Moved to Forum: Original Link
Found this whilst browsing the site. It seems a lot cheaper than all other retailers so it seems like a good deal.
[PRICE ERROR] Asus Eee Slate Ep121 Windows 7 Tablet - $122 Harvey Norman
LSuperCow on 26/12/2012 - 02:23
Related Stores
Comments
Hence the term 'IMPLIED'. Wtf is wrong with you. Do you want them to explicitly imply something? Dat makes sense rite??
omg…. What is wrong with me?
I will spell it out. Ozbargain was neither mentioned or implied. Could you sue me if i neither mentioned or implied you?
Even if i did mention you, could you sue me if i called you a 'professional'?
The comments from HN were stupid but they don't reflect on ozbargain at all.
@njninjar, don't worry about it. Except for Duff5000 most of the Ozbargainers now think we are "professionals" by coincidence and has nothing to do with Gerry's statement on Herald Sun.
@WTF i was talking about ozbargain. Yes you were called a 'professional' if you take offence to that i guess you could try and sue them. Professional isnt much of an insult so i cant see you would get anywhere.
I on the other hand was talking about your suggestion of ozbargain taking legal action because they were implied. But they weren't……
Hence legal advice is what we are hoping to get.
I personally don't think there is any legal standpoint to sue them for calling us 'professionals', but to say that he wasn't referring to OzB with his comments (albeit implicitly) is naive at best. How many other sites do you think got a hold of this deal at 4am?
Who cares. No mention of OzBargain was made, nor any suggestion of such. Case closed. Move on.
AntMan76 13 sec ago new
Who caresobviously you do or you wouldnt be posting here right?
if you dont care why not practice what your trying to preach?
Move on.
touche (look it up)
touche (look it up)
actually english was taught in school back when i was also a child. what grade are you in now? maybe you will learn it once you get to high school.
@njninjar.
I have no idea where all the purchases came from, nor do you. He doesnt say it was one site. He doesnt say anything that could imply ozbargain, you are just reading that into it.
You dont see a legal standpoint for ozbargain to sue them then it sounds like you agree with me. Ozbargain suing HN for slander or similar is a silly suggestion, that was my point.
Actually I'm going to go out on a limb here and say majority of the purchases came from OzB. At something like 5am the link already had over 3000 clicks and Gerry claims only 1600 units were purchased. Judging by not only the activity in this thread, but the mentions of people purchasing upwards of 4 units each, I'm VERY confident that a large proportion of the sales were made via OzB. Again, I agree, no real case of slander or anything here, but I'm VERY confident that he WAS referring to OzB with his statement.
EDIT: On the contrary, I think his use of 'professionals' implies he was referring to OzB or at the very least another bargain-hunting website. Would he call general consumers that found the site themselves professionals? Would he refer to someone sharing the link on Facebook to their friends/family as a professional consumer? No. I think it was very clear that he was referring to us on OzB who helped proliferate the deal, in what can be potentially seen in an exploitative manner by those eager to make assumptions. So yes, I think you can say he was referring to only one website, namely OzB.
@njninjar & Duff5000
Not exactly the way I see it. I agree with Duff5000 we stand almost no chance by sueing HN for "professionals" are referring to Ozbargain members. I personally think there could be a few OzBargainers are reps from other retailers who "bought in huge quantities" and planned to resell them at higher prices (just like how HN took advantage of Coles Myer PS2 offer).
Gerry said as if the HN online store was attacked by "professionals" who make money out of pricing errors for living. He did not mention there were also "everyday consumers" contributed to some of the 300 orders. It was a good way to turn themselves into the victim of this "attack".
Correct me if I'm wrong, I think we stand a better chance by getting a lawyer to go through our order comfirmations and offer rejection emails from HN to see if their T&Cs give them any ground to reject the offers after charging us the money i.e. from authorisation only to debiting our CC account. Otherwise it would have been treated as UNAUTHORISED withdrawal of their costumers' money if they first rejected our offer then debited the amount from our CC account.
All OzBargain members will be eligible to participate by submitting their confirmation orders and put on the list for the lawyer (lawyers have privacy laws or regulations for not disclosing our personal details) to ask for compensation from HN. If we have majority of the total 300 orders are in low qty that doesn't meet the definition of "professionals" will prove majority of OzBargain members are not "professionals".
It doesn't make a shred of difference if HN was truly attacked by professionals or everyday consumers, because either he has no legal right to reject the orders or he does. I agree with the latter. Doing what you said above would only potentially prove that we weren't professionals. Then what? It's just proving his statement wrong, there is no legal action there at all.
Hi ,
Vodafone has ignored the customers same like Harvey Norman until someone has made website "vodafail.com"
"harveynormanfail.com" " harveyfail.com" are some available website names… I think this is the best way to get our voice heard…
shouldn't it be hardlynormal.com ? :P
Hi ,
Just for everybody's knowledge , I made a complain to ACCC and they accepted my complain.
If they get more complain for the same issue than they will investigate it properly.One possibility
" This could have been a deliberate move from Harvey Norman. Who does not want an attention to their website on boxing day. It is a dream of every retailer.Harvey Norman got everybody's money for at least 3 days and got 10 times more people to visit their website on boxing day … all these for free…… Good move Harvey .. good move…
Did you send an email to HN first or directly to them.
I got told I need to send an email to HN which I have done, with no response. Will see on Monday, if there is no response I will escalate to ACCC.Need to use the hammer while the metal is hot.
Need to use the hammer while the metal is hot.
I think the phrase you were looking for is "Strike while the iron is hot".
Off-topic I know, but just sayin'… :)
i have no will to fight against big bullies, wish you guys the best of luck!
I like others saw this on ozb at around 6am Boxing Day and immediately purchased one via paypal without thinking as I'd been in the market for a tablet. I received a confirm from paypal but not from HN. I've been on holidays since so haven't had a chance to chase HN up for a refund. I've checked my inbox and spam box and no sign of any refund or apology letter.
HN's handling of this incident is absolutely appalling on so many levels but personally the following takes the cake (and I admit I am simply re-iterating everyone else's opinions but I guess I need to get this off my chest)
The pricing error should never have happened FULL STOP (I am in banking and employees are sometimes legally prosecuted for these types of errors)
Money should never be deducted from someone's account before the order is confirmed, especially by a company who according to their rep seems to regularly have pricing errors! I don't walk into woolworths and put my card down at the counter before I select my groceries so why is this any different?
If Gerry Harvey has the time to comment about this debacle to the HS then he should have time to address this issue properly to his consumers. Why haven't I received a refund or apology email?
Following a f*** up of such grand proportions the resolution should be dealt with swiftly and consistently what methodology are they adopting where they are only refunding those who post on their fb website or initiate a PayPal dispute?
HOW DARE HE SUGGEST THAT I AM A PROFESSIONAL. This comment completely demonstrates the arrogant person that is Gerry Harvey who has completely lost touch with reality. How can a company improve their customer service if it is not promoted from the top?
I have NEVER bought anything from HN before this tablet simply because I've never agreed with their prices. Even when I saw the 20 for 2x iTunes deal I went of OW to price match due my distrust in HN. After I bought the tablet I actually thought for a sec maybe HN isn't so bad after all.
You've just confirmed why I have never and will never shop at HN again Gerry. Can't wait to get my refund so that I can say good riddance to you and look forward to your collapse by the end of next year.
Also saw this
http://www.wpdownunder.com/?p=6734
http://www.cybershack.com/news/harvey-norman-sold-lumia-100-…
Looks all very fishy to me .. Seems like HN has a history of pricing errors during very convenient hype garnering situations.. (Product releases, Boxing Day…)
Take a leaf out of this book
http://blogs.zappos.com/blogs/inside-zappos/2010/05/21/6pm-c…
Hmm… their share prices rising exactly from the 27th…
Are you suggesting that their share price rose because people bought these tablets? An item they would have made a loss on? I have heard some stupid shit here but this one takes the cake.
Nah, I'm suggesting it may have rose because the press made them out to be the "good guys", nothing like good press… Still I believe it was a coincidence and was just stating that it rose.
It's unbelievable how they claim they have 100% transparency on complaints, however, whenever I make a formal not crude complaint it gets removed by what they call "Automatic Spam Filter". I wonder how long https://www.facebook.com/HarveyNormanAU/posts/10151186968356… this one will hold up, All I want out of them is an public apology to those who were treated like garbage.
https://www.facebook.com/HarveyNormanAU/posts/57650350236699…
find a video that sums it up for you lol
One more thing of note is that since the boxing day debacle, the tablet has not been available online. If it was a pricing error they should have just fixed the price on their website and left it available for online purchase. But no, they decided to remove the product altogether.
