Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
2573 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 357


  Reply # 2106333 11-Oct-2018 15:46
9 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

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

1272 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 291


  Reply # 2106339 11-Oct-2018 15:52
3 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

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

 

 

So true haha



14408 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1885


  Reply # 2106379 11-Oct-2018 16:05
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

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

 

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


3455 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1918

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2106425 11-Oct-2018 18:08
3 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

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.





Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.


2862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 307


  Reply # 2106467 11-Oct-2018 19:37
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

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? 




14408 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1885


  Reply # 2106469 11-Oct-2018 19:42
Send private message quote this post

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. 


2862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 307


  Reply # 2106470 11-Oct-2018 19:44
Send private message quote this post

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




14408 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1885


  Reply # 2106475 11-Oct-2018 19:50
Send private message quote this post

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.


1272 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 291


  Reply # 2106481 11-Oct-2018 20:00
Send private message quote this post

Cached copy of the page can be accessed at:

 

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:J_Y3tPPeickJ:spark.co.nz/

 

 

Tempted to know if the 'it ended a few days ago' refers to the end of the last (unpublished) promo period ending 7 October (the currrent promo period for Unplan began on Monday the 8th), or whether they had run out of stock earlier than that. I guess we may never find out.

 

 


3094 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1561


  Reply # 2106487 11-Oct-2018 20:28
5 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

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.  

 

  





Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman



543 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 106


  Reply # 2106488 11-Oct-2018 20:29
4 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

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


3455 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1918

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2106499 11-Oct-2018 20:55
Send private message quote this post

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.





Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.


3455 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1918

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2106502 11-Oct-2018 20:57
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

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

 

 

 

 





Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.


21535 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4388

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2106504 11-Oct-2018 21:00
3 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

"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.





Richard rich.ms

3455 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1918

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2106506 11-Oct-2018 21:02
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

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. 

 

 





Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.


1 | 2 | 3 | 4
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.