[Date Prev][Date
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date
Index][Thread Index]
Re: RE: (ukha_d) (OT) Small Claims
- To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: RE: (ukha_d) (OT) Small Claims
- From: "Alancc" <alan.cc@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:28:56 -0000
- Delivered-to: mailing list ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact
ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
- References: <TFSAOSDF@xxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
I had a call back today very similar but she said it is a contract and the
only way to determine liability is to go to court.
I will see what response comes back from others then decide, keep us posted
those who have written to Kodak.
Alancc
----- Original Message -----
From: <peter.white@xxxxxxx>
To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:57 PM
Subject: [ukha_d] RE: (ukha_d) (OT) Small Claims
> I've just had a call from my local TS - according them, and despite
the
> confirmation email, Kodak never actually completed the contract as the
> confirmation was issued by an automated email responder, so it's not
binding.
> They went through same 'it's like a shop' scenario with me.
>
> I still disagree, but clearly different advice is coming from
different TS
> areas. She'd also spoken with 2 other people on this matter today.
>
> Pete
>
>
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index
|