Internet purchase - partial delivery.



"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.
 
"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> I also had a wider concern. I some times build computers where I need
>> many separate items be delivered. This process has always worked OK for
>> me in the past, as I have been given the opportunity to cancel or amend
>> orders where some items were out of stock. But now I'm wondering if even
>> this is safe.

>
> Provided you're not deliberately buying the wrong thing, then you'll be
> fine - if you get a part order, you can always fill it in from elsewhere.
>
> clive
>



I didn't deliberately order the wrong thing. If they had delivered what I
ordered I would have been happy.

I'm curious many people don't seem to like my idea of a hedged bet when
buying the shoes. Maybe they see it as wasteful or maybe they don't
understand the concept? Maybe they think I would have returned the unwanted
pair. I wouldn't, I would regard that as unreasonable.

If I said I wanted matching pairs would you have reacted differently?

With the computer stuff I have to have it delivered to my home. So I have to
stay in and wait for the delivery. So yes if I value having to stay in all
day waiting for another delivery at zero, I'm ok.

Do you not think it is better to agree what happens with part orders
upfront? All I want is for supplier to do what they say they will do.
 
Nick wrote:
> I'm not sure what we are disagreing on? Yep "punishment" is fair
> enough, if they have no incentive to write clear terms and conditions
> why bother? They haven't lost anything, in fact they got a sale they
> wouldn't have go had they been clearer.


They would loose money if they had to pay the return postage and restock.
That is not fair for a non-faulty item if you're just taking the ****
instead of demanding because of a genuine need. As well as CR, that would
be punishing all customers, since they are the ones who ultimately would
pay.

When dealing with a basically good company, especially a company that may
be useful to yourself again in future, I think it is prudent to interpret
the spirit of the policy and the whole nature of the business rather than
finding a flaw in the small print to screw them with.

/snip
>> And pay the courier.

>
> Yes if they had stuck to their terms and conditions there would have
> been no need for a courier. Paying return should be an incentive for
> them to make an effort that a customer really wants what they are
> about to send.


It's also an incentive to simplifying the policy to the point of not
accepting returns at all.

~PB
 
davek wrote:

>> It's as clear-cut as the informaton available would indicate.


> Yes, but what does it indicate? You believe it indicates one thing, I
> believe it indicates something else.


Okay, I believe it indicates that...

1. He ordered two pairs of shoes, but only received one pair.
2. The vendor did not contact him to ask if he was happy to accept a partial
order, in spite of what it says in the T&C.

What do you believe it indicates?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk
 
Pete Biggs wrote:

> When dealing with a basically good company, especially a company that
> may be useful to yourself again in future, I think it is prudent to
> interpret the spirit of the policy and the whole nature of the
> business rather than finding a flaw in the small print to screw them
> with.


What would you say is the spirit of the following?

---------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------


> It's also an incentive to simplifying the policy to the point of not
> accepting returns at all.


It's an incentive for the vendor to stick to their very reasonable T&C of
contacting the customer before any delivery costs are incurred. They didn't,
and now they expect him to pay.


Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk
 
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:45:52 GMT, "Wally" <[email protected]> wrote:

>davek wrote:
>
>>> It's as clear-cut as the informaton available would indicate.

>
>> Yes, but what does it indicate? You believe it indicates one thing, I
>> believe it indicates something else.

>
>Okay, I believe it indicates that...
>
>1. He ordered two pairs of shoes, but only received one pair.
>2. The vendor did not contact him to ask if he was happy to accept a partial
>order, in spite of what it says in the T&C.
>
>What do you believe it indicates?



It certainly indicates point 1.

Point 2 is much more debatable. Their T&C do not say they will contact
the customer at any specific time. Nor do they say anything about not
sending out the parts of the order they *can* fulfil.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Some days you're a bug, other days a windshield.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
 
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:02:57 +0100, "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Peter Headland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> You ordered two pairs in order to find out which size was best for you.
>> I take it that the size which arrived does not fit, so you now know
>> exactly what size you need. Now go and buy those from someone else and
>> you will end up where you wanted to be. You were happy enough to end up
>> with a wrong-size pair at the outset of all of this, so you should
>> still be happy to end up with them via an alternative path.
>>
>> You may say it will cost you more to buy the second pair from someone
>> else than CR would have charged you. Well, since they clearly didn't
>> have any stock of the size you wanted anyhow, you were always going to
>> have to spend the extra to get them, so that argument doesn't hold up
>> either.
>>

>
>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 don't think a *single* person has suggested that would be
acceptable.

What most posters here do not accept is that sending you an item you
ordered is a **** up by them, even when an apparently unrelated item
you also ordered at the same time happens to be out of stock.


>
>I also had a wider concern. I some times build computers where I need many
>separate items be delivered. This process has always worked OK for me in the
>past, as I have been given the opportunity to cancel or amend orders where
>some items were out of stock. But now I'm wondering if even this is safe.
>


Unless the supplier T&C specifically state that they will contact you
and allow you to cancel or amend *other parts* of your order in the
event of any part being unavailable, then no, that isn't safe. (The
T&C of Chainreaction say no such thing BTW).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
URA Redneck if while mowing lawn, you find three cars.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
 
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:50:25 +0100, "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:


>Do you not think it is better to agree what happens with part orders
>upfront? All I want is for supplier to do what they say they will do.
>


It probably would have been better to have agreed up front what should
happen in the case of part orders.

But you didn't specify anything in any available "notes" or "comments"
field (I'm sure you would have told us if you had, and they ignored
it), and their T&C make no mention of part orders.

So it wasn't agreed up front, and they chose an option that is
probably more satisfactory to most of their customers.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Don't thank me for insulting you. It was my pleasure...
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
 
Wally wrote:
>
> What would you say is the spirit of the following?
>
> ---------------------------------------
> 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.
> ---------------------------------------
>
>


It may help to read first what they say elsewhere about pricing changes:

"While we do our best to ensure prices are up to date and correct,
errors may occur and in this case you will be contacted before your
order is shipped."

So I would say that if an item is out of stock, they will contact you to
see if you still want that item - which is what they did in this case.
If they had said they would contact you before your order was shipped,
as they do with pricing changes, it might be different, but they don't

YMMV


--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon
 
Alex Heney wrote:

> Point 2 is much more debatable. Their T&C do not say they will contact
> the customer at any specific time. Nor do they say anything about not
> sending out the parts of the order they *can* fulfil.


So, lemme get this straight... When Chain Reaction wrote this...

-----------------------------
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.
-----------------------------

....into their T&C, what they really meant was something like...

-----------------------------
In the rare event of a problem with availability of a product marked 'In
Stock', we will not contact you before dispatch of whatever bits we do have
in stock, or at any time during the delivery process. Indeed, you won't know
anything about it until you open the package and find stuff missing, and a
delivery note telling you that some bits of your order were unavailable. You
may then wish to cancel the order by returning the partial delivery at your
inconvenience and expense, or wait until the item becomes available.
-----------------------------

Do you actually think that the published portion of the T&C really means, or
could be reasonably construed to mean, something like the rewritten version?
What happens if none of the stuff is in stock? Does the vendor just keep
schtumm and leave the customer wonder WTF is going on? After all, if there's
nothing to deliver, then there's no way to tell them that nothing's going to
turn up, right?

Occam's Razor says your argument is pedantic shite.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk
 
Wally wrote:

> What would you say is the spirit of the following?

............
I've already answered what I think is most likely meant.

~PB
 
"Pete Biggs" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Nick wrote:
>> I'm not sure what we are disagreing on? Yep "punishment" is fair
>> enough, if they have no incentive to write clear terms and conditions
>> why bother? They haven't lost anything, in fact they got a sale they
>> wouldn't have go had they been clearer.

>
> They would loose money if they had to pay the return postage and restock.
> That is not fair for a non-faulty item if you're just taking the ****
> instead of demanding because of a genuine need. As well as CR, that would
> be punishing all customers, since they are the ones who ultimately would
> pay.



I'm losing money! The deal was for £80 quid I could get a pair of shoes that
fitted. The £20 quid premium was worth it to save time and effort going to a
bike shop. Even if I returned the shoes I would still be £5.00 out of
pocket, even without accounting for my time and effort. Far from punishing
customers I'm trying to help, trying to stop others be mislead.
ChainReaction could easily have avoided this by following their terms and
conditions, or writing different terms and conditions.

Is your argument that companies should be able to operate outside the law
so that they can charge cheaper prices? Personally I like to know what I'm
agreeing to and can see no reason why a supplier shouldn't explicitly state
their policy regarding partial delivery. But instead they said I would have
an opportunity to cancel my order if an item was out of stock. Nowhere does
it say they deliver part orders.

