![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
TimA: General statement.
I have only ever seen this in kiwis. The absurd level of self entitlement.
The "we are entitled to this cause of this blah blah and the company has no rights, i got the email"
At the end of the day HN could say no to everyone and not give out a $100 voucher.
That is above and beyond.
loceff13:TimA: General statement.
I have only ever seen this in kiwis. The absurd level of self entitlement.
The "we are entitled to this cause of this blah blah and the company has no rights, i got the email"
At the end of the day HN could say no to everyone and not give out a $100 voucher.
That is above and beyond.
Clearly you have never seen a site like slickdeals(US), ozbargain(AU), redflagdeals(Canada) etc .
sir1963: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.
Matthew
TimA:loceff13:TimA: General statement.
I have only ever seen this in kiwis. The absurd level of self entitlement.
The "we are entitled to this cause of this blah blah and the company has no rights, i got the email"
At the end of the day HN could say no to everyone and not give out a $100 voucher.
That is above and beyond.
Clearly you have never seen a site like slickdeals(US), ozbargain(AU), redflagdeals(Canada) etc .
Unsure how this has any relevance to what i said.
mdooher:sir1963: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.
Ah, but they took the money...It makes quite a difference. And, under the Sale Of Goods act (T&Cs cannot overrule this ) You become the owner the instant they agree to the sale. Money changing hands means they did agree.
I agree the law has not caught up with the computer age. I think morally Harvey Norman is correct. But remember The Law has nothing to do with justice or Morals. The law is the law.
Harvey Norman is going to lose.
Rikkitic: I have a general question about this. It seems to happen a lot. So how can these kinds of extreme 'pricing errors' keep occurring? Are companies playing fast and loose because they have an escape clause and cannot be held to account? Of course genuine mistakes can happen but how often should they happen?
gzt:Rikkitic: I have a general question about this. It seems to happen a lot. So how can these kinds of extreme 'pricing errors' keep occurring? Are companies playing fast and loose because they have an escape clause and cannot be held to account? Of course genuine mistakes can happen but how often should they happen?
I will guess at a relatively complex database and someone's SQL fu less than required or bad documentation.
Lack of QA sanity check also a factor regardless.
In theory it is very simple but in practice could be a very complex task.
mdooher:
I agree the law has not caught up with the computer age. I think morally Harvey Norman is correct. But remember The Law has nothing to do with justice or Morals. The law is the law.
Harvey Norman is going to lose.
itxtme:TimA:loceff13:TimA: General statement.
I have only ever seen this in kiwis. The absurd level of self entitlement.
The "we are entitled to this cause of this blah blah and the company has no rights, i got the email"
At the end of the day HN could say no to everyone and not give out a $100 voucher.
That is above and beyond.
Clearly you have never seen a site like slickdeals(US), ozbargain(AU), redflagdeals(Canada) etc .
Unsure how this has any relevance to what i said.
The relevance is you stated "I have only ever seen this in kiwis". The reality is every place in the world has these types of people.
TimA:
Those are deal sites that list retailers with good deals??
Just the shear number of people i know and have spoken to customers friends or family. Its prolific in this country.
TimA: General statement.
I have only ever seen this in kiwis. The absurd level of self entitlement.
The "we are entitled to this cause of this blah blah and the company has no rights, i got the email"
At the end of the day HN could say no to everyone and not give out a $100 voucher.
That is above and beyond.
sbiddle:mdooher:
I agree the law has not caught up with the computer age. I think morally Harvey Norman is correct. But remember The Law has nothing to do with justice or Morals. The law is the law.
Harvey Norman is going to lose.
I'd hate to say this buy I see very little chance of this whole case going anywhere.
Yes somebody screwed up, but there is plenty of precedence for such issues, and a fair trading act that includes provisions for such issues.
The far bigger issue here is the breach of privacy, but the 300 odd people seem to be totally ignoring that issue because they're way too obsessed about cheap furniture. Such a breach can have (and should have) serious consequences for the company.
My views (except when I am looking out their windows) are not those of my employer.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |