Harvey Norman - Furniture - Too good to be true

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 30 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Bargains and Deals › Harvey Norman - Furniture - Too good to be true

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 15

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1398813 2-Oct-2015 14:39

mdooher:
mattwnz:
tdgeek: Tired thread. Its an error, its covered by the law, by way of E+OE (Errors and Ommssions Excepted) which will be in every companys T+C.

A mistake gets made and out come the daggers.

That is true, however t&cs can't override legislation. But HN has sorted this by offering people vouchers which IMO compensates or any inconvenience and time wasted.

My issue though is these things happen time and time again with different retailers regularly having to correct errors. So why are these type of 'major' errors now occurring at such regularity?

I do recall not that long ago, a restaurant being fined for having incorrect pricing on their website when someone complained to the regulators, as it may have been a breach of the FTA to have incorrect pricing. Can't exactly recall the details over it.

Yep its in their terms and conditions that they don't have to accept the offer you make on the website .... BUT they did accept the offer, they even took the money. You are now the legal owner. If Harvey Norman wants to contest it and have the contract voided they can. BUT in the meantime you own the property.

All of which is rather irrelevant because the fair trading act has an exception for "reasonable mistakes" which can override many clauses of the sale of goods act.

richms

28187 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1398815 2-Oct-2015 14:42

They can't even email a working tracking number out when they ship stuff.

Richard rich.ms

JamesL

956 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1398822 2-Oct-2015 14:55

Why do people feel the need to continue arguing the point, especially after the JB Hifi fiasco.

Just love how self entitled people are these days.

sir1963

3262 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1398830 2-Oct-2015 15:14

mdooher:
mattwnz:
tdgeek: Tired thread. Its an error, its covered by the law, by way of E+OE (Errors and Ommssions Excepted) which will be in every companys T+C.

A mistake gets made and out come the daggers.

That is true, however t&cs can't override legislation. But HN has sorted this by offering people vouchers which IMO compensates or any inconvenience and time wasted.

My issue though is these things happen time and time again with different retailers regularly having to correct errors. So why are these type of 'major' errors now occurring at such regularity?

I do recall not that long ago, a restaurant being fined for having incorrect pricing on their website when someone complained to the regulators, as it may have been a breach of the FTA to have incorrect pricing. Can't exactly recall the details over it.

Yep its in their terms and conditions that they don't have to accept the offer you make on the website .... BUT they did accept the offer, they even took the money. You are now the legal owner. If Harvey Norman wants to contest it and have the contract voided they can. BUT in the meantime you own the property.

No, their automated system accepted the offer. Final acceptance is done later.

The E&OE + the law which exempts them + the T&Cs you agreed on mean you do NOT own it and are NOT the legal owner.

Now if YOU want to argue the point, YOU can pay $100 to the small claims court and try.

This is NOT the first time this kind of error has occurred , nor will it be the last. The case law on this will be pretty clear, its not open to interpretation.
If you are smart enough to use a computer and order something online then there is plenty of evidence you are of average intelligence and should have known
it was an error.

So if you believe you can stand the loss of $100 + time off work to be told you are wrong , go for it.

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1398831 2-Oct-2015 15:21

^^^ I think this is all correct, legally speaking.

However, HN have a real PR fiasco on their hands and I don't know how they plan to dig themselves out of this mess they've created.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1398834 2-Oct-2015 15:24

sir1963: No, their automated system accepted the offer. Final acceptance is done later.

The E&OE + the law which exempts them + the T&Cs you agreed on mean you do NOT own it and are NOT the legal owner.

Now if YOU want to argue the point, YOU can pay $100 to the small claims court and try.

This is NOT the first time this kind of error has occurred , nor will it be the last. The case law on this will be pretty clear, its not open to interpretation.
If you are smart enough to use a computer and order something online then there is plenty of evidence you are of average intelligence and should have known
it was an error.

So if you believe you can stand the loss of $100 + time off work to be told you are wrong , go for it.

I'm not sure this is as clear-cut in practice as you suggest, due to the structure and format of the Disputes Tribunal (assume what you mean by 'small claims court'?).

From what I know of the DT, lawyers are not allowed; the adjudictors(?) aren't necessarily lawyers or judges themselves; their decisions aren't applicable to any other case (so aren't precedent-setting); and they're quite capabable of making poor (and legally questionable) derterminations.

That said, as I've mentioned before I think this whole thing is a beat-up...

trig42

5814 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1398842 2-Oct-2015 15:37

Also, apart from the Fair Trading Act, and the Sale of Goods Act, I'm pretty sure when I did a Contract Law paper at university nearly 25 years ago, a contract could be voided because of 'mistake' - if it was clear and provable that a mistake had been made (and just about everyone can see that is the case here), then the contract is not enforceable, even if it has an offer has been accepted.

Harvey made a mistake with the pricing (and then, IMO an even worse one with the email CC fiasco). That should be the end of it. Some people are just greedy (especially the lady quoted on Stuff yesterday that bought 3 of them - surely she knew it was a mistake??).

The JB one was the same thing, it was just handled badly from a communication point of view (and actually, it could be argued, it didn't look as much of a mistake in terms of discount of the RRP as the HN one).

