(if you're a hit, you can read about how to proceed a bit further down this page)
Summary for Toshiba hard drives of FNAC
On December 19, 2007, published FNAC in a web catalog offering a 200GB hard drive to 30 euros, VAT included. 
Throughout the day, hundreds of people see the offer and decide to buy hard drives , thus constituting legal contracts of sale.
next day, the FNAC void (illegible) such contracts, canceling orders, saying they have become confused about the price.
Most clients decide to take action, and rely on Confidence Online, it is necessary to bring claims against FNAC .
Logically, customers gain case, and FNAC is forced to deliver a hard disk on demand to customers. nine months since the customer makes the initial order, until they reach hard drives.
detailed chronology
- On December 19, 2007, FNAC publishes on its web catalog the offer an external hard drive 200GB Toshiba to cost around 30 euros.
- As a price actually competitive, it will spread the word, and many people buy discs , understandable by the typical consumer tradition dates.
- The FNAC is questioned by telephone for at least one client about the veracity of those prices. The answer was that it was a mistake, that the price would be 130 euros, not 30 euros. The vast majority of buyers are unaware of this fact. The wrong price is shown on the web from 04:00 to 20:30 the same d ed, FNAC being aware of the alleged "unintentional error" since at least the 17:15 .
- next day (December 20 year 2007), hundreds of customers receive email notification of intended unilateral by the FNAC to cancel orders, including those paid . Which, if carried out, would be illegal and have consequences for FNAC.
- On 21 December 2007 began to observe a large number of orders had been changed from "In process" state "Cancelled." As mentioned above, this is the first action ILLEGAL by the FNAC . In some cases, the FNAC has sent emails with vague messages that try to excuse their illegal actions.
- Day December 26, 2007, some users receive extensive response to claims made by email, signed "Responsible Legal," in which refers to a series of events irrelevant to the case, and made various statements inconsistent with the Act. The only logical explanation is that this is another attempt to dissuade customers not to exercise their rights through the dissemination of misinformation .
- the 8th of January 2008, customers who had claimed in Online Trust late last month, began to receive responses like this.
- From January until the summer of 2008 will receive instructions and updates on the process of Claim ng, without coming to any Conclusion ng still ed.
- In mid-August 2008, and after several exchanges of emails, emails and faxes, it starts to work out the first batch of claims to FNAC. All known cases are resolved with an award that effectively given reason to users. Specifically, 2 of 3 arbitrators strongly present is just to make your purchase of one (1) hard drive, and the remaining arbitrator decides to be delivered all disks, without exception. As a result, FNAC undertakes the delivery of a disk ro du per order.
- The d ed 27 August 2008, received the first email stating that if the customer wants, can buy a hard drive 320BG (original instead of 200GB) to the originally agreed price of € 29.90 (instead of 90 € that makes the web announcement). It is therefore necessary to make a request via the same web, and then email indicate both the n umber of new order as that of old of December 2007.
- The d ed 29 August 2008, some customers are finally your hard drive at home, after nearly 10 months of waiting!
Action Guide for affected customers
is vital to get all possible documents, emails, screen shots, paper bills, ID, etc.
According to the information that customers have been seeking, these would be the steps to follow:
- direct claim the FNAC, said she will call on the OMIC (which is who most fear would FNAC) if no satisfactory reply within 10 days.
- Once this time (or less, because obviously, these claims ignore the initial FNAC) can actually make a claim to Trust Online , it is the fastest method. Eye , avoid the use of complaint forms at this point, since in this case ignores Confidence Online, passing the ball to the OMIC or whoever appropriate.
- If at the end nothing is achieved, or not satisfied with the decision of the arbitration board, would proceed to use the typical complaint forms the OMIC.
- Finally, as last option would be a lawsuit, in which case it would be advisable to go together. As FNAC has to lose, certainly not give the case for the additional notoriety could lead accordingly.
Confidence Online
then explained in detail the following:
- Customers can send claims directly to the FNAC . Naturally, we must always keep the manners and leave the bluster aside. Possible forms of communication:
- by email (recommended): clientes@fnac.es
- Phone: should ask the name of the employee who serves us, because apparently some hanging directly to know why you called.
- Fax: 917 794 642
- for arbitration: The FNAC is attached to Trust Online. This makes things easier, being able to make claims this page. is totally free. These are the relevant data: Data
- FNAC. Mark With permanent establishment in Spain.
- not filled paragraph 3A, but the 3B. Mark for personal use and electronic means of distance communication . Mark
- Principle of legality (Article 14) .
- Acts on which it bases the claim and motivation explain what happened.
- Accordingly, the petitioner requests: ask the hard drives at the agreed price to make the purchase.
- Finally, attached screenshots: the initial offer, confirmation emails for orders, claims already made, your ID.
initial offer
- Complaint form (OMIC) :
- With all the necessary documentation in hand, and always with good manners, first talk to the clerk within a FNAC. Surely bring all kinds of glues, for example, that when an order via web can not claim there (lie). It will take the manager or the store manager.
- This person probably did not want or can help us, so we will proceed to request a claim form. In case of failure, you can call the police (who may proceed to close the establishment.)
- Once collected, you have to fill.
- pink sheet is for the establishment
- green sheet for the customer
- white sheet for local office of the OMIC , where we have to take.
- Finally, it has been suggested the option of making a claim , but it's just a waste of time and money in individual cases. If the case is not resolved before having to proceed to sue, the better will make a joint application, as having everything to gain, you may not even have monetary costs (to the lawyers are interested in making curriculum in a case as big as this).
Facts to consider
- After sending an order confirmation email, is taken as a legal link buyer-seller. Like a bill. Regardless of that payment has been made already or not.
- The legal relationship can not be solved without the consent of both parties.
- The mention of "other than typographical error" in the web of FNAC not have any legal implication . So it's simply a way to scare the buyer so they do not insist on defending their rights. Do not be fooled.
- buyers have right to the end (good resolution, good sale) process purchase and sale . An exception is the case in bad faith by the buyer (which of course must first be shown). The bad faith could be refuted by following these arguments:
- As a supposed price too low: not be considered in bad faith , as there are eg. external hard drives 500GB to 88 € ( € 0.17 GB) very price proportionally close to the 200GB Toshiba disk for 30 euros (€ 0.15 GB).
- for bulk purchase: the purchase large amounts est not necessarily related to bad f é . Especially knowing the dates happened all that many people have bought for family and friends, some have come together to save on env Io, to avoid administrative hassles, etc.
- Exite at least one legal precedent solved in less than two months . A single precedent does not guarantee anything, but it would help (much) if the FNAC continue its path through illegal means and customers are forced to take action.
- The reason why there are no customers canceled orders, others who have not received any email, others who have received two emails, etc ... is probably a strategy FNAC to minimize damage to its image as likely lose the case. To divide into several groups affected customers when the case goes to the media, the above figures are lower than if the first resolution affects all affected customers.
- In short: you the law supports customers, not the FNAC. More detailed information here , Chapter 14.
I urge
readers to write their discussions in this thread , reserving this blog to notify me of corrections / additions / errors in the data presented here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment