XtraVision refuse to Sell to Xbox Ones without purchase of an additional game

ThirdMan

Hi. There's a thread covering this topic in the Games forum. Basically, Xtra-Vision are refusing to sell pre-ordered consoles unless you purchase an additional controller or game, even if you have paid for the console in full. Something about this doesn't sound right. Surely the pre-order agreement (and payment) constitutes a contract? Therefore this amounts to a unilateral change of the terms?


Note: I have posted a link to this thread for the readers of the Games forum, but I am not asking for legal advice. I just want to find out what the law is in this area. Thanks.

r3nu4l

I'm not an XBox user but the legal aspects of this interest me so I'm subscribing to this thread

ThirdMan

The current line of argument seems to be that it's a Microsoft policy that Xtra-Vision have no control over. If that's the case shouldn't Xtra-Vision have made that clear from the outset?

NotorietyH

It seems that they're just saying it's Microsoft directed as an excuse, which doesn't appear to be the case. They have the same thing planned for the PS4. It would seem odd, as there isn't a single other store selling the Xbox one that is doing it.

The reason they would be doing it is because the profit margins on actual consoles is tiny, and businesses make their money from games and accessories. Even for Sony and Microsoft they make little or no money on the consoles, making a loss is normal practice as they make their money on games. I think with the PS4, Sony make a loss on the console but once someone buys a game or a PS Plus subscription they make a profit. It doesn't matter to Microsoft or Sony where the game or accessory is bought though, so I don't see why they would make specific stores force games and accessories on customers. They assume you're going to buy them anyway. This is just Xtravision trying to avoid the backlash by blaming Microsoft. Sony and Microsoft might encourage them to offer games and accessories bundled, but I doubt they'd go so far as to force customers to do it because at they end of the day they want you to get the console. The reason they sell they at a loss is to get the install base as big as possible as quickly as possible.

Gatling

According to some sources Microsoft and Sony have nothing to do with this at all ,doesn't make sense they push it to just two retailers

chops018

Of course they can't If you 'agreed' to buy the console for an 'x' amount, and they accepted, and you provided consideration, then they can't go back on this.

To be honest, I don't know what they are at doing this to people what have pre-ordered and have already given money. Fair enough for the people coming in and looking for Xbox one's off the shelf, they can tell them they have to get 10 games with the console to buy it.

Bepolite

Congratulations on the 10,000th thread on this! I think every forum on this site now has a thread on this.

As already stated in the Consumer issues forum. Contracts are subject to Terms and Conditions. Lets assume Xtravision's T&Cs dont cover them 15 different ways on this.

Contracts can, and frequently are, broken. In that case damages would be assessed and are likely to be on a par with what you paid. Xtravison were returning deposits to people who didn't wish to take them up on the new offer. If you want to see if you'd get any more take them to small claims court.

chops018

Bepolite wrote: »

Congratulations on the 10,000th thread on this! I think every forum on this site now has a thread on this.

As already stated in the Consumer issues forum. Contracts are subject to Terms and Conditions. Lets assume Xtravision's T&Cs dont cover them 15 different ways on this.

Contracts can, and frequently are, broken. In that case damages would be assessed and are likely to be on a par with what you paid. Xtravison were returning deposits to people who didn't wish to take them up on the new offer. If you want to see if you'd get any more take them to small claims court.

I could be wrong, T and C's are usually solid, but, not a chance if there was an offer, acceptance and consideration.... surely?

Xenji

Gatling wrote: »

According to some sources Microsoft and Sony have nothing to do with this at all ,doesn't make sense they push it to just two retailers

They don't, had two friends burned by this and both said that was the line they were told to feed customers, but it was a decision that came from head office.

Bepolite

chops018 wrote: »

I could be wrong, T and C's are usually solid, but, not a chance if there was an offer, acceptance and consideration.... surely?

I suspect the T&C's probably have some caveat about sales not being final until delivery etc. even if they don't I suspect damages for breach of contract would be minor at best and that only a very small number of people, if anyone, would take it to court.

This has been happening on console launches and restricted stock since Aristotle bought his first tablet I'm not sure why it's coming as such a surprise to people.