The Facts:
A) Harvey Norman is it in the news for being prosecuted by the ACCC for dodgy practises.
B) I took a risk and bought a tablet online during a boxing day sale and then Harvey Norman deleted the tablet from its website.
C) Three days later, the money was taken from my account - which normally happens when the retailer ships orders.
D) When the product doesn't arrive I'll weigh up spending an hour on a call to Harvey Norman or just lose my money on account of (A)Yet, the weak-as ACCC won't comment????
Marketing strategy: let's make a pricing error to piss of whiney consumers who will raise this obvious error to the ACCC and waste everyone's time?
Don't get into marketing.
And you are just trolling.
I'm stating the obvious, which is apparently incredibly hard to see for a lot of people. Trolling would be if I want sincere.
It's Christmas time.
The ACCC are all on holiday - government jobs, man.
They keep being silent until now, no response at all to consumer!!! I smell a marketing scheme here, after all if some buyers cant wait long and brave enough to stand up and say something, they just want begging their money back then It will be a successful marketing for HN. Just like me, there are more than a cost of just $122 a tablet, I ordered 2 each, total is $500 which I can buy more in boxing day sale than just receive It back, its opporturnity cost! So shame that HN can gain alot from this if nothing happened to them, huge traffic to website, free cash flow, free marketing cost, even more people know their official facebook now, nice job isnt it?
I woke up around 4:30am gone thru OZbargain as I always did when online lately, saw the deal not sure if it's a good deal? checked thru the spec and review then decided to order 2 for my 2 kids at around 5am(intent to get 2 Nexus 7 4G from BHphotovideo $299… I received a confirm from HV after ordering as below. I had checked my inbox and spam box but could not find any confirmation emails?
Dear Dennis, Order Confirmation Number: 700113234
Thanks for shopping with Harvey Norman Online. We’re pleased to confirm that we’ve received the
following order from you. A copy of your order confirmation has been emailed to [email protected]
Usually ships within 2 days. Custom orders may take longer. Please note: tax invoices are emailed separately.
Your order 2 x Asus EP121 Core i5 Windows 7 64GB Slate Tablet EOY CLEARANCE SALE, Delivery charge $5.95
Total $249.95 (Incl GST $22.72)If Gerry Harvey has the time to comment about this debacle to the HS then he should have time to address this issue properly to his consumers. Why haven't I received a refund or apology email?
HOW DARE HE SUGGEST THAT I AM A PROFESSIONAL. This comment completely demonstrates the arrogant person that is Gerry Harvey who has completely lost touch with reality. How can a company improve their customer service if it is not promoted from the top?How could Gerry lose something he didn't have in the first place. He lives in another time.
I have been charged for my tablet and have been sent an email (in spam box) that explains the same as others have posted here. I have responded and have asked for the transaction to go through. They should be honoring these sales, though they could limit them to one per customer.
Someone should write a model letter/submission for all of us to the ACCC.
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/54217#h3_3…
Thanks for joining in a week later with your highly valuable post, as we all enjoy hearing your highly respected opinion.
I read the thread the morning it was posted. I can't believe you are all still bitching about you trying to take advantage of an obvious error.
I can't believe how worked up and angry you are getting over something that doesn't even conern you. So far you've posted more bitching posts than anyone else in the thread!
Being the date it was advertised and an older model, I actually thought it was just older stock moving at a nice bargain price.
Come on… You think Harvey Norman, one of the priciest electronics chain stores in Australia decided to undercut their competitors by $600 on an $800 item?
And you think I am the troll…
Well it would be good if you even armed yourself with the facts before charging in. It was advertised as a clearance price. Clearance prices are usually good to shift the remaining stock of a certain product, for various reasons, at a faster rate.
Everything gets advertised by Harvey Norman at a clearance rate/unbeatable deal/managers special/best price in Australia blah blah blah.
I have never talked to a salesman at that store without being told they aren't making a profit and they are giving it to me at cost price.
Really can't believe the amount of willful ignorance in this thread.
