RE: Re: FW: Shop@Kodak DX3700 Digital Camera

["Mark Harrison" <Mark.Harrison@xxxxxxx>]

> Personally, under Scots Law AFAIK, its a pain in the ass to use the=20
> small claims court=20


Alternatively, you could get the paperwork for the England/Wales
version, fill it in, and then fax them a copy with an attached note
saying... (Actually - now I've written it, I don't see why it's not
worth a punt for English customers also!)

<SNIP>

Please find enclosed a copy of the Small Claims Court application
concerning my order for %%%%%% dated &&&&&& which
you have refused to
honour.=20

I had ordered this item in good faith, believing it to be a genuine
special offer, and find it hard to believe that a company with Kodak's
reputation would attempt to deny their obligations.

Unless you fulfill our contract and send me the product within 7 days, I
will lodge this with the small claims court. I am sending this to you as
a matter of courtesy to enable you to resolve this without recourse to
the courts.=20

</SNIP>

Anyone who gets a camera for =A3100 as a result of this letter owes me a
pint ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: kennethwatt [mailto:kennwatt@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 8 January 2002 14:08
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: [ukha_d] Re: FW: Shop@Kodak DX3700 Digital Camera


ROTFLMAO!

This is good, they're getting hammered over this and I have to say=20
my interpretation was the same as yours Micheal, the way that the=20
confirmation mail is worded it makes out that it is a reciept for=20
the purchase and proof of warranty in which case the deal has been=20
done as they say!

Personally, under Scots Law AFAIK, its a pain in the ass to use the=20
small claims court but I may make an exception just out of badness=20
if they do not honour the agreement, just going to court with all=20
the claims will cost them more than it's worth just to give us a=20
free camera, let alone make us pay the =A3100. Whoever mentioned the=20
Hoover fiasco of a few years back was correct and this is *exactly*=20
the situation they found themselves in, i.e. it would be more=20
expensive to fight the ensuing court battles than just to honour the=20
deal.

K.

--- In ukha_d@y..., "Michael Mc Aree" <michael.mcaree@t...>
wrote:
> Kodak dude just been on 5 Live spouting the the email confirming=20
the
> order was the 'Invitation to Treat'=20
> Ho, Ho, Ho, :-)
>=20=20
> He said 25 people had ordered on New Years Eve @ =A3100 and were=20
told it
> was a mistake. He said they had then removed the link, which was=20
like
> taking ti from the shelves, but you could still get to it using a
> bookmarked URL.=20
> Bluff to try to stop people chasing them up.=20
>=20=20
> BTW those other Trading Standards officers are wrong !! The email I
> received states
> "Please keep this message as your receipt of the purchase."
So I=20
have a
> receipt for a purchase and expect my Credit Card to be debited=20
only when
> the goods have been dispatched. My Online Order status remains @
> PROCESSING yet they have changed it to not show the full Credit=20
Card
> number as it did earlier today. Why have they not cancelled my=20
order??
>=20=20
> This is a balls up similar to Hoover and there is no way out for=20
Kodak.
> It will cost me an afternoon an =A313 to go to the small claims court
> while it will cost Kodak more than the =A3200 that they may loose.=20
Their
> big problem is that they physically can't fulfilll the orders!!
>=20=20
> Michael



For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk=20
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx=20
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx=20
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx=20
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx=20

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=20



This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. For more information on a pro-active anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe visit http://www.messagelabs.com/