They mislead me, they should bear the cost. I did not mislead them, I wanted
to buy the two pairs of shoes at the price tendered. If the price had been
greater or I knew I might only get one pair delivered and would have to pay
more for the other pair I wouldn't have bought two pairs of shoes.

>
> When dealing with a basically good company, especially a company that may
> be useful to yourself again in future, I think it is prudent to interpret
> the spirit of the policy and the whole nature of the business rather than
> finding a flaw in the small print to screw them with.
>


That's just it I don't believe they are a good company. You may have had a
few orders go OK but what does that prove? Although I do trust you fully and
highly value your opinion and contribution to the group, I don't trust
Internet polls or many of the anonymous posters (like myself), where it is
possible a company like CR could (note I'm not claiming they have) spam or
bribe a good result. Has anyone actually had a dispute with them which has
been satisfactorily resolved? This isn't just a mistake, I gave them an
opportunity to fix the problem they refused. It isn't just one thing
ChainReaction have done wrong it is a number of things.

> /snip
>>> And pay the courier.

>>
>> Yes if they had stuck to their terms and conditions there would have
>> been no need for a courier. Paying return should be an incentive for
>> them to make an effort that a customer really wants what they are
>> about to send.

>
> It's also an incentive to simplifying the policy to the point of not
> accepting returns at all.
>


Accepting returns is a legal requirement. If they wanted to act outside the
law and specifically stated so, I wouldn't have dealt with them and wouldn't
have had a problem. I thought I was protected by the law. I would never deal
with a company that I knew didn't accept returns and ignored the law, even
if it was legal. In fact CR even make a big point of how the buyer is
protected by the law.

I'm not saying companies shouldn't deliver partial orders I'm just saying
they should be clear if they do. Worse than being unclear ChainReaction have
been misleading. Sending out partial orders is a significant policy it
should be mentioned explicitly. It only takes a sentence. I believe if a
customer is (reasonably) mislead by a supplier, that the supplier should
suffer the loss not the customer. This creates an incentive for the supplier
to be clear and discourages misleading statements designed to boost sales.
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> I have decided. I use CR and Wiggle because I can order today and the
> stuff will be on my doorstep tomorrow morning, no waiting. On rare
> occasions it has arrived with one item missing and a note to say it is
> out of stock, the delivery delay, and do I still want that item.
> That I like because I get almost all the stuff I ordered the next day
> and I can decide with the missing part how important it is, whether I
> want to wait for them to send it or whether I try Wiggle or the LBS
> to fill the gap. What I would dislike is getting home to find an
> e-mail saying that one item is out of stock, what do I want to do
> with the rest of the order. That would delay delivery by a day or
> even till after the weekend. ...


Dearie me. Is this what passes for debate with an implied modicum of
discernible intellect around here? Your 'argument' is flawed, both on
logical and empirical grounds.

You seem to think it's important to have the order, or some of it at least,
next day, but you don't state which bits of the order you absolutely must
have. Since you're willing to take pot luck in some bits being delayed, then
it must surely be the case that it doesn't matter *which* bits are delayed.
And, if it doesn't matter which bits are delayed, then there was never any
temporal imperative to begin with. Your contention that the vendor seeking
confirmation before sending the order would cause a delay is a non-issue -
it's just some important sounding nonsense that you've invented, and have
promptly shot down in flames before you've even finished the same paragraph.


> ... I would rather they do as they do and I
> suspect the majority here are the same. ...


The fact that the majority have a particular view doesn't place Nick in the
wrong, and it doesn't change the meaning of the relevant para in CR's T&C to
something rather more obscure than a competent reader of plain english would
suggest it does, and it certainly doesn't make said para applicable only in
certain situations. I'll ask you the same thing I asked another poster: what
would you expect them to do if *all* of the things you ordered were out of
stock? Use an expensive next-moring courier service to send you a large box
containing naught but a note telling you that they don't have that stuff?


> ... More than once I have been
> grateful for a part order so I have stuff to be getting on with while
> the rest arrives and would not want CR or Wiggle to change because of
> the OP's peculiar requirements.


I order stuff from RS, by phone. I give them the list of part numbers and
quantities. The first thing they tell me when they get the list is whether
any items are out of stock. If something isn't available, they already have
a suggestion for an alternative if one exists, or tell me that there isn't
an alternative. They give me the choice of what to do before I commit to
placing the order.

I order about 25 quid's worth of leads and adapters from Leads Direct,
online, late in the evening. Some of the bits aren't in stock. They phone my
mobile first thing in the morning to tell me, and to let me choose between
just taking the bits they do have, taking the bits they have and taking the
rest later, or cancelling the whole order.

