Harvey Norman want my goods back that I purchased

Forums › Off topic › Harvey Norman want my goods back that I purchased

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Byrned

455 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 27

#340158 10-Jun-2010 12:44

ahmad:

Another question - this is different to a situation in which he was offered it for $1599 and then they accidentally put $599 via EFTPOS (leaving off the "1") isn't it? In that hypothetical case they can chase him up for another $100 am I right?

I'm guessing that you're asking do you have to front up with another $1000 and not $100?

From having put this question before a lawyer before I am pretty confident in saying yes, they can go after you for the extra $1000. If the invoice states $1599 (which is the amount you agreed to pay), and you only paid $599, you still have a debt to them of $1000, which they can seek. Same thing the other way - your invoice says $10, and they accidentally put $100, you can go back, as I'm sure you would expect!

IMO it's the biggest problem in not having your eftpos integrated into your POS - if you're relying on people to enter the correct amount into the eftpos terminal, mistakes will happen.

ahmad

1937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 53
Inactive user

#340166 10-Jun-2010 13:04

Sorry yes, I left off a "0" lol (how ironic).

Thanks for that. I was pretty sure that was the case. It's a different matter to this OP though, and I'm pretty sure he has good legal grounds to stand.

From Ministry of Consumer Affairs website:

Displayed price incorrect
Traders do not have to sell goods at the displayed price. If the price is a mistake, a trader can refuse a consumer's offer to buy goods at the price on the tag.

eg Mona sees a sweatshirt in her favourite shop. The price tag says $30. When Mona takes the sweatshirt up to the counter to buy it, the shop realises the price tag is a mistake. The correct price is $75. The shop refuses to sell Mona the sweatshirt for $30. The shop can refuse to accept Mona's offer to buy the sweatshirt for $30.

However, a trader who continues to display prices which are much lower than the actual price at which they are willing to sell may be committing an offence under the Fair Trading Act. This is because they are misleading consumers about the true cost of goods.

Trader charges the wrong price
Once you have bought and paid for goods and services, the contract of sale is completed. This means that if the trader has charged you the wrong price, the trader cannot ask you to pay the balance.

If you learn you have been charged more than the ticket price only when you read your docket, you can ask to be paid the difference between the checkout price and the shelf price.

eg, Jo buys a new shirt. The price tag says $49.95 and this is the price she is charged. When Jo gets home the shop rings to say they have made a mistake - the correct price for the shirt was $69.95. The shop cannot ask Jo to pay the extra $20. They agreed to sell Jo the shirt for $49.95 and the sale has been completed. Jo would not have been aware that the price charged was a mistake.

There is one important exception to this rule. A trader may be able to demand more money from you if they can show that:

you must have been aware that there was a mistake about the price and

there was an "unequal exchange of value" - you paid a small amount for highly priced goods.

This right to have the contract carried out at the correct price is available under the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977 (to view this Act online, visit the government Legislation website).

ahmad

1937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 53
Inactive user

#340169 10-Jun-2010 13:06

I don't believe personally that $600 for a "$2000" amp is an "unequal exchange of value"!!

It is not uncommon for up to 70% off (or more) sales from an inflated "Recommended Retail Price".

nickd

447 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 1

#340182 10-Jun-2010 13:26

ahmad: This is why I HATE the fact that retailers ask for your personal details when you buy something from them. Isn't it your RIGHT not have these recorded?

As long as you're not going for an extended warranty etc, you don't have to give them any information at all. I refuse to give them anything when I'm making a purchase, the person on the till gives you a weird look, they may go chat to their manager, but in the end, it's your choice if you give them any information or not.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 218

Trusted

#340193 10-Jun-2010 13:49

traderstu: My invoices carry the abbreviation E&OE. As far as I know this still holds water legally. Perhaps HN should consider the same for their invoices.

IANAL Either!
Doesn't this apply to all parties on the contract for E&OE? Therefore if on the contract whichever side the error or omission is fielded it is excepted?

At the end of the day, the contract of sale/purchase is completed on exchange of goods/money.

