up.

That makes no sense. It isn’t up to Samsung to prove anything. It’s up to the OP to prove they have  suffered a loss, to quantify that loss, prove the amount and show that Samsung’s actions are unreasonable. 

It isn’t at all clear how a court would deal with an item that a purchaser didn’t pay anything for but now wishes to reject. 

Dealing with it as a whole purchase doesn’t put the purchaser in the position they should be because they won’t have a phone or headphones and only the cash to buy a phone. 

If I was in the position I would either accept a repair or replacement. 

What makes no sense it's claiming there is no value to a "free" item, when it's included in a total price.

So again by your logic - the headphones break down - OP gets the £189 or whatever the RRP is back. The phone then breaks down - what do they get back then? The price they paid as been as that is what’s on the invoice? The price they paid, less £189 for the headphones? But the headphones weren’t in the invoice, says the OP, so you can’t deduct that. Your argument leads to betterment, something not allowed. 

I would expect it to be apportioned, in a similar way to how you would for a multiple purchase discount. There may be room for debate as to how you do that, but the correct answer is not going to be zero.

Agreed - but it will be significantly less than RRP, I’d expect. Which I’d guess the OP won’t be happy about, hence the rejecting the whole bundled package of products. 

HillStreetBlues

RefluentBeans said:

HillStreetBlues said:

PHK said:

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

No they wouldn’t. If the consumer is asking for money, they need to say why they are entitled to that money - it’s not on Samsung to prove how much it’s worth to them. In reality, the headphones cost Samsung what £50 landed cost, if that? 

I really do not see any path where you can isolate the headphones. They’re not on the invoice at all, and so you can’t say how much they’re worth to Samsung. 

This is a legal grey area, with the only (reliable) sources being legal journals used in teaching (and hidden behind pay walls). The OP has a better chance to reject the whole order saying it’s bundled. 

It's not really a grey area, it's breach of contract, as the "free" item as been used to induced the contact.
So it's how the breach is rectified.
I agree with rejecting the whole order, as that would be the simplest.
As the first part, not really understating as a person would claim the £159 the headphones are selling for, as that was  the intensive.  So Samsung would have to then state their figure on what they believe it's worth. If they cost Samsung £50, they would be admitting there is a £109 mark up.

That makes no sense. It isn’t up to Samsung to prove anything. It’s up to the OP to prove they have  suffered a loss, to quantify that loss, prove the amount and show that Samsung’s actions are unreasonable. 

It isn’t at all clear how a court would deal with an item that a purchaser didn’t pay anything for but now wishes to reject. 

Dealing with it as a whole purchase doesn’t put the purchaser in the position they should be because they won’t have a phone or headphones and only the cash to buy a phone. 

If I was in the position I would either accept a repair or replacement. 

What makes no sense it's claiming there is no value to a "free" item, when it's included in a total price.

So again by your logic - the headphones break down - OP gets the £189 or whatever the RRP is back. The phone then breaks down - what do they get back then? The price they paid as been as that is what’s on the invoice? The price they paid, less £189 for the headphones? But the headphones weren’t in the invoice, says the OP, so you can’t deduct that. Your argument leads to betterment, something not allowed. 

What I said is if OP claimed the full value then Samsung would have have to show their value of it, if they bother to defend.

My argument is a "free" item is having no value in the contract is incorrect and to me it's not a grey area.
How the value is calculated is open to debate.

PHK

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

HillStreetBlues said:

PHK said:

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

No they wouldn’t. If the consumer is asking for money, they need to say why they are entitled to that money - it’s not on Samsung to prove how much it’s worth to them. In reality, the headphones cost Samsung what £50 landed cost, if that? 

I really do not see any path where you can isolate the headphones. They’re not on the invoice at all, and so you can’t say how much they’re worth to Samsung. 

This is a legal grey area, with the only (reliable) sources being legal journals used in teaching (and hidden behind pay walls). The OP has a better chance to reject the whole order saying it’s bundled. 

It's not really a grey area, it's breach of contract, as the "free" item as been used to induced the contact.
So it's how the breach is rectified.
I agree with rejecting the whole order, as that would be the simplest.
As the first part, not really understating as a person would claim the £159 the headphones are selling for, as that was  the intensive.  So Samsung would have to then state their figure on what they believe it's worth. If they cost Samsung £50, they would be admitting there is a £109 mark up.

That makes no sense. It isn’t up to Samsung to prove anything. It’s up to the OP to prove they have  suffered a loss, to quantify that loss, prove the amount and show that Samsung’s actions are unreasonable. 

It isn’t at all clear how a court would deal with an item that a purchaser didn’t pay anything for but now wishes to reject. 

Dealing with it as a whole purchase doesn’t put the purchaser in the position they should be because they won’t have a phone or headphones and only the cash to buy a phone. 

If I was in the position I would either accept a repair or replacement. 

What makes no sense it's claiming there is no value to a "free" item, when it's included in a total price.

So again by your logic - the headphones break down - OP gets the £189 or whatever the RRP is back. The phone then breaks down - what do they get back then? The price they paid as been as that is what’s on the invoice? The price they paid, less £189 for the headphones? But the headphones weren’t in the invoice, says the OP, so you can’t deduct that. Your argument leads to betterment, something not allowed. 

What I said is if OP claimed the full value then Samsung would have have to show their value of it, if they bother to defend.

My argument is a "free" item is having no value in the contract is incorrect and to me it's not a grey area.
How the value is calculated is open to debate.

That’s not how small claims works. If Samsung accepts the OP has a claim they either pay what the OP is requesting or got to mediation to settle at a lower amount. They don’t need to prove the worth only reach a figure the claimant will accept. Remember, there’s no direct contact between the parties only through a mediator. 

Or they  defend the claim with proof that they don’t owe the claimant anything. In that case it’s up to the judge to decide if the claimant has proved their case.