In both cases, the order is still proccessed just about as quickly as it is
possible to do. By means of that wonderful invention, the telephone, your
contention that checking out the customer's requirements "would delay
delivery by a day or even till after the weekend" is garbage.


> And I think the portrayal of the interaction is more like:
>
> CR: Shoes for sale £40/pr
> Nick: I'll have a pair of size 9's and a pair of size 10's please
> <they send him a pair of size 9's and a note to say they have no more
> size 10's>
> Nick: These size 9's don't fit me. I want my money back.

<snip>

What is this nonsense? His objection wasn't that the pair he received didn't
fit, but that they didn't do what their T&C led him to believe they would do
(contact to confirm that the partial order was okay). He's stated this
clearly and unequivocally several times, so why don't you counterargue the
*stated situation*, rather than invent your own little scenario?


> I guess if someone orders two different paintings off you Wally, and
> one gets damaged in transit, you would cancel the entire order, pay
> for both the damaged and the undamaged paintings to be returned and
> pay the customers costs if they asked (since you offer no T&C's on
> your site).


What does 'damaged in transit' have to do with the present discussion? Or
are you just trying to have a pop at me because you don't have a substantive
argument?

All you're really doing is saying that you're willing to accept a partial
order after the fact, to which one can only respond with, "so what?".
There's nothing that says Nick, or I, or anyone else, has to have the same
view as you. Anyone who understands *plain english* will read the relevant
part of CR's T&C and take it to mean that they'll phone/email if something
is out of stock before going ahead with the rest of the order.

You *really* don't have any sort of worthwhile argument, do you?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk
 
Nick wrote:
>
> I have no objection to CR or any other company delivering part orders. All I
> have said is that they should make this clear by putting in their terms and
> conditions. If a customer is mislead by their terms and conditions they
> should accept responsibility.
>
> Are you saying you have experience of CR sending out partial orders?
>


Not CR specifically but other bicycle mail order companies. In all
cases I was pleased they did so I got the bulk of the order the next
day. If they had gone through contacting me by e-mail first it would
have been the next day at the earliest before the order was despatched
which would delay my getting most of the order. In some cases its been
a minor part that I have popped out and bought locally, in some cases I
have ordered it from another supplier that had it in stock and in some
cases I have waited for the original order to be completed depending on
the urgency of the need.

>
> Do you understand why it was sensible to order two pairs and why it was
> important both pairs came? How was I supposed to know they would only
> deliver one pair? They said they would give me an opportunity to cancel my
> order if an item was out of stock.
>


I understand why you did it but I don't actually believe you intended to
keep both pairs but rather to return the pair that didn't fit. People
do that all the time with mail order catalogues but they pay the return
costs. I personally think this "I'm too busy to send them back" and "I
was going to pay £80 and throw one pair in the bin rather than pay £45
and return a pair is to rationalise why you are not doing the sensible
thing and paying the £5 to return them and get your money back. ICBW

CR won Best Mail Order Award in the Singletrack World Reader Awards
2004. In fact they won best bike shop award in 2002 but the bike shops
objected and threatened to stop stocking the magazine so they were very
controversially removed to a Mail Order class which CR won in 2002 and
2004 (there was no mail order class in 2003).
http://www.singletrackworld.co.uk/article.php?sid=749

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon
 
Wally wrote:
>
> Dearie me. Is this what passes for debate with an implied modicum of
> discernible intellect around here? Your 'argument' is flawed, both on
> logical and empirical grounds.
>
> You seem to think it's important to have the order, or some of it at least,
> next day, but you don't state which bits of the order you absolutely must
> have. Since you're willing to take pot luck in some bits being delayed, then
> it must surely be the case that it doesn't matter *which* bits are delayed.
> And, if it doesn't matter which bits are delayed, then there was never any
> temporal imperative to begin with. Your contention that the vendor seeking
> confirmation before sending the order would cause a delay is a non-issue -
> it's just some important sounding nonsense that you've invented, and have
> promptly shot down in flames before you've even finished the same paragraph.
>


If you think so.

