NAME AND SHAME! Argos lets down customers and sick children too.

Sofa_Sogood

Wig wrote:

Whats all this about 10,000 orders at 5 pounds each?

Has anyone from argos/homebase confirmed that there were 10,000 orders and all were charged 5 pounds?

If not why assume 10,000 orders?

Re the TV......Of course Argos should have agreed, however, does this mean everytime someone says to them "Ere, I fink you should donate a TV to this hospital" they should do it?

Doesn't bother me either way, I don't shop at Argos and I don't shop at homebase so what ever!

To say it doesn't bother you ....?

You ask a lot of questions

meheraltaf

IvanOpinion wrote:

... it is very difficult to say no when someone rattles the charity tin infront of you. Ivan

this really amused me Ivan:D

Wig

Sofa_Sogood wrote:

To say it doesn't bother you ....?

You ask a lot of questions

And you don't answer any :rolleyes:

before_hollywood

surfcat wrote:

I don't get this, sorry.

A TV was advertised at 49p. Lots of people, presumably realising this was an unrealistic offer, went ahead and ordered one anyway. It turned out 10,000 people did this in total. Had Argos covered this, it would have made them a massive loss. (£3,495,100 to be exact). They quickly realised their error, and having not broken any laws, declined the offers which people made to them, prompting refunds in progress.

Doubtless there will be many people here who, "through no fault of my own", went overdrawn when the 49p+p&p went out of their account.

Then someone requests that they make a charitable donation to make it up to their 'customers'.

Fighting for what is fair in terms of consumer rights, banking ethics and helping people out of debt is a noble and worthy cause, but this is just bo!!ocks.

i have actually studied business law so i will explain a few points.
Firstly- the only way argos saved themselves £3.5 million losses was buy a tiny bit of something in their website terms and conditions that says they can change prices as and when they want and basically means that they don't have to honour things like this. Otherwise there would be nothing stopping any of the 10,000 or so people who took up this offer from taking argos to court.

I think they should offer at least one charity the item in question at the offer price EVERY TIME THIS HAPPENS, i mean seriously- how happy would any charity be with a tv for £5 delivered.
i would pay argos the £5 to do that

Wig

before_hollywood wrote:

i have actually studied business law so i will explain a few points.

They were saved not by their T&C's but because they do not under law have to honor a price which is obviously incorrect. But they do have to honor a price which the consumer could realistically believe to be correct, so if they said a 200 pound tv was on sale for 170 pounds they would not be able to use their T&C's as a get out, they would try but when taken to court they would lose.

ben500

before_hollywood wrote:

i have actually studied business law so i will explain a few points.
Firstly- the only way argos saved themselves £3.5 million losses was buy a tiny bit of something in their website terms and conditions that says they can change prices as and when they want and basically means that they don't have to honour things like this. Otherwise there would be nothing stopping any of the 10,000 or so people who took up this offer from taking argos to court.

I think they should offer at least one charity the item in question at the offer price EVERY TIME THIS HAPPENS, i mean seriously- how happy would any charity be with a tv for £5 delivered.
i would pay argos the £5 to do that

I don't know any other way to put this sorry but your wrong!
Refer to wig's above post for the reason why

Sofa_Sogood

Wig wrote:

And you don't answer any :rolleyes:

Sorry, but you asked 4 questions in the one post and ended by saying ...

"Doesn't bother me either way, I don't shop at Argos and I don't shop at homebase so what ever!"

Seemed about as 'unhelpful' as my posts then?

before_hollywood

Wig wrote:

They were saved not by their T&C's but because they do not under law have to honor a price which is obviously incorrect. But they do have to honor a price which the consumer could realistically believe to be correct, so if they said a 200 pound tv was on sale for 170 pounds they would not be able to use their T&C's as a get out, they would try but when taken to court they would lose.

argos website terms and conditions:

'While we try and ensure that all prices on our website are accurate, errors may occur. If we discover an error in the price of goods you have ordered we will inform you as soon as possible and give you the option of reconfirming your order at the correct price or cancelling it. If we are unable to contact you we will treat the order as cancelled. If you cancel and you have already paid for the goods, you will receive a full refund.'

in this case it is impossible to dispute that it was wrong, otherwise i would have had one too.

All websites need something like this on their terms and conditions.

IvanOpinion

I remember everything used to state 'E&OE' (errors and omissions excepted) as the get out clause - is this still vallid?

Ivan

Sooler

oh_heck wrote:

Just wondering how many of those who applied for tvs would of donated half the savings to charity if they's got a tv at 49P,if Argos asked;)

or, if it's not already been suggested, how about those who put in an order, or multiple orders, for a 49p telly chuck their 49p into a kitty and donate TV's with the money raised.