|
|
The UKHA-ARCHIVE IS CEASING OPERATIONS 31 DEC 2024
|
|
Latest message you have seen: Re: Re: OT Home Highway, is it worth it?
|
[Date Prev][Date
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date
Index][Thread Index]
RE: _[ukha_d]_NOT_A_Bargain]_Kodak_3.1 _Mp_camera_for_£100
- To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: _[ukha_d]_NOT_A_Bargain]_Kodak_3.1
_Mp_camera_for_£100
- From: "Michael Mc Aree" <michael.mcaree@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 09:35:37 -0000
- Delivered-to: mailing list ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact
ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
- Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Been on hold with Kodak for 20 mins !! I'd say this is a monumental
balls up on their part.=20
I will be going to the small claims court (where you can claim up to
=A3750 with costs around =A330) if it is not resolved. The email
confirmation is a contract as far as I am concerned. The Consumer
Protection Act of 1987 makes it a criminal offence to give consumers a
misleading price indication and can be fined up to =A3500 each time. =A3100
was misleading if the true price is now =A3329 (minus 10% because of a
balls up).=20
If this happened with 2 customers in a shop then they would sell the
cameras @ =A3100 and be done with it. Just because there may be 100,000
sales over the weekend then the rules don't change.=20
M
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index
|
|