>
> The fact that the majority have a particular view doesn't place Nick in the
> wrong, and it doesn't change the meaning of the relevant para in CR's T&C to
> something rather more obscure than a competent reader of plain english would
> suggest it does, and it certainly doesn't make said para applicable only in
> certain situations. I'll ask you the same thing I asked another poster: what
> would you expect them to do if *all* of the things you ordered were out of
> stock? Use an expensive next-moring courier service to send you a large box
> containing naught but a note telling you that they don't have that stuff?
>


I suspect that Nick didn't even visit the T&C's until after the delivery
unless it was to check he could return the pair that didn't fit.


>
> In both cases, the order is still proccessed just about as quickly as it is
> possible to do. By means of that wonderful invention, the telephone, your
> contention that checking out the customer's requirements "would delay
> delivery by a day or even till after the weekend" is garbage.
>


It won't if you order at night but with Wiggle, CR etc if you order by
about 3pm you will get it the next morning. That's why lots of us use them.

>
> What is this nonsense? His objection wasn't that the pair he received didn't
> fit, but that they didn't do what their T&C led him to believe they would do
> (contact to confirm that the partial order was okay). He's stated this
> clearly and unequivocally several times, so why don't you counterargue the
> *stated situation*, rather than invent your own little scenario?
>


I bet he didn't read the T&C's before he ordered to see what happened if
one pair was out of stock. I bet he read them afterwards when he was
working out how to get out of the situation he found himself in. Of
course we will never know because there was no-one there to witness what
happened.

>
>> I guess if someone orders two different paintings off you Wally, and
>> one gets damaged in transit, you would cancel the entire order, pay
>> for both the damaged and the undamaged paintings to be returned and
>> pay the customers costs if they asked (since you offer no T&C's on
>> your site).

>
> What does 'damaged in transit' have to do with the present discussion? Or
> are you just trying to have a pop at me because you don't have a substantive
> argument?
>


Humour me; what would you do if one part of a big order was damaged.
Would you take the whole order back and pay the costs or would you take
the damaged item back?

>
> You *really* don't have any sort of worthwhile argument, do you?
>


If you say so.


--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> I understand why you did it but I don't actually believe you intended
> to keep both pairs but rather to return the pair that didn't fit.


You're calling Nick a liar. What basis do you have for asserting this?


> People do that all the time with mail order catalogues but they pay
> the return costs.


Other people do it, therefore Nick does it? How do you work that out?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> I suspect that Nick didn't even visit the T&C's until after the
> delivery unless it was to check he could return the pair that didn't
> fit.


I put it to you that your suspicion is without foundation.


> I bet he didn't read the T&C's before he ordered to see what happened
> if one pair was out of stock. I bet he read them afterwards when he
> was working out how to get out of the situation he found himself in.
> Of course we will never know because there was no-one there to witness
> what happened.


Unbelievable shite! You're sitting there, effectively saying, "He's a liar,
but I can't prove it, because I don't have any evidence!". Which begs the
question, WTF makes you think he's a liar? Your challenge to 'bet' that he
did what you want to think he did to support your non-arguments is nothing
more than hot air. You have no *evidence*, Slander Boy.


> Humour me; what would you do if one part of a big order was damaged.
> Would you take the whole order back and pay the costs or would you
> take the damaged item back?


I'd ask the customer what he wanted to do - keep the undamaged items, or
return the whole order. Unlike some of the idiots in this thread, I would
respect the customer's reason(s) for ordering several items at the same
time, and understand that a subset of those items may not be satisfactory. I
most certainly would not impose an arbitrary concept of 'divisibility', nor
would I assert that an order of several items is actually several orders of
single items.

This, of course, is entirely consistent with the position I've taken
throughout this thread. What possible reason could you have had to think
that I might have taken a different one?


>> You *really* don't have any sort of worthwhile argument, do you?


> If you say so.


I most certainly do. You contradict yourself, you seem to be unaware of the
telephone as a communications device in spite of its 100-year-plus history,
and you invent scenarios to substantiate your position rather than deal with
the given information. Lets just say that your 'arguments' leave me feeling
seriously unconvinced that you have a valid counter to Nick's position.
Indeed, "irrational" is how I would describe your responses.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk
 
James Annan wrote:

> Perhaps because his story is ludicrous.


(Do you know what I really like about online shopping and eBay? You click
buttons and stuff shows up!)

Nick can go to the LBS and pay 60 quid for a pair of shoes that fit, but
getting there is a hassle, takes time that he can't afford, whatever. So, he
decides to burn an additional 20 quid and buy two pairs, different sizes,
for 40 quid each. Nick's nett overspend is 20 quid, he gets what he wants,
and puts in no effort other than clicking a few buttons.


What is so ludicrous about that?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk