Re: Pc company going bust

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by samg, Sep 8, 2003.

  1. samg

    samg Guest

    samg, Sep 8, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. samg

    max Guest

    On 8 Sep 2003 18:37:45 +1200, samg <> wrote:

    >"Andrew" <> wrote in
    >news:bgT6b.5588$:
    >
    >> interesting:
    >>
    >> http://computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/UNID/BC54E6AE2D6671B1CC256D9B000
    >> 6994A !opendocument
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Interesting to see what happens to the pcs in for repair.


    I think they will be safe, as they they have only ceased there retail
    side of things. If I had a computer in for repair I may be a little
    worried, and would want to get it back ASAP before they do their
    'stocktake'. It will difficult for tehm to recover from this without
    changing their name, as they are getting a lot of publicity over this.
     
    max, Sep 8, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 18:56:51 +1200, max <>
    wrote:

    >>> http://computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/UNID/BC54E6AE2D6671B1CC256D9B000
    >>> 6994A !opendocument


    >I think they will be safe, as they they have only ceased there retail
    >side of things. If I had a computer in for repair I may be a little
    >worried, and would want to get it back ASAP before they do their
    >'stocktake'. It will difficult for tehm to recover from this without
    >changing their name, as they are getting a lot of publicity over this.


    They must have done this a few times then, they've already been
    "Tasman" "Super 5" and "Pegasus".


    --
    Kristofer Clayton (KJClayton)
    Gisborne, New Zealand
     
    Kristofer Clayton, Sep 8, 2003
    #3
  4. samg

    bAZZ Guest

    Kristofer Clayton wrote:
    > On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 18:56:51 +1200, max <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>>http://computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/UNID/BC54E6AE2D6671B1CC256D9B000
    >>>>6994A !opendocument

    >
    >
    >>I think they will be safe, as they they have only ceased there retail
    >>side of things. If I had a computer in for repair I may be a little
    >>worried, and would want to get it back ASAP before they do their
    >>'stocktake'. It will difficult for tehm to recover from this without
    >>changing their name, as they are getting a lot of publicity over this.

    >
    >
    > They must have done this a few times then, they've already been
    > "Tasman" "Super 5" and "Pegasus".
    >
    >
    > --
    > Kristofer Clayton (KJClayton)
    > Gisborne, New Zealand


    Hi Kristofer

    Were they (or COlin Brown) really Super5 at a time ?? I have a Super5
    laptop that I need a proprietry power supply for and have been searching
    all over web etc. Didn't seem to find any local stuff. Interesting if
    they were. Wonder what happened to all their old parts etc <g>.

    bAZZ
     
    bAZZ, Sep 8, 2003
    #4
  5. samg

    pass Guest

    >
    > >Interesting to see what happens to the pcs in for repair.

    >
    > I think they will be safe, as they they have only ceased there retail
    > side of things. If I had a computer in for repair I may be a little
    > worried, and would want to get it back ASAP before they do their


    And rightfully so. I had my PC in for repairs with a certain large NZ computer
    company that went broke some years ago, and they kept it and auctioned it off.
     
    pass, Sep 8, 2003
    #5
  6. samg

    T.N.O. Guest

    "pass" wrote
    > And rightfully so. I had my PC in for repairs with a certain large NZ

    computer
    > company that went broke some years ago, and they kept it and auctioned it

    off.

    Did you charge them with errr, I was going to say selling stolen goods, but
    they didn't steal them as such... umm, something.
     
    T.N.O., Sep 8, 2003
    #6
  7. samg

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > >
    > > >Interesting to see what happens to the pcs in for repair.

    > >
    > > I think they will be safe, as they they have only ceased there retail
    > > side of things. If I had a computer in for repair I may be a little
    > > worried, and would want to get it back ASAP before they do their

    >
    > And rightfully so. I had my PC in for repairs with a certain large NZ computer
    > company that went broke some years ago, and they kept it and auctioned it off.


    Only way they can do this is if you had not paid the bill, so maybe there
    is something you are not telling us...
     
    Mainlander, Sep 9, 2003
    #7
  8. samg

    Edmund Good Guest

    On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:20:58 +1200, Mainlander wrote:

    Firstly are you a lawyer - if not ask a lawyer who specializes in
    receivership. I believe that receivers take over all stock and plant of a
    firm even items are in for repair and even if no money is owed on the item.


    >The only way legally they can take goods off you is if you do not own
    >them i.e. they are on HP or you owe money on them some other way.
    >
    >If you bought a machine off some company with finance supplied by them
    >and they went into receivership, it's possible they could legally cancel
    >the finance contract and repossess the goods.
    >
    >If the goods were fully owned by you but were being serviced at the time,
    >the only means by which they can sell goods is if they have been
    >abandoned there by the owner who did not pay the bill after a certain
    >time frame.
     
    Edmund Good, Sep 9, 2003
    #8
  9. samg

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:20:58 +1200, Mainlander wrote:
    >
    > Firstly are you a lawyer - if not ask a lawyer who specializes in
    > receivership. I believe that receivers take over all stock and plant of a
    > firm even items are in for repair and even if no money is owed on the item.


    Receivers are not entitled to seize goods that belong to others. It is
    for this reason that many contracts contain a "Romalpa clause" in that
    ownership of the goods is not taken until they have been paid for.
    Receivers can't just seize something that doesn't belong to the company
    even if it is on the company's premises.
     
    Mainlander, Sep 9, 2003
    #9
  10. On 09 Sep 2003 , Mainlander wrote :

    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:20:58 +1200, Mainlander wrote:
    >>
    >> Firstly are you a lawyer - if not ask a lawyer who specializes in
    >> receivership. I believe that receivers take over all stock and plant
    >> of a firm even items are in for repair and even if no money is owed
    >> on the item.

    >
    > Receivers are not entitled to seize goods that belong to others. It is
    > for this reason that many contracts contain a "Romalpa clause" in that
    > ownership of the goods is not taken until they have been paid for.
    > Receivers can't just seize something that doesn't belong to the
    > company even if it is on the company's premises.


    Answer the man's question, Dunford, before someone else does - nastily.
    Don't dissemble.


    ARE YOU A LAWYER? Yes or no?



    --
    Nicolaas.
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Sep 9, 2003
    #10
  11. samg

    Edmund Good Guest

    On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 21:05:58 +1200, Mainlander wrote:

    I think you will find that receivers have a great deal of power which does
    include goods in for repair. I remember when Nationwide went under many years
    ago this exact problem occurred. A customer got an injunction and had the
    computer returned but then the receiver took it back on the morning of the
    auction. While it may seem unfair, the receiver is only interested in getting
    the money back for the security holder not what many be morally right. In the
    end check with a lawyer who specializes in receivership law - NZers are great
    a thinking they have rights they don't actually have, and I would not want to
    be trying to find out if I would get my computer back.

    >Receivers are not entitled to seize goods that belong to others. It is
    >for this reason that many contracts contain a "Romalpa clause" in that
    >ownership of the goods is not taken until they have been paid for.
    >Receivers can't just seize something that doesn't belong to the company
    >even if it is on the company's premises.
     
    Edmund Good, Sep 9, 2003
    #11
  12. samg

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <bjk8i4$85o$>, says...
    > On 09 Sep 2003 , Mainlander wrote :
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > says...
    > >> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:20:58 +1200, Mainlander wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Firstly are you a lawyer - if not ask a lawyer who specializes in
    > >> receivership. I believe that receivers take over all stock and plant
    > >> of a firm even items are in for repair and even if no money is owed
    > >> on the item.

    > >
    > > Receivers are not entitled to seize goods that belong to others. It is
    > > for this reason that many contracts contain a "Romalpa clause" in that
    > > ownership of the goods is not taken until they have been paid for.
    > > Receivers can't just seize something that doesn't belong to the
    > > company even if it is on the company's premises.

    >
    > Answer the man's question, Dunford, before someone else does - nastily.
    > Don't dissemble.
    >
    >
    > ARE YOU A LAWYER? Yes or no?


    Are you a pillock? Yes or no?
     
