Bung: Without Google how do you find anything on Spark's website?

Bung: Without Google how do you find anything on Spark's website?

Yes, Google seems the easiest way find information on that website IMO.

Section 17 of the Fair Trading Act fairly clearly states that offering gifts, prizes, or other free items in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods and services or in the promotion of the supply of goods and services, and not providing them as offered, is an unfair practice. Now IANAL, but I'd think that Spark needs to honour that deal to not be in breach here. The link 404's now, which is exactly what Spark should have done in the first place, hiding the link from the main page is NOT removing the offer. Take the cost of the TV out of the salary of the genius who decided to just hide the page and not remove it.

If they don't honour it, I'd definitely be making a complain to the commerce commission.

Lias:

 

Section 17 of the Fair Trading Act fairly clearly states that offering gifts, prizes, or other free items in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods and services or in the promotion of the supply of goods and services, and not providing them as offered, is an unfair practice. Now IANAL, but I'd think that Spark needs to honour that deal to not be in breach here. The link 404's now, which is exactly what Spark should have done in the first place, hiding the link from the main page is NOT removing the offer. Take the cost of the TV out of the salary of the genius who decided to just hide the page and not remove it.

 

If they don't honour it, I'd definitely be making a complain to the commerce commission.

 

It also states a limited term sale or promotion must have a clear stated period to which it applies. Of which the small print did. Be it only a month. I believe that then covers them to advertise and or supply within that period. Going overtime until the cutoff (by word of mouth) a month later sorta comes irrelevant? 

Oblivian:

 

 

 

It also states a limited term sale or promotion must have a clear stated period to which it applies. Of which the small print did. Be it only a month. I believe that then covers them to advertise and or supply within that period. Going overtime until the cutoff (by word of mouth) a month later sorta comes irrelevant? 

 

I didn't see any mention of it only being a month in the terms. The only clause I saw relating to the offers duration,  was the following clause.  Effective 7th August 2018 - Limited time offer. So there was a specified start date, but no end date, so appeared open ended in terms of time. Not unless I missed something in the pages and pages of terms and conditions with this offer? It did say in the terms that  it could be updated at any time, but it never got updated with the end date from what I saw. 

I didn't read it. But it would appear Yitz did. Not that anyone can confirm now.

It does say in the last section of fine print

 

[..] promo period (07.08.18 – 04.09.18)

 

Limited time offer. Whilst stocks last

Oblivian:

 

I didn't read it. But it would appear Yitz did. Not that anyone can confirm now.

 

It does say in the last section of fine print

 

[..] promo period (07.08.18 – 04.09.18)

 

Limited time offer. Whilst stocks last

 

Interesting. That is inside the section ' Courier claims process', under Spark Returns Process'. The section is hidden unless you click on the section to read about how to make a courier post claim regarding non delivery or damage of the TV .  So it is not in the actual  'Important things you should know' terms, or the 'Sony TV Offer Terms and Conditions' , or the first part of the terms, which specifies the date of the promotion, which I believe it should have been, as these important things should be made clear.

Lias:

 

Section 17 of the Fair Trading Act fairly clearly states that offering gifts, prizes, or other free items in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods and services or in the promotion of the supply of goods and services, and not providing them as offered, is an unfair practice. Now IANAL, but I'd think that Spark needs to honour that deal to not be in breach here. The link 404's now, which is exactly what Spark should have done in the first place, hiding the link from the main page is NOT removing the offer. Take the cost of the TV out of the salary of the genius who decided to just hide the page and not remove it.

 

If they don't honour it, I'd definitely be making a complain to the commerce commission.

 

You should really read the whole Act, you might have seen this bit (extract of relevant bits to save space):

44Defences

(1) Subject to this section, it is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against section 40 if the defendant proves—

that the contravention was due to a reasonable mistake; or 

the defendant took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the contravention.

In other words consumer protection would need to prove that this was a deliberate attempt to deceive.  Given the various reports of disclaimers that it was a limited offer and an attempt to remove the link kinda suggests otherwise.  A case wouldn't have a leg to stand on (IMHO).  

I wish the OP all the best to finding a current deal that suits their needs, far better time spent on that than flogging this dead horse further.  

I would think the relevant bit would be 

There are limited stocks of TVs available and this offer is for a limited time. It may be subject to change or expiry without prior notice at Spark’s sole discretion. We can decide whether or not to accept any application and credit criteria applies. Offer limited to one TV for each customer’s account. Shipment could take up to 4 weeks and TV must be shipped to a physical address. 

The 5th paragraph in the Sony TV Offer terms and conditions

Clint

scuwp:

 

Lias:

 

Section 17 of the Fair Trading Act fairly clearly states that offering gifts, prizes, or other free items in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods and services or in the promotion of the supply of goods and services, and not providing them as offered, is an unfair practice. Now IANAL, but I'd think that Spark needs to honour that deal to not be in breach here. The link 404's now, which is exactly what Spark should have done in the first place, hiding the link from the main page is NOT removing the offer. Take the cost of the TV out of the salary of the genius who decided to just hide the page and not remove it.

 

If they don't honour it, I'd definitely be making a complain to the commerce commission.

 

 

You should really read the whole Act, you might have seen this bit (extract of relevant bits to save space):

 

44Defences

 

(1) Subject to this section, it is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against section 40 if the defendant proves—

 

that the contravention was due to a reasonable mistake; or 

 

the defendant took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the contravention.

 

In other words consumer protection would need to prove that this was a deliberate attempt to deceive.  Given the various reports of disclaimers that it was a limited offer and an attempt to remove the link kinda suggests otherwise.  A case wouldn't have a leg to stand on (IMHO).  

 

I wish the OP all the best to finding a current deal that suits their needs, far better time spent on that than flogging this dead horse further.  

 

 

Again, IANAL, but given the commerce commission's repeated statements (and related prosecutions) that fine print cannot correct a misleading impression of an advertisement, I beg to differ. Yes, they state that it's limited stock, but until they removed the offer (and not merely removed a link to it from the front page), they were implying that the offer was still valid. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right,  but I don't think it's particularly clear cut that they are out of the woods legally, and I suspect that ponying up a TV here to the OP is likely to be considerably cheaper than even asking their lawyers about it, let alone dealing with a commerce commission investigation or media coverage of it.

clinty:

 

I would think the relevant bit would be 

 

There are limited stocks of TVs available and this offer is for a limited time. It may be subject to change or expiry without prior notice at Spark’s sole discretion. We can decide whether or not to accept any application and credit criteria applies. Offer limited to one TV for each customer’s account. Shipment could take up to 4 weeks and TV must be shipped to a physical address. 

 

The 5th paragraph in the Sony TV Offer terms and conditions

 

Read this, and tell me if you still think they can get away with hiding important information in the 5th paragraph of the fine print.

https://comcom.govt.nz/business/dealing-with-typical-situations/advertising-your-product-or-service/fine-print

"Hey I found this old brochure at the back of a spark store, it clearly wasn't removed from the store so why wont you sell me this old deal that is expired" is my take on this. They removed all the links from their active parts of the website to the page, so job done IMO.

richms:

 

"Hey I found this old brochure at the back of a spark store, it clearly wasn't removed from the store so why wont you sell me this old deal that is expired" is my take on this. They removed all the links from their active parts of the website to the page, so job done IMO.

 

Pretty sure if they were actually still displaying an old brochure about a deal in a physical store, and it didn't clearly have an expiry date, they'd have to honour it. People forget how hugely in favour of the consumer the laws in NZ are.