Hello,
Paid for two TVs at a special price yesterday for a Friday delivery. Then today I was told they only have one and offering a refund.
I don't want a refund, I want a 55" Samsung LED for $750. They told me if I wanted a more exp TV i'd have to pay the difference.
What should I do?
Woolworths have sold Dick Smiths for $20 Million to by private equity firm Anchorage Capital Partners as from 27 November 2012.
The sale of Dick Smith to Anchorage Capital Partners ends an eight month search for a buyer for the beleaguered electronics chain which recorded a pre-tax profit of $26.8 million in 2011, down 14.9% over the past year.
I'm not surprised they sold it.
By your comments one would assume dick smith are the only store to make an error.. Mistakes happen, everywhere.
Agree with Tal_Shiar. Dont shop at Dicksmith is an emotional response. I noticed a lot of ads in ob telling special low price in DSE, but there is no stock. Yet, I am crossing my finger that I will still receive the order I made last night in DSE. This morning I found out that the item is out of stock… In less than 24hrs.
That kind of "strategy" is called bait advertising, if you suspect it is happening report it to the ACCC and the company will cop a whopping fine :)
I bought a washing machine from Goodguys and they sold out of the model I payed for so I made them give me a newer model for no extra cost and they did :) you need to fight for your rights.
thats coz theyre good guys not dicks
bazinga!!!
How about they made a mistake. I'm sure they apologised for the inconvenience and you got your money back.
Shop somewhere else next time, simple. Get over it.
I disagree.
At this point - he has done nothing wrong except made an agreement that the other party is going back on.
If the other party has gone back on it - they must find a solution that bends in his favour.
Working in retail sales for years and I've had a situation where a gentleman bought a computer which he was told had full warranty but was a return (and he knew it was a return). It had been registered when it was opened the first time and what was promised could not be delivered because the warranty was 6 months in.
Of course, the gentleman was offered a refund - but he didn't want a refund. He just wanted what was promised to him. Because WE made the mistake - the manager gave him a brand new one for the price of the return.
This is standard practice when it comes to good retailers that look after the customer properly.
Another example is when a customer is merely led to believe computers come with all software included. The customer is actually entitled to that software! The same manager has given copies of MS Office and Anti-Virus to customers because staff didn't do their job properly to inform the customers.
If the other party has gone back on it - they must find a solution that bends in his favour.
You have never heard of a company called Harvey Norman then. They constantly set precedents which defy this logic.
Paid for two TVs
was told they only have one
offering a refund
What should I do?
Stop moaning, take the refund and get on with your life?
Consumers nowadays are too soft against dodgy retailers. Back to 10 years ago my friend worked in a computer shop had a customer asked for a refund of a internal harddisk after 6 months from date of purchase just because of change of mind. The shop owner refused and ended up in the court which the outcome was to refund every single dollar to the customer. It is more likely you will win if you go all the way and stand your ground.
I have no idea where your case is coming from. Please link a case name / citation. A consumer has no legal right to obtain a refund for change of mind in Australia, unless the product is not of acceptable quality, was not fit its purpose, or otherwise breached the consumer guarantees. No legal right. Period.
And we have rather strong consumer protection laws in Australia compared to the rest of the world.
I was surprised with the outcome too. What I was saying OP has a strong ground to stand for if he wanted to go all the way. For the case i said above, the customer made up excuses such as the product did not fit descriptions etc to make the court to believe the customer was misleaded to buy the harddisk instead of honestly told the truth about change of mind.
Hi OP
If you've been offered a refund, then that is as far as your contractual remedies will take you. Anything over or on top of this will be completely at the discretion of the business - whether they will give you a free upgrade or try to source this TV for you from another supplier will depend on the goodwill provided by the business.
Businesses dont "owe" us consumers anything. If they do offer you an upgrade, or manage to source the product for you from elsewhere, please consider this as a sign of good customer service. If they don't, please don't go around complaining about them because there is no obligation for them to do so.
"Businesses dont "owe" us consumers anything." Wrong. Once they take your money they owe you according to contract and consumer laws. The issue is no longer about the money, it is about what they must deliver.