    Mainlander, Sep 9, 2003
    #12
  13. samg

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 21:05:58 +1200, Mainlander wrote:
    >
    > I think you will find that receivers have a great deal of power which does
    > include goods in for repair. I remember when Nationwide went under many years
    > ago this exact problem occurred. A customer got an injunction and had the
    > computer returned but then the receiver took it back on the morning of the
    > auction. While it may seem unfair, the receiver is only interested in getting
    > the money back for the security holder not what many be morally right. In the
    > end check with a lawyer who specializes in receivership law - NZers are great
    > a thinking they have rights they don't actually have, and I would not want to
    > be trying to find out if I would get my computer back.


    They still can't steal goods that aren't owned by the company that's in
    receivership. Next thing you'll be telling me they can sell the building
    the company is in even if it is only leased to the company.
     
    Mainlander, Sep 9, 2003
    #13
  14. samg

    ~misfit~ Guest

    "Mainlander" <*@*.*> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 21:05:58 +1200, Mainlander wrote:
    > >
    > > I think you will find that receivers have a great deal of power which

    does
    > > include goods in for repair. I remember when Nationwide went under many

    years
    > > ago this exact problem occurred. A customer got an injunction and had

    the
    > > computer returned but then the receiver took it back on the morning of

    the
    > > auction. While it may seem unfair, the receiver is only interested in

    getting
    > > the money back for the security holder not what many be morally right.

    In the
    > > end check with a lawyer who specializes in receivership law - NZers are

    great
    > > a thinking they have rights they don't actually have, and I would not

    want to
    > > be trying to find out if I would get my computer back.

    >
    > They still can't steal goods that aren't owned by the company that's in
    > receivership. Next thing you'll be telling me they can sell the building
    > the company is in even if it is only leased to the company.


    Don't be a dick man. I know of a case where it happened for sure. I
    mentioned it earlier in the thread. 'Super 5'
    --
    ~misfit~



    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 1/09/2003
     
    ~misfit~, Sep 9, 2003
    #14
  15. samg

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 21:05:58 +1200, Mainlander wrote:
    >
    > I think you will find that receivers have a great deal of power which does
    > include goods in for repair. I remember when Nationwide went under many years
    > ago this exact problem occurred. A customer got an injunction and had the
    > computer returned but then the receiver took it back on the morning of the
    > auction. While it may seem unfair, the receiver is only interested in getting
    > the money back for the security holder not what many be morally right. In the
    > end check with a lawyer who specializes in receivership law - NZers are great
    > a thinking they have rights they don't actually have, and I would not want to
    > be trying to find out if I would get my computer back.


    If this occurred then there must have been money owed on the computer to
    the company in receivership, which the receiver was entitled to recover,
    alternately they could not identify that they were the legitimate owner
    of the goods.

    Ministry of Consumer Affairs:

    Goods in for repair

    These should not be part of the receivership and the receiver will return
    them to you if they can identify the goods as yours. A serial number is
    the best form of identification. If goods are being repaired, contact the
    receiver ASAP with a complete description of your goods.
     
    Mainlander, Sep 9, 2003
    #15
  16. samg

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <K2j7b.142275$>,
    misfit@'SPAMTRAP'orcon.net.nz says...
    >
    > "Mainlander" <*@*.*> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <>,
    > > says...
    > > > On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 21:05:58 +1200, Mainlander wrote:
    > > >
    > > > I think you will find that receivers have a great deal of power which

    > does
    > > > include goods in for repair. I remember when Nationwide went under many

    > years
    > > > ago this exact problem occurred. A customer got an injunction and had

    > the
    > > > computer returned but then the receiver took it back on the morning of

    > the
    > > > auction. While it may seem unfair, the receiver is only interested in

    > getting
    > > > the money back for the security holder not what many be morally right.

    > In the
    > > > end check with a lawyer who specializes in receivership law - NZers are

    > great
    > > > a thinking they have rights they don't actually have, and I would not

    > want to
    > > > be trying to find out if I would get my computer back.

    > >
    > > They still can't steal goods that aren't owned by the company that's in
    > > receivership. Next thing you'll be telling me they can sell the building
    > > the company is in even if it is only leased to the company.

