«

On Thu, 12 May 2005 13:24:48 +1200, EMB <> wrote:

>CSE wrote:
>
>> Sorry you are totaly wrong, as the court did not see it that way, they had all
>> the facts before them..
>
>Roger
>
>If I understand correctly you have already stated that the other party
>failed to turn up to the hearing - that's an automatic win for you. As
>such the facts didn't come into the decision but had there been a proper
>hearing the outcome could have been significantly different.
>
>--
>EMB



If they had been there and not just wrote there submissions, I would have one
it right there, but that is just my opinion..

When you spend some $6000-7000 With a computer shop, I would expect they
would stand by you, and replace a $80 PSU..

They just dug there toes in and stated that the CGA had no bearing into the
case, and was not covered be the CGA, the court stated that this was not
so..

On , , Tue, 10 May 2005 19:48:12 -0400, Re: Is it true?,
"Impossible" <> wrote:

>Point is, you have to have a good reason that will stand up in court.
>Shop owners can't simply declare someone to be a "trouble maker'
>because they happen to assert their rights as a consumer. If someone
>breaks the law, say by shoplifting, then yes -- courts will probably
>support the idea of banning them.

With shoplifters you merely have to take out a Trespass Order
against them, it prevents them from entering for a certain
period. It doesn't cost anything and is legally enforceable.
--
"You look a little shy; let me introduce you to that
leg of mutton" said the Red Queen.
"Alice - Mutton; Mutton - Alice."
Lewis Carroll

On Wed, 11 May 2005 20:34:56 GMT, Bruce Sinclair wrote:

> In article <64uz2kibb4i6$.>, Brendan <> wrote:
>>On Wed, 11 May 2005 00:14:39 GMT, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>> In article <I_ednYwihvj5yBzfRVn->, "Impossible"
>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [7 quoted lines suppressed]
>>>
>>> Yes indeed. But a court will not order a shop to sell something to someone.
>>> There have been a few court cases about prices and/or terms IIRC .. but they
>>> cannot force someone to sell something to someone else if they do not want
>>> to.
>>
>>But if a complainant tells the court you would not sell to them due to some
>>prejudice, the absence of legitimate reasons on YOUR part would tend to
>>substantiate THEIR complaint.
>
> Quite possibly.
>
>>Such prejudices are illegal.
>
> Depending on what they are, yes. I have always wanted to be a shop keeper so
> I could ban smokers ... but sadly that joy will never be mine. Perfectly
> legal.
>
>>Should you then produce your blacklist as reason you the have TWO problems:
>>1. They may then lay charges due to breaches of the privacy act.
>>2. They may charges of defamation.
>>Or both.
>
> They may indeed.
>
>>In the case of 1, you really have no defense. The existence of your list is
>>proof of the breach.
>
> Um ... not at all sure on that. Depends doesn't it if the list is written or
> verbal (for example).

Don't think that matters as far as the law is concerned - the privacy act,
specifically.

The fact you have the information without permission of the owner of that
information (the complainant) is a breech of the act in itself. Also the
person who told you is in breech.

Additionally, should any of it prove to be incorrect or unproveable, you
might also be done for defamation. And the 'honestly held belief' defense
would not work, as you have to show reasons WHY you thought it was true,
and a bit of paper or word of mouth is unlikely to convince the judge.

It's a bit of a bastard in a way - I'd like to know who to avoid in my own
business. But on the other hand, I do not want some arsehole with a
personal grudge using such a list to annoy me.

What some companies do, I think, is have a clause in the contract or maybe
a sign prominently displayed explaining that failure to pay etc will result
in your name being displayed. Not sure how legal it is, but atleast you
could argue it consituted an agreement with the information holder. Could
get complicated though - and therefore expensive (in lawyer time).

--

.... Brendan

5775 +(8003)- [X]

* ab is away - gone, if anyone talks in the next 25 minutes as me it's bm
being an asshole -
<ab> HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS


Note: All my comments are copyright 12/05/2005 4:42:30 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.

> What about online sales. A certain website I was at yesterday had a hiccup
> with a lot of their online pricing. Really screwed up badly. $2,220.00 items
> at 2.20 !! and some for 0.00 !!!! I wanted to buy a small 50.00 item but was
> tempted to chuck in 10*2,000 items for 2 bucks each and proceed to checkout

Check to make sure they also are displaying E&OE text anywhere on their
site. Errors and Ommissions Excepted. Means if some schmuck puts the
decimal point in the wrong place, they are still covered.

Unless the order is processed and bill to a credit card, or is fully
paid. Then all bets are off.

On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:35:14 +1200, CSE <>
wrote:

>On Thu, 12 May 2005 13:24:48 +1200, EMB <> wrote:
>
>>CSE wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry you are totaly wrong, as the court did not see it that way, they had all
>>> the facts before them..
>>
>>Roger
>>
>>If I understand correctly you have already stated that the other party
>>failed to turn up to the hearing - that's an automatic win for you. As
>>such the facts didn't come into the decision but had there been a proper
>>hearing the outcome could have been significantly different.
>>
>>--
>>EMB
>
>
>
>If they had been there and not just wrote there submissions, I would have one
>it right there, but that is just my opinion..
>
>When you spend some $6000-7000 With a computer shop, I would expect they
>would stand by you, and replace a $80 PSU..
>
>They just dug there toes in and stated that the CGA had no bearing into the
>case, and was not covered be the CGA, the court stated that this was not
>so..