I take it that you really don't have any legal basis for your comments, of course you could surprise us and link to, for example a government site that backs up your comments, as opposed to the many people here who have referred to the relevant laws.
The issue was resolved to both paties satisfaction, over and above a simple refund.
Makes me wonder how many of these negative comments are from retail workers who are just slack and want to manage down expectations of rectification when they stuff up. Otherwise, why post something that has been posted before and is clearly wrong when it has already been sorted?
What the business breached was a contract, and the remedy for breach of contract is compensation (assuming no aggravation, exemplary damages, etc). In consumer dealings, fair compensation is usually monetary compensation. Courts will not order specific performance of a contractual obligation where the only loss suffered is pure economic loss.
My comment about businesses not "owing" consumers anything is taken from a standpoint of viewing a large number of self-righteous ozbargain consumers flaunting rights that they do not have.
Your rights as a consumer come from your contract with the vendor, and from the ACL. The ACL provides protection in cases where the product is not of acceptable quality, is not fit for purpose, etc. Please see: http://www.consumerlaw.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=the_a…. If nothing in either of these documents give you a right to request specific performance from the vendor, then you have no legal right to ask for anything above monetary compensation, ie a refund.
All of that misses the point. The compensation is not the amount he paid, it is the value of the contract. In a case of a static, well supplied market, the value of the tv would be the same as the money and he could go down the road and pick up another one for no loss. In this case the company took his money and no tv, and all he wanted was the tv. The problem was he could no longer get the contracted article at that price. Thus the fair compensation is greater than the monetary value on the face of the agreement, to put him in the same place as if the contract was fulfilled.
If you are interested I would look up the law on mistakes. A good precedent on mistake in this case is McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission. The gov sold something that did not exist, and tried to get out of the cost of compensating (which were way more than refund) McRae because of a "mistake". Did not work, had to pay major compensation.
This is generally understood and accepted by corporations, and it is sometimes lost on the staff.
Makes me wonder if you are a new law student or retail employee trying to understand.
Looking at your comments on "self-righteous ozbargainer", I am guessing the "flaunting" is face to face retail.
Learning and vodka ease the pain.
McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission can be distinguished because the goods in that case related to an oil tanker - one shipwrecked off Jourmaund Reef. Where the goods are unique, courts are far more likely to grant an order of specific performance.
Further, what 'major compensation' are you referring to? The court in McRae ultimately awarded the plaintiff with reliance damages. These damages compensated him for costs that he incurred in preparing to take delivery of and maintain the shipwrecked tanker.
"For these reasons we are of opinion that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages in this case for breach of contract, and that their damages are to be measured by reference to expenditure incurred and wasted in reliance on the Commission's promise that a tanker existed at the place specified."
Reliance damages where the vendor failed to deliver on an advertisement for a television would constitute: (1) the cost the OP paid for the TV, and (2) any cost that OP incurred in travelling to the store and picking up the TV. Since the latter would likely be determined nominal, just compensation would suggest that the refund would be enough.
Give me a while to look into a case that supports my point, need to run some personal admin. I'm sure there is lots of authority on this matter more recent than 1951.
Further, please stop with the personal accusations and assumptions, you've done this twice already. This is an internet forum, you know nothing about who I am and I know nothing about who you are. Personal insults and assumptions ruin any meaningful debate that we're trying to have.
@Eivad What if OP has already lined up a buyer to resell the 2nd tv for $900? Wouldn't the damage be $150?
In these circumstances, if the contract to resell has been signed, if the goods were unique (like the shipwrecked tanker), then most likely yes. If they were ordinary consumer goods like the TV here, the courts would likely award the OP with a refund plus the cheaper between the difference in cost to buy the TV from the next cheapest store.
You raise a good point. However, DSE's customer contract might limit or restrict liability for such events, so I really wouldn't know until I looked at that.