    >
    > Don't be a dick man. I know of a case where it happened for sure. I
    > mentioned it earlier in the thread. 'Super 5'


    In which case one of the following was most likely the reason:
    * Money was owing to the shop that had not been paid in respect of the
    repairs, or
    * The goods were the subject of a finance arrangement on which moneys
    were still owing to the shop, or
    * Money was owed to the shop in respect of the purchase price of the
    computer that had not been paid, or
    * The goods could not be adequately identified as belonging to the person
    in question.

    Note in particular the last clause, if the goods cannot be adequately
    identified as yours then the receiver does not have to return them.

    Receivership is always and can only ever be in respect of property owned
    by the company or organisation that is placed in receivership. A receiver
    can't seize a truck owned by a trucking company just because it happens
    to be on the premises delivering goods at the time that the receivership
    is executed.
     
    Mainlander, Sep 9, 2003
    #16
  17. On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 22:11:32 +1200, Edmund Good wrote:

    > On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 21:05:58 +1200, Mainlander wrote:
    >
    > I think you will find that receivers have a great deal of power which does
    > include goods in for repair. I remember when Nationwide went under many years
    > ago this exact problem occurred. A customer got an injunction and had the
    > computer returned but then the receiver took it back on the morning of the
    > auction.


    I'm aware of a similar case where a computer supplier was renting Pcs to a
    company which went bust and the receiver sold them.

    They sued, the receiver lost and had to pay up
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Sep 9, 2003
    #17
  18. In article <Wab7b.141856$>,
    misfit@'SPAMTRAP'orcon.net.nz says...

    > Not true. I had a friend who had a similar experience with "Super 5' or
    > whatever they were called. The recievers grabbed everything in the shop and
    > sold it off. He went to 'Fair Go', can't remember the exact outcome but he
    > got *some* of his money back.
    > --
    > ~misfit~


    Now that has me scratching my head: a.f.a.i.k. Super5 was Pegasus
    Electronics Hamilton rebadging imported gear, Panasonic printers for
    instance (I had a Super 5 modem too, with really bad support experience
    but that is another story) and Pegasus Electronics mutated into the
    PC Company, again a.f.a.i.k.

    I made a lot of money off the PC company - or shall we say their shoddily
    configured systems, with substandard components that failed quickly, or
    weren't set up properly (e.g. computers shipped with a 43 Hz refreshrate)
    and I was called in by locals to get these lemons going. My opinion of
    them is good riddance. Colin Brown may be a nice and knowledgable chap,
    but his company does/did not make good computers i.m.o. and a lot of the
    (non- or useless) service stories I got to hear are appalling.

    Having said that, of course I probably wouldn't know of any of the
    thousands of happy owners :) but I felt they were hugely overrepresented
    in amongst the lemons I had to try and make go.

    -P.

    --

    Please note munged reply address - delete the obvious ....
     
    Peter Huebner, Sep 9, 2003
    #18
  19. samg

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Peter Huebner" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <Wab7b.141856$>,
    > misfit@'SPAMTRAP'orcon.net.nz says...
    >
    > > Not true. I had a friend who had a similar experience with "Super 5' or
    > > whatever they were called. The recievers grabbed everything in the shop

    and
    > > sold it off. He went to 'Fair Go', can't remember the exact outcome but

    he
    > > got *some* of his money back.
    > > --
    > > ~misfit~

    >
    > Now that has me scratching my head: a.f.a.i.k. Super5 was Pegasus
    > Electronics Hamilton rebadging imported gear, Panasonic printers for
    > instance (I had a Super 5 modem too, with really bad support experience
    > but that is another story) and Pegasus Electronics mutated into the
    > PC Company, again a.f.a.i.k.
    >
    > I made a lot of money off the PC company - or shall we say their shoddily
    > configured systems, with substandard components that failed quickly, or
    > weren't set up properly (e.g. computers shipped with a 43 Hz refreshrate)
    > and I was called in by locals to get these lemons going. My opinion of
    > them is good riddance. Colin Brown may be a nice and knowledgable chap,
    > but his company does/did not make good computers i.m.o. and a lot of the
    > (non- or useless) service stories I got to hear are appalling.
    >
    > Having said that, of course I probably wouldn't know of any of the
    > thousands of happy owners :) but I felt they were hugely overrepresented
    > in amongst the lemons I had to try and make go.
    >
    > -P.


    The real proof is in the pudding, you poor fool. Throwing round words like
    "substandard components" is very easy for any idiot to do. The real part
    for a wanker like yourself is to start naming all of these "substandard
    components" that you're claiming. At a guess INTEL & AMD would be at the
    top of your list of piss poor components. Along with the very unpopular and
    hardly ever used Sound Blastrer cards, along with Nvidia video cards. You
    must've been pissed off to see the PC Company offering more RAM as standard
    than most other Brands of computers ever were - 128MB against 64 some years
    ago - then 256MB against 128MB - and even now very few models of PC systems
    have a Gig of RAM along with other good specs for around 3 grand. Also
    speaking of RAM, the PC Company was offering DDR RAM while others were still
    selling systems with SDM RAM, sonny.

    Poor general public advertising has cost the PC Company over the last year.
    The website is no good for those that don't know about it, and even worse
    for those that haven't even got a computer.

    You're just pleased to see some very large competition move backwards, or
    completely out of the way altogether. Colin is a nice, but his head was up
    in the clouds when it came to any suggestions over any problems and the way
    some of the service was done.

    Also Charlie, if you actually made a lot of money off the PC Company, then
    you should be one of the saddest pathetic little creatures around to see
    such good business damn near disappear right before your greedy little eyes.
    With any luck such a big financial loss might even put a sour little prick
    like you completely out of business, loser.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Sep 10, 2003
    #19
  20. samg

    Col^ Guest

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:30:28 +1200, "E. Scrooge" <
    (remove eye)> wrote:


    >
    >The real proof is in the pudding, you poor fool. Throwing round words like
    >"substandard components" is very easy for any idiot to do. The real part
    >for a wanker like yourself is to start naming all of these "substandard
    >components" that you're claiming. At a guess INTEL & AMD would be at the
    >top of your list of piss poor components. Along with the very unpopular and
    >hardly ever used Sound Blastrer cards, along with Nvidia video cards. You
    >must've been pissed off to see the PC Company offering more RAM as standard
    >than most other Brands of computers ever were - 128MB against 64 some years
    >ago - then 256MB against 128MB - and even now very few models of PC systems
    >have a Gig of RAM along with other good specs for around 3 grand. Also
    >speaking of RAM, the PC Company was offering DDR RAM while others were still
    >selling systems with SDM RAM, sonny.
    >
    >Poor general public advertising has cost the PC Company over the last year.
    >The website is no good for those that don't know about it, and even worse
    >for those that haven't even got a computer.
    >
    >You're just pleased to see some very large competition move backwards, or
    >completely out of the way altogether. Colin is a nice, but his head was up
    >in the clouds when it came to any suggestions over any problems and the way
    >some of the service was done.
    >
    >Also Charlie, if you actually made a lot of money off the PC Company, then
    >you should be one of the saddest pathetic little creatures around to see
    >such good business damn near disappear right before your greedy little eyes.
    >With any luck such a big financial loss might even put a sour little prick
    >like you completely out of business, loser.
    >
    >E. Scrooge
    >


    YOU BOUGHT A COMPUTER FROM THE PC COMPANY HUH ?. lmfao ..

    --

    Col

    Col's law.
    Thinly sliced cabbage..
     
    Col^, Sep 10, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. MCSE or Bust

    , Jan 5, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    835
    The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere
    Jan 6, 2004
  2. np

    is my modem bust?

    np, Aug 29, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    573
    paul s
    Aug 30, 2003
  3. Waterperson77
    Replies:
    170
    Views:
    3,191
    Richard C.
    Mar 1, 2004
  4. max

    Re: Pc company going bust

    max, Sep 8, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    343
    Julian Visch
    Sep 9, 2003
  5. E. Scrooge

    Re: Pc company going bust

    E. Scrooge, Sep 10, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    485
    Edmund Good
    Sep 12, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page