In such a cutthroat industry as computing the shops can't afford to
meet their CGA obligations

How many more people just dont bother to make claims

On Sun, 15 May 2005 00:20:48 +1200, "-=[Waylon Smithers]=-"
<lifestyles_choice@springfield_nuclear_plant.com > wrote:

>> What about online sales. A certain website I was at yesterday had a hiccup
>> with a lot of their online pricing. Really screwed up badly. $2,220.00 items
>> at 2.20 !! and some for 0.00 !!!! I wanted to buy a small 50.00 item but was
>> tempted to chuck in 10*2,000 items for 2 bucks each and proceed to checkout
>
>Check to make sure they also are displaying E&OE text anywhere on their
>site. Errors and Ommissions Excepted. Means if some schmuck puts the
>decimal point in the wrong place, they are still covered.

I doubt that such a clause is legal any more

"FreedomChooser" <> wrote in message

<snip>

> In such a cutthroat industry as computing the shops can't afford to
> meet their CGA obligations
....
I hope this attitude doesn't filter through to the transport industry -
taxi's saying they are in a cut-throat industry and can't afford to provide
roadworthy vehicles - or Stagecoach - or Air New Zealand.

Or food shops ignoring health standards because margins are too low and
compliance is too expensive.....

Business, like everyone else, are expected to comply with the relevant laws.
The difficulty with Consumer Guarantees Act, and to a lessor extent, Fair
Trading Act, is they are self policing - the Commerce Commission doesn't
follow up. leaving disgruntled consumers to take the suppliers to Court - or
the Disputes Tribunal..

The other problem is that most Consumer Guarantees Act issues are dealt with
at Disputes Tribunal, which is private, and so outcomes are unlikely to be
reported.

having said that, a surprising number of Computer related CGA issues do end
up in the Disputes Tribunal. I say surprising, because for a disputed
amount of $100 or so, the $30.00 filing fee, a couple of hours off work, and
preparation time make the exercise marginally worthwhile.

I confess to just writing such problems off and shopping elsewhere.

Charlie

In article <>, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
(snip)
>Yeah. In my case this dick's wife had abused my fiance's naivety so I went
>to an interview and insisted on sitting in. She called her husband (who is
>an ex-cop) and he threw us both out of the shop, being as intimidating as he
>possibly could, the whole spitting-while-he's-talking thing. I went out to
>my car and procceeded to get my 'baccy out to roll a ciggy to calm my nerves
>and he rapped on the window and told me to get the hell out of his car-park.
>He was only in his early 40's and obviously had an anger problem. It's no
>wonder he was an *ex*-cop. His wife was ****-scared of men too, that's why
>my presence (albeit very passive) caused her to call her husband. I wonder
>why she's so scared of men?

Perhaps because of her husband ?

Bruce


-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
- Ambrose Bierce

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

In article <>, Brendan <> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 May 2005 20:34:56 GMT, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> In article <64uz2kibb4i6$.>, Brendan
> <> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 11 May 2005 00:14:39 GMT, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>>> In article <I_ednYwihvj5yBzfRVn->, "Impossible"
>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [7 quoted lines suppressed]
>>>>
>>>> Yes indeed. But a court will not order a shop to sell something to someone.
>
>>>> There have been a few court cases about prices and/or terms IIRC .. but
> they
>>>> cannot force someone to sell something to someone else if they do not want
>>>> to.
>>>
>>>But if a complainant tells the court you would not sell to them due to some
>>>prejudice, the absence of legitimate reasons on YOUR part would tend to
>>>substantiate THEIR complaint.
>>
>> Quite possibly.
>>
>>>Such prejudices are illegal.
>>
>> Depending on what they are, yes. I have always wanted to be a shop keeper so
>> I could ban smokers ... but sadly that joy will never be mine. Perfectly
>> legal.
>>
>>>Should you then produce your blacklist as reason you the have TWO problems:
>>>1. They may then lay charges due to breaches of the privacy act.
>>>2. They may charges of defamation.
>>>Or both.
>>
>> They may indeed.
>>
>>>In the case of 1, you really have no defense. The existence of your list is
>>>proof of the breach.
>>
>> Um ... not at all sure on that. Depends doesn't it if the list is written or
>> verbal (for example).
>
>Don't think that matters as far as the law is concerned - the privacy act,
>specifically.

Hint. Do not try to get anything "enforced" under this act. It appears to be
all talk and zero action. Pity.

>The fact you have the information without permission of the owner of that
>information (the complainant) is a breech of the act in itself. Also the
>person who told you is in breech.

Perhaps. But you might have to prove that ... ad this might be difficult
indeed.

>Additionally, should any of it prove to be incorrect or unproveable, you
>might also be done for defamation. And the 'honestly held belief' defense
>would not work, as you have to show reasons WHY you thought it was true,
>and a bit of paper or word of mouth is unlikely to convince the judge.

Word of mouth from a trusted source would (or should).

>It's a bit of a bastard in a way - I'd like to know who to avoid in my own
>business. But on the other hand, I do not want some arsehole with a
>personal grudge using such a list to annoy me.

Indeed ... but then would you want to deal with someone that would do that ?


>What some companies do, I think, is have a clause in the contract or maybe
>a sign prominently displayed explaining that failure to pay etc will result
>in your name being displayed. Not sure how legal it is, but atleast you
>could argue it consituted an agreement with the information holder. Could
>get complicated though - and therefore expensive (in lawyer time).

Yep. Much "justice" happens like that. It's too expensive to get it so we
get ripped off instead.



Bruce


-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
- Ambrose Bierce

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

In article <pan.2005.05.08.11.44.28.871396@TRACKER>,
says...
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 23:38:24 +1200, Craig Sutton wrote:
>
> > That a well known poster in this group has been banned from a certain shop
> > in Wgtn???
>
> Which well-known poster, and which shop?
>
>
> Bling Bling
>
>
Weird - Teranews appears to have had a hiccup and fed me 10,541 posts on
nz.comp way back to 2005.

What's happened to Lennnier (Bling bling) anuway?