RE: FW: Shop@Kodak DX3700 Digital Camera

["Kenneth Watt" <kennwatt@xxxxxxx>]

I have to agree with Des.

In my work, repairing stuff, if I quote a price for a job then it is
*almost* set in stone, if I put it in writing then too bad if the
pricing changes, it's my loss. However, if I *estimate* then that is a
different story, it is then an estimated price and not an actual price!

If I quote and the pricing changes from the manufacturer of the spares
or whatever then I pick up the tab, or, in most cases, we will attempt
to ask the customer to accept the new pricing or come to a compromise,
if they will not do so then again I pick up the tab. I and most
reasonable customers accept that a 3-10% swing in pricing is a
reasonable amount to account for an error, 300% is not! I would not
accept that from any supplier and I would hold them to the original
price quoted so long as it was within a reasonable period of the
original enquiry, if they would not do so I would ask the customer to
pressurise them directly and pursue the matter with Trading Standards or
Citizens Advice, I would however honour the agreement at the end of the
day.

Put it this way, if I quoted you =A360 to repair a duff washer then got
there and told you the same job would now cost =A3180 you wouldn't accept
it, no reasonable person would, I know I wouldn't!

However, if I enter into a contract, as I feel I have done in this
instance, with a manufacturer or insurer in my business and I make a
mistake with the pricing then too bad, my mistake...my loss!

Okay, I accept that Kodak made a mistake with this offer and that these
kind of things can and do happen. I do not accept Kodak's view of the
situation in that everybody that ordered can just bogg-off with no
recompense for the mistake other than the offer of a paltry 10%
discount, particularly in light of the fact that the offer was open for
far longer than their own press statement acknowledges and proves! They
*knew* that page was active and they should have done something far
sooner to resolve the situation.

Had Kodak come back and said "okay we arsed it up and it's our mistake
but we'll let you have the goods for =A3***.**", so long as the offer
was
reasonable most people would have been happy enough. However they did
not! They effectively said "p*ss off, we ballsed it up and you're not
getting anything for us making a mistake" (BTW, I consider the offer
of
a 10% discount a bit cheap and tantamount to 0) I and, I am sure many
others, find this insulting. I reckon this is what has created
overworked tempers on this issue more than the fact that Kodak made a
mistake.

On looking about the web you can pick up a Kodak DX3700 with dock for
=A3240 so whilst =A3100 seems a very low price, if the manufacturer was
directly clearing stocks it is not unreasonable IMO, it just looked to
be a great buy! Just look back at some of the bargains we have had
posted to this group from all over the globe...is it unthinkable that we
could get a decent digital camera for this sort of money, I don't think
so.

Of course all this is just an opinion and a personal view of the events
and what will count is what the lawyers and Trading Standards have to
say about it all.

K.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Des Gibbons [mailto:des@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 08 January 2002 22:10
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] FW: Shop@Kodak DX3700 Digital Camera
>=20
> > The "shop" metaphor has been discussed. Here's another
view of that:
> >
> > I see a product advertised in the shop window, at an exceptional,
but
> > believable price.
> > I go to the Counter, and ask to purchase.
> > I am asked how I wish to pay.
> > I offer my credit card, which is swiped in an old fashioned
"paper"
Visa
> > machine.
> > The Visa Slip is returned to me, as my receipt.
> > I go to collect the goods, and am told *there* that the price is
wrong.
>=20
> However, that is assuming the card has been swiped. The analogy is
likely
> to
> be a guy just went to type the information into the till and told you
> before
> the card was swiped that the price was incorrect as is more likely to
> happen
> in a shop.
>=20
> DG> I don't see how asking for CC details and entering them in a
database
> and a customer giving authorisation for a specififc amount to be
taken,
> can
> not be considered payment. As far as I am concerned, entering my
number,
> expiry date and authorised amount into a database which will connect
to
> another database at another time, is payment. If I gave a shop two ten
> pound
> notes and they placed them in their drawer, subsequently taking them
out
> and
> giving them back just because they havn't lodged them in the bank
would be
> my anology.
>=20
> Des
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>=20
> For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
> Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
> List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
>=20
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>=20