In that case, there was a REFUND and damages. You stated the OP has no right to any more than refund, and I disagree due to Macrae (High Court: there might be newer but none stronger)
Macrae had no specific performance (ie no judgement to give Macrae a tanker). Only monetary award of refund and damages. There are many types of damages available, in this case the High Court chose, but was not limited to, reliance damages.
This is contract law 101, hence my assumption you are not a lawyer, sorry if that insults you.
In a recent lecture Dr Peter Radan (Uni Sydney law lecturer, author "Principles of Australian Contract Law") posed a scenario to the class:
You buy a table for $1000, to be delivered in a week. The company does not have a table to deliver, and now that table costs $1200. What are the damages for breach of contract?
Dr Radan's Answer: $1200.
Same applies here.
the damage is whatever extra it costs for me to buy that same TV. I have lost the opportunity to buy at that advertised price.
If i was told at the moment of payment that there was no stock, I could have EASILY driven to another store and gotten another unit.
Hi Eivad,
Yes, you may well be right about the store not legally obliged to give me anything more than a refund, but I disagree with your opinion that I should not "go around complaining".
Regardless of their legal obligations, they have broken a contract and have inconvenienced me (the degree of "inconvenience" is subjective and irrelevant). I believe I have every right to complain, regardless of their legal obligation. I am only acting upon my freedom of speech.
BUT, I have not "complained" in this thread. I have just stated the facts and asked the OzB community for their opinions. Not once in this thread have I said anything unwarranted about Dick Smith.
During the free insulation debacle our company wound up unable to get insulation due to manufacturers/suppliers based in Eastern States being able to offload everything they could make without the expense of shipping it to SA so we dipped out.
To look after customers and fill contracts we didn't use the opt out clause but bought it at Bunnings (at a lot more than we had priced it at) who were able to ship it across due to national supply chain.
Shouldn't dick smiths who clearly have a contract with this customer of theirs, go and source them (even at a premium) and fulfil this order?
PS
Love my Samsung 60" (ozbargain naturally) from Bing Lee. First one arrived smashed and they could not have been more helpful. I have no hesitation buying there again (or Samsung for that matter). IMHO Samsung air conditioners and refrigerators are good too….
Full refund is probably not the fairest outcome. There are possible damages to the consumer to consider.
What if he wanted two TVs so that he didn't have to buy different brand 3d glasses? This is now a cost to the consumer.
What if he chose this item over another one on sale and now both cannot be obtained at the discounted price because the sale is now over?
I'm sure there are many more circumstances where the consumer would be worse off while the retailer merely provided a refund on the item they never had to sell anyway.
Sony v Samsung aside I'd never take a 46 inch tv over a 55 inch.
I think the whole legal argument is pretty pointless as the damages that could be recieved are far below the cost of gaining legal representation, and without going through the whole legal process, you will not be talking to persons educated in law, making legal arguments entirely useless.
I'm talking from my experience here, I have multiple formal legal qualifications, am a member of a Supreme Court and currently hold a restricted practicing certificate. I can definitively say that there is absolutely no point arguing law with another person unless both of you are qualified to do so.
I'm not saying that you're not entitled to argue the law, by all means go ahead, but without fail if you are not trained, you will slip up. I quite often hear sweeping statements like "the law says" or "x Act says" without reference to specific legislation, provisions, case law etc. And in the off-chance that you get it all right, the manager of X store will not understand and shut you down with "it's store policy mate". And that's the end of it.
I face this situation often too, but really in these situations referring to law is an inferior method of negotiation. You are much more likely to get the result that you are seeking if the person you are negotiating with actually understands your position.
yep, regardless it doesn't matter why I wanted two TVs. The point is I paid for two TVs.
But I was over fighting for it. Gave up :(
Sorry to hear that dude. Don't worry one day you will have the twin 55"s. They may have another sale when the next lot of models come out later this year.
woolworths do not own dick smith. If you look at the deals posted here where there is a lack of stock they have clearly labelled them as being a clearance item and not an advertised special. It seems after he paid for both TV's they were not clearly put aside and one of them was sold by another staff member. I do believe he should have been compensated for their error though and be given a TV with similar specs for the original price.