J
Jim
Guest
"Al C-F" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Nick wrote:
>
>>
>> My trust in internet suppliers has been severely dented. It appears that
>> most Internet customers here accept an interactive process where they
>> return (and bear the cost of postage + time taken) of orders messed up by
>> the supplier.
>
> I can't see how your supplier messed up. You might reasonably have
> expected sale items to be in short supply.
>
Sale items? Where did it say that.
Terms and conditions : from chainreaction
======================
Product Availability
CRC updates the availability of the entire stock list on a daily basis.
Items that are 'Out Of Stock' will be displayed as such. In the rare event
of a problem with availability of a product marked 'In Stock', we will
contact you. You may then wish to cancel the order or wait until the item
becomes available.
======================
Elsewhere (many times) they refer to my order singular not mutiple.
I expected to get both shoes or none. Simple really. I was mislead.
>
> I had hoped that the law would help me, firstly by default that a
>> supplier should deliver a total order as agreed (unless specified
>> otherwise) and then that the supplier would be bound by their own terms
>> and conditions.
>
> I believe the appropriate term here is 'quantum meruit'.
Thanks for the term. I did a quick search and couldn't quite see how this
applied. Do you have a ref.
>>
>> Given that my requirements do appear to be out of step with the views
>> expressed here I have reached the conclusion that it was a false economy
>> for me to attempt buying this stuff off the web and that I should shop at
>> a local bike shop.
>
> There is always an element of risk with distance transactions - you seem
> to have accepted that when you bought two pairs of shoes.
My choice of two pairs of shoes was not a risk, £80 one pair guaranteed to
be best fit possible. In risk terms this is called hedging. The risk was
that the supplier would not follow their terms and conditions, which is my
problem.
Is it this idea of hedging that yo aren't happy with. If I had said I wanted
a matching his and her pair would you understand my complaint better?
>>
>> Obviously going to the local bike shop I can try on both pairs of shoes
>> on and only need to buy one, the downside obviously is that it takes
>> time. But this is now time I have to take so the information that one
>> pair doesn't fit is pretty much worthless.
>
>>
[snip]
> It's not if you use Microdirect. Even if you specify exactly what you
> want, they can still manage to dispatch the wrong product, not return your
> postage, and not return the surcharge they make for credit card
> transactions. They are utterly incompetent.
Would you prefer that companies were clear in their terms and conditions and
followed them? Or would you prefer companies relied on the order being to
small for the customer to be bothered to make a fuss.
message news:[email protected]...
> Nick wrote:
>
>>
>> My trust in internet suppliers has been severely dented. It appears that
>> most Internet customers here accept an interactive process where they
>> return (and bear the cost of postage + time taken) of orders messed up by
>> the supplier.
>
> I can't see how your supplier messed up. You might reasonably have
> expected sale items to be in short supply.
>
Sale items? Where did it say that.
Terms and conditions : from chainreaction
======================
Product Availability
CRC updates the availability of the entire stock list on a daily basis.
Items that are 'Out Of Stock' will be displayed as such. In the rare event
of a problem with availability of a product marked 'In Stock', we will
contact you. You may then wish to cancel the order or wait until the item
becomes available.
======================
Elsewhere (many times) they refer to my order singular not mutiple.
I expected to get both shoes or none. Simple really. I was mislead.
>
> I had hoped that the law would help me, firstly by default that a
>> supplier should deliver a total order as agreed (unless specified
>> otherwise) and then that the supplier would be bound by their own terms
>> and conditions.
>
> I believe the appropriate term here is 'quantum meruit'.
Thanks for the term. I did a quick search and couldn't quite see how this
applied. Do you have a ref.
>>
>> Given that my requirements do appear to be out of step with the views
>> expressed here I have reached the conclusion that it was a false economy
>> for me to attempt buying this stuff off the web and that I should shop at
>> a local bike shop.
>
> There is always an element of risk with distance transactions - you seem
> to have accepted that when you bought two pairs of shoes.
My choice of two pairs of shoes was not a risk, £80 one pair guaranteed to
be best fit possible. In risk terms this is called hedging. The risk was
that the supplier would not follow their terms and conditions, which is my
problem.
Is it this idea of hedging that yo aren't happy with. If I had said I wanted
a matching his and her pair would you understand my complaint better?
>>
>> Obviously going to the local bike shop I can try on both pairs of shoes
>> on and only need to buy one, the downside obviously is that it takes
>> time. But this is now time I have to take so the information that one
>> pair doesn't fit is pretty much worthless.
>
>>
[snip]
> It's not if you use Microdirect. Even if you specify exactly what you
> want, they can still manage to dispatch the wrong product, not return your
> postage, and not return the surcharge they make for credit card
> transactions. They are utterly incompetent.
Would you prefer that companies were clear in their terms and conditions and
followed them? Or would you prefer companies relied on the order being to
small for the customer to be bothered to make a fuss.