Really can't believe the amount of willful ignorance in this thread.
Then why do you keep coming back…
It's like watching a car crash, you can't help but not look.
Love the way you use an example of three comments from three members to represent Ozbargainers as a whole. Gerry Norman must be your mentor who used "professionals" to describe all of those bought this tablet. Anyway, I don't think the "non-professionals" are asking for your sympathy.
It's not three comments… Read the page from start to finish. If it were up to me, the ACCC would fine you for wasting their time.
its a beautilful day in melbourne, unless your at work, go enjoy it and stop trolling
I disagree with you and think that makes me a troll… What are you 12?
Modokun, regardless of whether you're right or wrong, no one likes to hear 'I told you so' when they've been screwed over.
Just sit back and watch the entertainment.
I normally would not waste time on an event such as this as frustrating as it is.
However Mr Harvey just made it personal with his well worded comments about my being a "professional" purchaser who "obviously new that it was a price error". I think your arrogance has got the better of you this time Mr Harvey, with me anyway.
A business has to remain relevant to remain successful and maybe you are just no longer relevant as you try and blame your customers for buying a product you advertised. I did not enter your online store armed with a gun, I just purchased what you advertised and you call me a liar and a cheat?
I am happy to waste a little more of my valuable time with a formal email with the expectation that my order be fulfilled as I did not request for you to cancel, then a follow up with the ACCC.
You're an idiot. Probably 10% of the people here where purchasing them for that reason.
The rest of us with just trying to get a bargain for ourselves or as gifts to family/friends.Where did you get the 10% figure from?
Keep living in denial guys. The ratio speaks for itself.
Clearly you either don't understand that a ratio means nothing without looking at the data it's referring to or is formed from.
1 per customer?
Nice read. A company that realised that reneging on a pricing error would create even more headache, angst and frustration amongst their customers.
But that would be too much to ask from HN … all they really care about is to make $hitloads of money at our expense. They're a lost cause.
i dont know why anyone here is quoting from HN's T&C. from any stand point (including legally) T&C's arent worth the paper they are written on in australia, thats why we have laws.
secondly i dont know why anyone is surprised the ACCC are useless. unless its a grouse negligence ACCC arent interested, if ACCC is interested it will still only act if its in there interests, after all they are a government department and the government gets plenty of tax dollars from HN's. its counter intuitive for them to act unless they have no other option.
the ACCC is there to give people a false sense of security, and to stop them taking other more fruitful routes for a resolution.
I'm sorry, but that is really really wrong. T&Cs can be applied to just about anything in life just as long as it doesn't contravene law or a persons rights from law. Here's just a couple to give you some basic examples:
No denim- it's not illegal but a company can set conditions of entry to its business.
In 25 words or less- this is a common term in cash back promotions and companies will not payout because you have completed the entry incorrectly.Do you realise that any serious business would have their T&Cs written by lawyers?
http://www.netlawman.com.au/terms-conditions-australia.phpwhat is your vested interest in this? you seem to be very vocal in this thread, and all in support of HN i might add. anyway i dont expect an honest answer so i digress
T&Cs can be applied to just about anything in life just as long as it doesn't contravene law or a persons rights from law.
so in other words, you completely agree with me? people should not be paying ANY attention to HN's T&C's they should simply be looking at what is legal and what is not via laws, now HN's own rhetoric/propaganda? which is exactly what i said, tho just put in a different way… trying to compare T&C with whats in the law in this instance is not important. either what HN did was legal or it wasnt, regardless of what is written in HN's own literature. thanks for agreeing with me.
Do you realise that any serious business would have their T&Cs written by lawyers?
what you conveniently forgot to mention was that its written by HN's own paid lawyers to suit what HN wants, not what the law states. which is why its already been kicked in hte ass by the pi$$ weak ACCC for its business practices in the past?
thanks for playing, now head on back to your paid HN job, kthxbye
The sad thing is you're not a troll. I have no vested interest in either way, I'm just researching out of personal interest. If I find something which is compelling either way I'd say it here. The main reason I'm posting is to counter misinformation. I've already said don't shop at HNs, their prices are poor and the service is bad. I'm using this as a case study to research rather than it's HN or it's a tablet. I'm just researching pricing errors and ACL in general.
No I don't agree with you and of course HNs lawyers would write their own T&Cs. Is someone else going to pay for them? Who else is going to write a companies T&Cs?
Like I've said multiple times, read the Competition and Consumer Act 2010
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca201026…If there is something in there which HNs T&Cs contravene, then you have a case. Of everything I have read I am yet to find anything. I can show you my references and show you my logic to help you understand, but you don't seem interested in the truth. PM me and I can link all the relevant sections.
The sad thing is you're not a troll
not quite sure if your serious or just takin the piss.. so ill take it at face value….
No I don't agree with you
Like I've said multiple times, read the Competition and Consumer Act 2010sigh… that is my point. forget what HN wants to tell you and simply look at the laws. what does HN's T&C matter in this when law overrides the T&C anyway? so just skip past what HN wants to tell you and go straight to the source, the laws. how is this different to apparently what you have been saying?
fact, the T&C are either law abiding or they arent. either way that does not change the laws.
If there is something in there which HNs T&Cs contravene, then you have a case
no, if HN broke the law, regardless of whats in the T&C, you have a case.
i could go on and on about this from my experiences of being on the other side (retailer side) of things but it all just gets tl;dr. but ill say it again, if you think you have a case then speak to a lawyer. lots of lawyers will give you some time free and there is also legal aid for those without there own funds to get free legal advice from.
and just for the record, i didnt buy the tablet and im retired thus work for no one. i have no vested interest in anything but seeing fair trading for everyone and ill stand by what i said, if you think you have a case talk to a lawyer.
Nosdan, out of interest, which part(s) of Harvey Norman's Terms and Conditions absolve responsibility / override law under Competition and Consumer Act 2010?
im not sure if ive not understood you, or you havnt understood me, but..
which part(s) of Harvey Norman's Terms and Conditions absolve responsibility / override law
none, ever. nothing overrides the law.
No, you didn't understand me correctly.
If these Terms and Conditions attempt to absolve responsibility / override law, which clauses (or is it all of them?) are doing this?
ahh you seem to have not worded your original question clearly then. lets see if i understand you better now you have clarified.
so what you mean is.. what parts TRY to "absolve responsibility / override law" in the T&C, and which laws from the C&C act 2010 is it trying to override?
i dont claim to be a lawyer, so that is not a question i should attempt
as i said above, if you have legal questions then there are plenty of legal avenues you can take to get your questions answered…
and i see you agree with me
Withdr4wn on 28/12/2012 - 14:08
I don't know, I'm not a qualified legal practitioner - nor is anyone else here claiming to be. Perhaps you should seek legal advice to find out the answers to all your hypothetical scenarios.happy trolling :D
You start by stating that T&C's aren't worth the paper they're written on, that's why we have laws. Someone tries to explain the value and legality of T&C's (pending they do not remove a person's right) and instead of constructively arguing against, you snidely assume he has some vested interest in Harvey Norman for pointing out a flaw in your comment. You then try to twist his words so that he looks like he is agreeing that terms and conditions aren't worth the paper they are written on, and sign off with your snidely remarks.
He then replies, as the only person in this thread so far, that he has looked at various Acts and tried to find anything in Harvey Norman's Terms and Conditions that could be illegal - he has found none. He even offered to share his research.
You basically repeat the same thing, twist his words by stating that terms and conditions don't matter, then sidestep into some rant about personal retail experiences and speak to a lawyer (which you rightly point out, I agree about speaking to a lawyer).
I'm not a lawyer (if that wasn't obvious already :)), however my time at uni did cover Business Law and Privacy Laws (I have worked as a consultant, these units were of great interest to me to have some working knowledge). Your statement about Terms and Conditions being irrelevant would contradict content in my Business Law unit - and is exactly inline with what bxpressiv has already stated in that as long as Terms and Conditions of any contract don't absolve responsibility / override law in any Act (and there's various hierarchies to this), then Terms and Conditions are binding. Although, as with anything - if you go to court is subject to interpretation. This of course, doesn't mean that Terms and Conditions are useless - these will be used as part of a proceeding.
This is why I asked the question I did, because as far as I know - the Terms and Conditions are valid and don't absolve / override any rights that are outlined in any business / consumer related Acts. Of course, I could be entirely wrong - judging by your posts, I assumed you might have found something / had some evidence suggesting that there was a flaw (and if you did, could be super helpful to those wanting to fight Harvey Norman).
sorry that i didnt write a multi volume set pointing out every small detail rather than my initial rather short post. maybe in future you would prefer i had your thoughts in mind before i post and/or consulted with you for a few months first just to make sure you would be completely happy with the content, context and layout?
sorry unsuccessful troll was unsuccessful
Terms and Conditions are binding. Although, as with anything - if you go to court is subject to interpretation.
so which is it? are terms and conditions always legally binding as you would like to try and make believe, or in fact are they not binding in the first because they may be against a certain law and then after that in court they will be open to interpretation?
either T&C are binding or they are not, if as you state in my highlighted quote of yours that they are in fact open to interpretation and/or legal challenge then they are by definition not binding. you cant have it both ways.
Well, I give up. Call me a troll all you want, perhaps you should look in the mirror.
ok champ, thanks for playing along. better luck next troll :)
Law & Order: OZB
To clarify for everyone who did not want to read this troll-thread, Nosdan and Withdr4wn were trying to argue the same point:
The terms and conditions of a company apply to the extent that they are not overridden by the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).
The ACL provide basic consumer guarantees, eg acceptable quality, right to sell goods, fit for disclosed purpose, but will more often than not leave large gaps which will be filled in by the T&C.
Basically, just read both. If still in doubt, please consult a legal practitioner or the ACCC - NOT ozbargain.
Give it up bxpressiv, you'll never dissuade this crowd of their conspiracy theories; you'll just enrage them even more. In a way this is also HN's fault for massively inadequate communication, which breeds rumour. But this is because HN won't (cannot) admit to having a shambolic system on all levels.
Not to worry, the market will sort out HN. Maybe somebody should start a site to take virtual bets (no money can be involved though) on how long they can hold out. At any rate nobody will dare to post a HN deal on OzB for a long long time due to the odium.
Yes, I am an affected "professional" too, waiting for the chargeback, and have no links with HN, to put this on record.
I agree with you on all fronts. As I've been saying all along, HN doesn't owe anyone a tablet, everything else is just bad PR.
Yes I expected this juvenile mob to neg me just for saying things they don't want to hear. Their loss.
Have you ever heard any lawyers made mistakes and not penalised?
Yes, definitely. I agree with you. What are you actually basing it on. Have you actually read the CaCA and ACL?
Good example of errors in policy is the Labor government immigration law, and we all know how that ended up. If you think. Their T&Cs should be tried in court, what are YOU basing YOUR opinion on?
I had my fair share of unpleasant experiences in-store at different HN stores. At first, I was disappointed that I was not able to grab this cheapo. However, it is obviously a pricing error. Can a true OzB sleep at night trying to grab a "bargain" after the company admitted an error? Also, there are pricing errors from other companies who posted here at OzB but the reaction was less "violent".
Not a long time member here but c'mon, a pricing error that was admitted and you still want the company to honor it? Taking advantage of a pricing error is not just my OzB style. Can't believe people will go for great lengths to TAKE ADVANTAGE of an error.
Peace!
I don't want the tablet. It's a matter of principles. Harvey Norman is a disgrace.
Harvey Norman is dodgy.
Just hope this adds to ACCC's case against Harvey Norman for their deceptive practices.
If more of us, who've been sucked into their "marketing", report then hopefully it helps future consumers.I'm all for the protection of consumers (and our money). Harvey Norman should never have touched it.
I'm short of funds and Gerry is swimming in it.
I agree. Some people who have comments did not understand the real reason behind this whole argument and attention was diverted by Gerry`s pricing errors statement. It is about the T&Cs seem to be in breach of laws. I can understand they played well and had a very good marketing strategy by making good use of pricing errors. The problem is if our offers are rejected then they should NOT have access and control of our money at all. It doesn't make sense at all when they can control our money and we cannot control their stocks.
If you have a good (true) story HN "may" help out. but you would need to sign an agreement not to discuss your settlement. It would be helpful of course if someone called on your behalf.
Thats all i can say.
