Dixons - Right or wrong - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
Expired

Dixons - Right or wrong

£0.00 @ Dixons
Most of us know the Dixons situation with the £1 tvs. Lets see what you think. Were they right or wrong to cancel the orders?
ispartacus75 Avatar
1d, 4m agoPosted 1 decade, 4 months ago
Most of us know the Dixons situation with the £1 tvs.

Lets see what you think.

Were they right or wrong to cancel the orders?
ispartacus75 Avatar
1d, 4m agoPosted 1 decade, 4 months ago
Options

All Comments

(140) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
1 Like #1
It appears that anyone who says that you will not receive the TVs have their posts removed

So what is that point of having a debate when only one side is heard ?
#2
Right in the eyes of the law? Or in a moral sense?

This is quite a good story along a vaguely similar theme of a corporation dealing with customers dismissively where they can get away with it to avoid the cost of their mistakes.

http://goodthink.com/writing/view_stories.cfm?id=11&page_id=2
A man deposited a junk mail cheque for $95,000 as a joke but it gets cashed.

It takes a while to read through but it's worth it.
#3
Barry Humphries
It appears that anyone who says that you will not receive the TVs have their posts removed

So what is that point of having a debate when only one side is heard ?


That was in the original thread. As I understand it this thread will be left alone, unless it gets downright abusive.
#4
I'm not entirely sure that is a true statement anyway.
At least not yet.

Also AMP, that story is great.
#5
Barry Humphries
It appears that anyone who says that you will not receive the TVs have their posts removed

So what is that point of having a debate when only one side is heard ?


I think Admin is only deleting them because of the name calling.
#6
AMP
Right in the eyes of the law? Or in a moral sense?

This is quite a good story along a vaguely similar theme of a corporation dealing with customers dismissively where they can get away with it to avoid the cost of their mistakes.

http://goodthink.com/writing/view_stories.cfm?id=11&page_id=2
A man deposited a junk mail cheque for $95,000 as a joke but it gets cashed.

It takes a while to read through but it's worth it.



Great story but of course the UK has different laws. :(

And in answer to your question Im just asking from a moral point of view. Lets leave the legal stuff to the experts.
2 Likes #7
What is moral about attempting to buy a TV when the tread is marked as "MIS PRICE" and then abusing the call centre staff ?
#8
Barry Humphries
What is moral about attempting to buy a TV when the tread is marked as "MIS PRICE" and then abusing the call centre staff ?


If you want to start another thread to ask whether the buyers were right or wrong morally feel free to. Im asking were Dixons right or wrong.
And so far over 75% say they were wrong.
#9
ispartacus75
If you want to start another thread to ask whether the buyers were right or wrong morally feel free to. Im asking were Dixons right or wrong.
And so far over 75% say they were wrong.

Dixons NEVER directly advertised the TV for £1 - the mis-understanding is down to the fact that people tried to use a rogue discount code .. and that is why Dixons will win
#10
I really like the phrase 'rogue code'.
Out of interest, Ray Davies and Barry Humphries - where are these names coming from, is there some significance?

Also, thanks for the new thread spartacus!
#11
Barry Humphries
Dixons NEVER directly advertised the TV for £1 - the mis-understanding is down to the fact that people tried to use a rogue discount code .. and that is why Dixons will win


Every price is open to negotiation, a house, a car, your restaurant bill, and a tv. Are you going to tell me that you have always paid the asking price for everything you have ever bought? These people saw a TV for £1000 and something. They offered £1.00.

If Dixons had not accepted offer of payment then there would be very little arguement here.

But Dixons DID accept the offer of £1, and banked that £1 earning interest on it, while depriving the purchaser of both the TV, the £1 (even for 1 day) and any interest earned on it.
[admin]#12
It appears that anyone who says that you will not receive the TVs have their posts removed

So what is that point of having a debate when only one side is heard ?


That thread is not suitable for debating right/wrong etc. This thread is. At the same time if this turns personal posts will be deleted in here also.

Keep it on the level of debate. There is no need to start making it personal with statements like "you have to be an idiot to think that" "only an idiot would do that" etc. Use external articles, links, encyclopedia, consumer law or whatever but stay away from any personal attacks and ad hominems.
#13
Im having a brain fart.

Can anyone confirm that Dixons have said they do not have the TVs in stock or are they being non-specific about the reason for cancellation
1 Like #14
I read the whole thread (27 pages by now!) and found it being quite entertaining (apart from some name-calling postings, which were clearly unnecessary).
To be honest, my initial response was something like "OK, company made mistake, they admitted it (sort of), so you won't get anything, now move on".

However, what changed my opinion of the whole story was this post by merlinthehappypig. It is clear that Dixons believe there are two rules for order cancellations: one is for them (we can cancel any order we like) and another one is for customers (no, you can't cancel anything). I do not think that such an attitude is acceptable and, in my eyes, is a sign of "unfair contract", even if they say (do they really?) that customer has no right to cancel in their T&Cs.

So guys, I wish you luck. I still do not think you'll be getting tellies but at least you can make a clear statement to Dixons that they should treat customers (and potential customers!) in a fair way.
#15
after they broke their own T & C (3rd email) and taken the money they are IMHO wrong. Error or no Error
#16
Please only post without attempting to provoke an argument Barry Humphries, or your posts will be deleted!
#17
Hartog v Colin & Shields
#18
How does Hartog apply to the Sale of Goods Act which is statute law rather than common law?
#19
asa_carter
Hartog v Colin & Shields


A fair, if extremely basic, response. However..............

From what I have read of that case is it unclear whether the defendant actually took payment from the plaintiff, though I doubt it. I would find that information very interesting indeed.
#20
did people honestly expect to get this for £1. The thread was clearly marked MISPRICE which means its a bug in the dixons system.

Edit: Removed unnecessary text...
#21
mickyc1
did people honestly expect to get this for £1. The thread was clearly marked MISPRICE which means its a bug in the dixons system. Edit: Removed unnecessary text.


Well said Sir, at long last a sensible comment !
#22
Purchased TV.
Got the third email including sales invoice in PDF.
Got answer phone message.
Got £1 refunded.

So what now? Are we going to launch a class action or what?
#23
Things like this have gone to court before iirc - somewhere a judge stated that the retailer would only be required to hold to the contract where the price was believable. ie. getting a 1400ukp telly for 1000ukp is believable and would be easy to argue that it looks like a legitimate offer, getting a 1400ukp telly for 1ukp is pretty obviously a mistake.

If I was the retailer, *I* would cancel your orders and politely apologise for the error. What would you do in this case if you were the owner of Dixons? Sell 15,000 tvs at a 1200ukp loss per TV?
#24
I would suggest that you would need to wait 30 days for them t fulfill the contract before launching any action.

Looking into the Kodak case, as mistake was made in the pricing. This mistake was informed to all customers BEFORE any payment was taken, yet Kodak capitulated in the end and honoured all the contracts.

In this case Dixons had taken the money from the majority before informing them of the mistake so they would have less footing that Kodak had.
#25
I had thought the issue of whether payment had been taken or not was a red herring. IMHO it is only necessary to promise to pay to provide consideration for the contract. However the fact they have taken money might suggest that they cannot claim the contract never existed.
1 Like #26
matto
I had thought the issue of whether payment had been taken or not was a red herring. IMHO it is only necessary to promise to pay to provide consideration for the contract. However the fact they have taken money might suggest that they cannot claim the contract never existed.


Not neccessarily. Without taking payment they have a legitimate arguement that the price is not representative of the product, but as payment had been taken the landscape changes
#27
asa_carter
Purchased TV.
Got the third email including sales invoice in PDF.
Got answer phone message.
Got £1 refunded.

So what now? Are we going to launch a class action or what?



Why are you going to issue a class action lawsuit on something which was clearly an erroneous code

You will just be giving your money to the lawyers
#28
ispartacus75
I would suggest that you would need to wait 30 days for them t fulfill the contract before launching any action.

Looking into the Kodak case, as mistake was made in the pricing. This mistake was informed to all customers BEFORE any payment was taken, yet Kodak capitulated in the end and honoured all the contracts.

In this case Dixons had taken the money from the majority before informing them of the mistake so they would have less footing that Kodak had.



Errr ..... the Kodak case wasnt about an erroneous discount code
#29
those who got the 4 emails need to fight this till the end. They way in which they are dealing with online customers is terrible and it's been going on a while. it can't carry on.
Like others have said it's not about people getting a tv for £1 it's about Dixons not honouring contracts and actually taking money. If the customer made a mistake we would not be able to cancel so easily.
We are all entitled to our opinions on this but am I the only one feeling that some users are feeling slightly bitter about the fact they never got their order in on time? ;) hehe.
#30
An Erroneous dicount code could not be used as a defence, where as a site hack could.
1 Like #31
sharon_uk
those who got the 4 emails need to fight this till the end. They way in which they are dealing with online customers is terrible and it's been going on a while. it can't carry on.
Like others have said it's not about people getting a tv for £1 it's about Dixons not honouring contracts and actually taking money. If the customer made a mistake we would not be able to cancel so easily.
We are all entitled to our opinions on this but am I the only one feeling that some users are feeling slightly bitter about the fact they never got their order in on time? ;) hehe.


" If the customer made a mistake we would not be able to cancel so easily. "

Stop saying that !!! - if you never opened the goods you could get a refund immediately
#32
And be charged for the pleasure
2 Likes #33
ispartacus75
An Erroneous dicount code could not be used as a defence, where as a site hack could.



An erroneous error code from a 3rd-party web site !! - of course it is a defence !! - a MASSIVE defence
1 Like #34
Where do you get this error code from? Its a voucher code.
#35
Erroneous it may be but it is also a legitimate code.

Has anyone got any proper legal advice yet?

Particularly on the law regarding it being an obvious mistake and therefore the contracts not being legally binding?
#36
Barry Humphries
" If the customer made a mistake we would not be able to cancel so easily. "

Stop saying that !!! - if you never opened the goods you could get a refund immediately


Are you referring to the DSR?
1 Like #37
From Dixons own site 2 mins ago.
Basket Error

Description

The voucher number you have entered has now expired.


Implying that it was once valid and therefore legal
#38
ispartacus75
From Dixons own site 2 mins ago.


Implying that it was once valid and therefore legal



NO !!! - it suggests that it may have worked in the system before BUT not neccessarily legal in the past
1 Like #39
asa_carter
Erroneous it may be but it is also a legitimate code.

Has anyone got any proper legal advice yet?

Particularly on the law regarding it being an obvious mistake and therefore the contracts not being legally binding?



IT OBVIOUSLY WASNT A LEGITIMATE CODE OTHERWISE DIXONS WOULD HAVE HONOURED THE DEAL !!!

Thus it was not a legitimate transaction
#40
How would one go about finding a rogue code? Where do they come from?

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Looking for Twitter login?
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!