It's not like this is an ongoing contract to supply goods/services over a period of time - like a subscription to TV - In that case if TelstraClear had made a mistake with the price they have the ability to re-negotiate without legal recourse.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm sure I will get a frosty wecome when I next go to HN after demanding a cash price on 4 years interest free credit - and getting it. FTW

/2c

Procrastination eventually pays off.

Byrned

455 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 27

#340202 10-Jun-2010 14:02

Actually, HN do have E & OE printed on their invoices.

IANAL but I believe this is more so for the description on the invoice being incorrect.

Outside of this example (as I think we've already cleared up that the sticker said $599, he was quoted $599, and the invoice has $599, which he paid) I think it would be prohibitively hard to prove a pricing mistake had been made and invoking the E & OE clause.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

deshanv

15 posts

Geek

#340251 10-Jun-2010 15:48

pricing was correct guys, as well as the description and the model number on the invoice was the same as well.

ahmad

1937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 53
Inactive user

#340255 10-Jun-2010 15:55

deshanv: pricing was correct guys, as well as the description and the model number on the invoice was the same as well.

Hello mate. I know that a lot of people here are self-proclaimed experts (myself one of them) and my advice is to stay your ground.

To be honest, I would really like to see you keep a log/diary of all your communications with Harvey Norman, so that if they continue to contact you, you have a record of who you are talking to, when, and what is being said.

This would make a decent Fair Go story and I think that if you keep such a log it will greatly help your chances

The price of $599 isn't exactly "too low" the way I see it from the advice on the Ministry of Consumer Affairs website. IANAL but you are clearly right in my books. And good score!

cgrew

860 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#340274 10-Jun-2010 16:23

my advice is to stay your ground.

Stand your ground.

robbyp

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8

#340288 10-Jun-2010 16:45

ahmad:
deshanv: pricing was correct guys, as well as the description and the model number on the invoice was the same as well.

Hello mate. I know that a lot of people here are self-proclaimed experts (myself one of them) and my advice is to stay your ground.

To be honest, I would really like to see you keep a log/diary of all your communications with Harvey Norman, so that if they continue to contact you, you have a record of who you are talking to, when, and what is being said.

This would make a decent Fair Go story and I think that if you keep such a log it will greatly help your chances

The price of $599 isn't exactly "too low" the way I see it from the advice on the Ministry of Consumer Affairs website. IANAL but you are clearly right in my books. And good score!

My experience with HN is that all correspondence is verbal, so you have to keep it logged. And still then you still don't have it in writing, so it is just heresay. Best to ask for everything in writing I think.

robbyp

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8

#340291 10-Jun-2010 16:48

traderstu: My invoices carry the abbreviation E&OE. As far as I know this still holds water legally. Perhaps HN should consider the same for their invoices.

Isn't that an Austraian abbreviation, and not commonly used in NZ? I personally do not know what E&OE actually means, and infact whether that would even protect them, as they can't contract out of NZ acts. Obviously they are an Australian franchise business so perhaps their invoices are incorrect for even using that abbreviation in the NZ market.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

traderstu

334 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 113

#340307 10-Jun-2010 17:07

errors & omissions excepted. Once upon a time it was commonly used on invoices but you don't see it quite as much nowadays. I noticed that it was on invoices that I received from 2 seperate solicitors that I had dealings with, so I figured if it was good enough for them I would put it on my invoices. I don't know how much protection it gives me, if any, but it can do no harm to quote it. Since my original post I have researched it a bit and it seems that it mainly applies to "clerical" errors so it may not be applicable in this case.

robbyp

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8

#340313 10-Jun-2010 17:14

traderstu: errors & omissions excepted. Once upon a time it was commonly used on invoices but you don't see it quite as much nowadays. I noticed that it was on invoices that I received from 2 seperate solicitors that I had dealings with, so I figured if it was good enough for them I would put it on my invoices. I don't know how much protection it gives me, if any, but it can do no harm to quote it. Since my original post I have researched it a bit and it seems that it mainly applies to "clerical" errors so it may not be applicable in this case.

Yes I have heard of that before, you see it on some websites, but I have never seen it abbreviated, as I suspect most people would not know what the abbreviation stands for. From something so important I wouldn't expect it to be abbreviated, unless they had a footnote that explained it in full. I wonder how binding such a statement is too, versus the legislation that applies in this sort of case.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5