Samsung "Gift with Purchase" Promotion

born_again

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.

On what basis?
As outside 14 days.
phone works.
If there is not mention of free headphones, then just how can they manage that?

HillStreetBlues

born_again 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.

On what basis?
As outside 14 days.
phone works.
If there is not mention of free headphones, then just how can they manage that?

Breach of contract, the headphones form part of the contract.
Just like if the never sent headphones, OP could return the phone.

HillStreetBlues

PHK said:

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. 

I agree I was getting ahead of myself thinking about how courts further up the line work,.

But my main point  about them having no value  remains.

btr2

In case anyone was wondering, I am here, and reading all of your opinions. Thank you to everyone who has answered. Considering how often these promotional offers are made available, I am astounded there isn't any definitive answer (so far) or, from my efforts Googling, any case law on this.

By way of an update, I am awaiting a formal response from Samsung.

powerful_Rogue

btr2 said:

In case anyone was wondering, I am here, and reading all of your opinions. Thank you to everyone who has answered. Considering how often these promotional offers are made available, I am astounded there isn't any definitive answer (so far) or, from my efforts Googling, any case law on this.

By way of an update, I am awaiting a formal response from Samsung.

Doubt you would find any case law on a situation like this due to the Small Claims Court being who would handle this kind of dispute.

sheramber

If the headphones were included in the price ( as claimed above) then it a sale of a bundle and the whole bundle needs to be rejected, not just part of it.

If  it was the phone that was faulty then the OP would have to return  the phone and the free gift.

So it must work the same the other way nd both items need to be rejected, unless Samsung agree otherwise.

The OP does not know what value the headphones have as they were not costed.  If you buy them from Amazon for £104 then any refund would be for £104, not £189 that might be charged elsewhere.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Samsung should replace, if they don't OP could reject all of the goods under the contract if one does not conform.

There is no obligation to pursue consumer rights, OP could instead seek damages, the standard position is that the party suffering the breach should be in the position they would have been had that breach not occurred, so either the cost of repair, or if not possible the cost of replacement, as damages. 

Down side of damages is, AFAIK, reverse burden of proof only applies under the CRA so a claim for damages would place burden of proof upon the party making the claim. 

Doubt Samsung are going to attend small claims over a pair of headphones, hopefully they will fold at some point. 

Just to add, there was a thread awhile back pointing out a TV retail site braded as the manufacturer (possibly Samsung again) was actually run via a third party, OP should check the terms of the retail outlet to see who the contract is with. 

RefluentBeans

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Samsung should replace, if they don't OP could reject all of the goods under the contract if one does not conform.

There is no obligation to pursue consumer rights, OP could instead seek damages, the standard position is that the party suffering the breach should be in the position they would have been had that breach not occurred, so either the cost of repair, or if not possible the cost of replacement, as damages. 

Down side of damages is, AFAIK, reverse burden of proof only applies under the CRA so a claim for damages would place burden of proof upon the party making the claim. 

Doubt Samsung are going to attend small claims over a pair of headphones, hopefully they will fold at some point. 

Just to add, there was a thread awhile back pointing out a TV retail site braded as the manufacturer (possibly Samsung again) was actually run via a third party, OP should check the terms of the retail outlet to see who the contract is with. 

Last point is especially relevant - Samsung operates a complex corporate structure (they need to - not a mom and pop shop; but a multi billion dollar international conglomerate). If going down the SCC be sure to check who the contract was with (should be on the invoice/receipt). 

born_again

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Samsung should replace, if they don't OP could reject all of the goods under the contract if one does not conform.

There is no obligation to pursue consumer rights, OP could instead seek damages, the standard position is that the party suffering the breach should be in the position they would have been had that breach not occurred, so either the cost of repair, or if not possible the cost of replacement, as damages. 

Down side of damages is, AFAIK, reverse burden of proof only applies under the CRA so a claim for damages would place burden of proof upon the party making the claim. 

Doubt Samsung are going to attend small claims over a pair of headphones, hopefully they will fold at some point. 

Just to add, there was a thread awhile back pointing out a TV retail site braded as the manufacturer (possibly Samsung again) was actually run via a third party, OP should check the terms of the retail outlet to see who the contract is with. 

It was Samsung

btr2

Update!

I have just been sent the following By Samsung, which suggests the issue has been moved back to shop support. Unfortunately, they haven't actually looked at the case, because if they had, they would have seen the dates as given in my original post. Reply sent, requesting replacement.

Hi Ben,

 

I hope all is well.

Your Reference Number is XXXXXXXX.

Please accept my apologies that you felt the need to escalate this matter to our office, and for any inconvenience or dissatisfaction throughout your journey with us.

 

At Samsung, we strive to provide excellent customer service, and we take customer feedback seriously. We understand that your experience did not meet your expectations, and we would like to make things right. 

 

Whilst I understand that you want your free buds replaced, please be advised that replacement is possible if the issue starts within 30 days from delivery date. If it is beyond 30 days, the unit can only be repaired.

 

To proceed, please call our experts at 03330000333, choose option 1, and another option or email uk.technical@samsung.com.

Kind regards,

XXXX
Samsung Shop Support Team