Tmeister - genuine question - Are you saying that if we get a lawyer (or some such person) to call HN on our behalf to argue our case for a tablet, that they might actually honour the deal? I'm asking because that's how I interpreted your comment, but I'm not sure I read it right?
abandc2003 40 min ago
Tmeister - genuine question - Are you saying that if we get a lawyer (or some such person) to call HN on our behalf to argue our case for a tablet, that they might actually honour the deal? I'm asking because that's how I interpreted your comment, but I'm not sure I read it right?
no, he is NOT saying that, because HN forced him/her to sign a non disclosure agreement to get there item (be it this tablet or some other dodgy deal similar i dont know) that HN ripped them off with….
but, your interpretation of what he might have said would be just about 100% correct
Tmeister - So "someone" called on your behalf - Was HN helpful to you and you were not allow to discuss about this deal?
Let’s create a fictional but realistic scenario.
Asus Rep offers Harvey Norman a 90% off unbelievable deal on a Tablet. No Limit - take as many as you want. HN orders 10,000 units from Asus receive an order confirmation and HN pay in advance. Asus renege and claim rep made a mistake and claim HN showed Malice and that HN should have realised that it was a pricing error and should not have ordered so many, should have ordered only 1 and even then do not honour the 1 purchase as there was fine print that allowed them to cancel the transaction.
How long do you think it would take Mr Harvey to have Asus apologise?
Just as the expectation of HN in this scenario to make sure that Asus had their facts correct before they made the offer, so it was for us who purchased I don’t have a problem with ones who purchased 5, 10 tablets or more as that would be what HN would do if Asus made HN an offer too good to refuse.
So all comments taking the high moral ground please be realistic the ones who ordered on boxing day did so in good faith not some sort of Malice as was suggested by Mr Harvey in his comment.
I have a better one.
You walked into one of the HN store, picked up the Asus tablet without giving a damn what the advertised price is and brought it to the counter and offered $122. The lady at the counter said: "we reject your offer but you have to put down your money and banking details so we can return your money a few days or weeks later". You replied: "Why?". The counter lady said:"There is a big sign at the entrance stating the condition of entering our store is to put down your money and banking details when we reject your offers." You replied: "That is cool, you can keep my money for a few days or weeks without any reason".
Let's look realistically -
Was it just an email that got sent from Asus to Harvey Norman?
Did Harvey Norman follow up and ask questions or just place the order.If they just placed the order - 100% ASUS would renege on the deal.
If they followed up and asked questions, ASUS would pull the deal back.
Very simple.
Look at it realistically.
Take HN and everyone's hate for HN out of the equation.
Think of a hypothetical business.If one of my suppliers offered me a fantastic deal at an unlikely price, and I placed the order, they would most certainly not order it, they would advise me it was an error. True, they might meet in between somewhere, but not for unlimited qty.
Turn the tables around - imagine you are the businessman here- are you willing to take such huge losses because of an error? Yes some companies do, but in this case, I think HN would be talking in the hundreds of thousands of dollars - no way Gerry would allow that.
And those saying this was done purposely, think for a second - what would HN gain from this if they planned this and planned to pull the deal.
They got many pissed off customers and bad press
Newsflash!
Gerry Harvey (or Gerry Norman, depending on who you ask) has retracted his original statement that this was the work of professionals. He has visited this site, read all these comments, and now realises that there is no way in hell that professionals would come up with these conspiracy theories and other ideas. He did however replace the term 'professionals' with 'perfectionists' when describing the people who ordered one of these tablets, stating that clearly nobody here ever made a mistake in their lives.
Also as a gesture of goodwill, he has offered a voucher for one free tin foil hat with your next purchase, however note that there is a limit of one hat per customer.
Can't tell if trolling lol.
Woo hoo. Tin foil hat here I come.
Methinks Slater and Gordon will be getting more than a tin hat for its clients out of this! If you have been affected I suggest you ring your local office and join the crusade.
Not good enough. I want a tin foil hat encrusted with jewels and diamonds.
Antman76, it was obvious from the start we aren't professionals of any sort, that we are indeed everyday consumers. While I know you are being sarcastic and making fun of some of those who purchased the tablet, even you have to admit that's a damn poor attitude for Gerry Harvey to so quickly dismiss us as professionals at exploiting errors and not genuine consumers who purchased a product in good faith. That's the real insult here.
Trying too hard killed the humour.
@wtfnodeal
I dont recall ozbargain being implied in the any comments. What claim would ozbargain have in any of this?
Better?