The UK Home Automation Archive

Archive Home
Group Home
Search Archive


Advanced Search

The UKHA-ARCHIVE IS CEASING OPERATIONS 31 DEC 2024

Latest message you have seen: RE: KAT5 Website Updated


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Small Claims


  • To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: Small Claims
  • From: "Michael Mc Aree" <michael.mcaree@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:05:41 -0000
  • Delivered-to: mailing list ukha_d@xxxxxxx
  • Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx

Title: Message
I just rambled. Basically requested my camera and told them that I was informed by NI Trading Standards that I have a case and to write to Kodak before I proceeded to the small claims court.
I mentioned about invitation to treat, my offer and their acceptance by issuing what they term a 'receipt for the purchase' and a 'warranty'. I also expected my Credit Card to be debited once the goods have been despatched.
I also said that if the camera is not sold for £100 then this is misleading under the Consumer Protection Act of 1987 and they could face fines of £5000 per customer.
Letter sent as a courtesy and expect some response within a week or so.
 
I don't think I will get it and will actually have to file with the small claims court. I have to fill in the form naming Kodak, pay £13, and then Kodak are sent the docs and asked to respond. They can pay up at that stage or go to the small claims court. I think they will pay up at that stage. If not then I will go to the small claims court.
 
I *firmly* believe that this *was* a genuine offer from Kodak that went wrong.. Karl Moore bought a camera/printer deal for £199 when the printer alone was £299 on their site. They delivered his goods. I think they had a similar offer regarding this camera and ran it on New Years Eve. The spokesman on 5 Live yesterday said that 25 people bough it then and the removed it after 24 hours. They clearly did not, as I was able to buy one on Sunday night. I think they wanted to build a reputation that sometimes you get great deals on the Kodak website if you looked often enough. I think too many people looked this time and they have got their fingers burnt.
Kodak have said "it was a mistake", "it was a disgruntled employee" and "their site was hacked". I don't think we will get to the truth because I believe it was a marketing ploy gone wrong. £2.39 is a mistake not £100.
 
The Argos case did not resolve the issue. I hope this case does. If firms want to trade on the internet then they must be aware of the flaws as well as the benefits.
 
Michael
BELFAST
From: Mark McCall [mailto:mark@xxxxxxx]
Michael McAree - any advice on the wording of this one, were you able to get pointers from TS on your letter?

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Home | Main Index | Thread Index

Comments to the Webmaster are always welcomed, please use this contact form . Note that as this site is a mailing list archive, the Webmaster has no control over the contents of the messages. Comments about message content should be directed to the relevant mailing list.