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

gzt

17137 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1398849 2-Oct-2015 15:47

DarthKermit: ^^^ I think this is all correct, legally speaking.

However, HN have a real PR fiasco on their hands and I don't know how they plan to dig themselves out of this mess they've created.

Imho the 100 gift was above and beyond.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1398851 2-Oct-2015 15:52

DarthKermit: ^^^ I think this is all correct, legally speaking.

However, HN have a real PR fiasco on their hands and I don't know how they plan to dig themselves out of this mess they've created.

The PR fiasco is their biggest issue.. But having said that give it a few days and it won't be a story at all. With the focus by media of trying to make the news rather than report the news we're seeing more instances of this. A few hundred ranty people on social media does not define the entire population, despite what many may think.

sir1963

3262 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1398867 2-Oct-2015 16:06

DarthKermit: ^^^ I think this is all correct, legally speaking.

However, HN have a real PR fiasco on their hands and I don't know how they plan to dig themselves out of this mess they've created.

Actually I think HN did just fine apart from the email stuff up. I think the real PR disaster is the greedy tossers who think they are owed.
I suspect some of their friends will have a much lower opinion of them from now on.

sir1963

3262 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1398875 2-Oct-2015 16:17

jonathan18:
sir1963: No, their automated system accepted the offer. Final acceptance is done later.

The E&OE + the law which exempts them + the T&Cs you agreed on mean you do NOT own it and are NOT the legal owner.

Now if YOU want to argue the point, YOU can pay $100 to the small claims court and try.

This is NOT the first time this kind of error has occurred , nor will it be the last. The case law on this will be pretty clear, its not open to interpretation.
If you are smart enough to use a computer and order something online then there is plenty of evidence you are of average intelligence and should have known
it was an error.

So if you believe you can stand the loss of $100 + time off work to be told you are wrong , go for it.

I'm not sure this is as clear-cut in practice as you suggest, due to the structure and format of the Disputes Tribunal (assume what you mean by 'small claims court'?).

From what I know of the DT, lawyers are not allowed; the adjudictors(?) aren't necessarily lawyers or judges themselves; their decisions aren't applicable to any other case (so aren't precedent-setting); and they're quite capabable of making poor (and legally questionable) derterminations.

That said, as I've mentioned before I think this whole thing is a beat-up...

Petrol companies have made the mistake a number of times where people have received extremely cheap petrol because of an error in pricing.
They have simply followed the credit card /payment receipts and even looked up vehicles via the cameras recording number plates and been able to recover the full/correct
price for the petrol that had been sold.

The adjudicators know what cases they have coming up, and they are told the basics of the law by court registrars and others. They are also able to defer judgement for law clarification. I have taken a few people to various tribunals over the years, and self entitlement has never gone down well with any of the court staff, neither does "Cant pay won't pay", "Finders keepers" or other idiotic ideas some people have.

maxeon

1279 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1398876 2-Oct-2015 16:17

I am part of those 321 email cycle going on right now.

Let me put this statement first: I am not greedy and I am not really upset about anything that Harvey Norman did before anyone jumps on me :P

The discussions and emails going on at the moment as a group email (thanks to the CC'd emails sent by HN) is to stick together and fight it out (possibly in the Disputes tribunal).

Imagine HN attending 321 cases in DT ..
Personally, I really like to see when and how this settles down between that group of emails.

I am one of them that bought this product for 1199. The original price was not advertised on the website, so I really was assuming it would have been 3000 and they took 60% off possibly?

I then realized there could be some pricing issues possibly when I saw another item for 159 dollars and then investigated all the listings and listed them here - Hence my title of this thread "Too good to be true" :)

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1398886 2-Oct-2015 16:26

All I can say is that they sell some really ugly furniture. I think this thread has done it's dash, otherwise it may head the same way as the JB Hifi one, which IMO was a far less obvious mistake, considering it was a runout model that is no longer sold. At least HN has offered a goodwill gesture.

sir1963

3262 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1398888 2-Oct-2015 16:29

maxeon: I am part of those 321 email cycle going on right now.

Let me put this statement first: I am not greedy and I am not really upset about anything that Harvey Norman did before anyone jumps on me :P

The discussions and emails going on at the moment as a group email (thanks to the CC'd emails sent by HN) is to stick together and fight it out (possibly in the Disputes tribunal).

Imagine HN attending 321 cases in DT ..
Personally, I really like to see when and how this settles down between that group of emails.

I am one of them that bought this product for 1199. The original price was not advertised on the website, so I really was assuming it would have been 3000 and they took 60% off possibly?

I then realized there could be some pricing issues possibly when I saw another item for 159 dollars and then investigated all the listings and listed them here - Hence my title of this thread "Too good to be true" :)

HN WONT be going 321 times, they will fight one case (if needed), and use that + other established case law to have the other 320 tossed out.

Failing that will will seek a full court hearing with lawyers (probably ex-parte for "defendants") getting a ruling and use that to stave off any claims. It will be worth the few thousand
in lawyers fees to kill it.

No one is going to "score" a cheap lounge suite.

Going to court, you will probably find that not only would you loose, but HN may also not have to honour the $100 gift voucher given in good faith.

maxeon

1279 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1398892 2-Oct-2015 16:40

sir1963: No one is going to "score" a cheap lounge suite.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 15