RE: [Bargain] Kodak 3.1 Mp camera for ?100

["Mark Harrison" <Mark.Harrison@xxxxxxx>]

Kenneth,

You will probably find, on the acknowledgement, a line that says
"subject to our terms and conditions". Their terms and conditions
would,
in this case, allow them to decline to fulfill the goods, provided they
hadn't yet charged your card.

I don't think that the Argos case, however, is a fair comparison. In the
Argos case, the courts ruled that the pricing of =A31.99 was obviously a
mistake that would have been obvious to any "reasonable man".
(Sorry for
the sexist language - but it's a legal term.)

In this case, it's NOT, in my view, "obvious" that this is an
error.=20

On the weekend in question, one could have purchased a digital camera
elsewhere on the "UK Internet" for as little as =A340(Scan's
own-brand,
not that this is a recommendation you do!) It could therefore be argued
that a price of =A3100 would appear "to the reasonable man" to be
a price
that was fair for a camera a bit up the hierarchy.

I'd be interested if someone takes this to court. Professionally, I'd be
worried if they won ;-)


Regards,

Mark Harrison
Head of Systems, eKingfisher

************************************************************************
****
Kingfisher plc
Registered Office: North West House, 119 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5PX
Registered in England, Number 1664812

This e-mail is only intended for the person(s) to whom it is addressed
and
may contain confidential information.  Unless stated to the contrary,
any
opinions or comments are personal to the writer and do not represent the
official view of the company.  If you have received this e-mail in
error,
please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this
message
>from
disclose its contents to any other person.  Thank you for your
co-operation.
************************************************************************
****
=20


-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Watt [mailto:kennwatt@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 7 January 2002 12:51
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] [Bargain] Kodak 3.1 Mp camera for ?100


Actually now I think about it, isn't there a line in the receipt that
says that it is a binding contract of some kind, sorry I'm at work and
the messages are at home.

This is K. From Work! I really should be working ;-)


-----Original Message-----
From: Des Gibbons [mailto:des@xxxxxxx]=20
Sent: 07 January 2002 12:39
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] [Bargain] Kodak 3.1 Mp camera for ?100

I just had a read thru my order confirmation email :-

Below is a summary of the items on your order. Please keep this message
as your receipt of the purchase. YOU WILL NEED TO PROVIDE A COPY
OF THIS MESSAGE IF YOU EVER NEED WARRANTY SERVICE.


It is a receipt!!!!!!!!!!!!


I'm no lawyer, but isn't that binding?

DesG


For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk=20
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx=20
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx=20
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx=20
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx=20

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=20






For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk=20
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx=20
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx=20
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx=20
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx=20

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=20



This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. For more information on a pro-active anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe visit http://www.messagelabs.com/