Pat Mustard

It may not be worth getting a solicitor involved for the amount of money involved for a single XBox One.

So, there's the Small Claims Court. The small claims registrar would decide.

One small claim is not going upset Xtra Vision. But a thousand of them may.

zenno

The Mustard wrote: »

It may not be worth getting a solicitor involved for the amount of money involved for a single XBox One.

So, there's the Small Claims Court. The small claims registrar would decide.

One small claim is not going upset Xtra Vision. But a thousand of them may.

Well this is why businesses chance their arm, because they know that nobody will forward a summons to them. Why most Irish folk think it is too much hassle to defend their rights as a consumer in this country I will never understand. The usual saying is...Ah sure it's a waste of time, sure what can be done, no point in it, I'll just forget it and that will be the end of it.

Folk should wake up and put the full weight of consumer law to these dodgy businesses, take them to the courts, and they will think twice about dodgy practices in future, but sit back and do nothing ? then they will do the same.

Bepolite

zenno wrote: »

Well this is why businesses chance their arm, because they know that nobody will forward a summons to them. Why most Irish folk think it is too much hassle to defend their rights as a consumer in this country I will never understand. The usual saying is...Ah sure it's a waste of time, sure what can be done, no point in it, I'll just forget it and that will be the end of it.

Folk should wake up and put the full weight of consumer law to these dodgy businesses, take them to the courts, and they will think twice about dodgy practices in future, but sit back and do nothing ? then they will do the same.

The full weight is likely to be a refund of the amount paid for the deposit, which they are giving back in all instances anyway.

Can someone please let me know what all the fuss is about? I'm sure there's maybe 1% of genuine cases where little Johnny had saved only enough for the manufacturers bundle but in all seriousness who wasn't going to buy an extra controller for the thing anyway?

zenno

Bepolite wrote: »

The full weight is likely to be a refund of the amount paid for the deposit, which they are giving back in all instances anyway.

Can someone please let me know what all the fuss is about? I'm sure there's maybe 1% of genuine cases where little Johnny had saved only enough for the manufacturers bundle but in all seriousness who wasn't going to buy an extra controller for the thing anyway?

You just don't seem to understand the basic setting of this particular problem do you. You tried this on the other thread. Goodbye.

Bepolite

zenno wrote: »

You just don't seem to understand the basic setting of this particular problem do you. You tried this on the other thread. Goodbye.

Given I worked in Games retail for ten years and did every console launch from the PS2 slim to the various DSs I understand it perfectly. I just don't think you like people disagreeing with your little pocket of moral outrage. Thats fine I didn't hijack the thread in the Games forums, but if you're going to come here I'm afraid there is going to be a bit of a reality check and logical discussions of all sides.

N00b :P

Carawaystick

I don't know what the t&c's of the preorder was but I'd be looking at sections 41/43 of the consumer protection act, for criminal rather than civil satisfaction

Pat Mustard

Carawaystick wrote: »

I don't know what the t&c's of the preorder was but I'd be looking at sections 41/43 of the consumer protection act, for criminal rather than civil satisfaction

Interesting. People could complain to the Consumer Protection Agency.

Bepolite

Probably falls under Section 53 as well.

hullaballoo

I'd be looking at unfair terms in consumer contacts tbh.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/si/0027.html

Bepolite

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'd be looking at unfair terms in consumer contacts tbh.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/si/0027.html

Would they apply though given Xtravision were trying to breach the contract? I'm unclear as to what remedy they would provide, given what people wanted was the item sans additional item.

hullaballoo

Bepolite wrote: »

Would they apply though given Xtravision were trying to breach the contract? I'm unclear as to what remedy they would provide, given what people wanted was the item sans additional item.

I'm not sure we're on the same page and that's probably due to my failing to reply properly.

What I think is that the company is standing over a totally unlawful position. I cannot think of a single principle of contracts that justifies what they are trying to do.

I'm open for correction but the whole thing is ludicrous froma legal perspective.

Bepolite

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'm not sure we're on the same page and that's probably due to my failing to reply properly.

What I think is that the company is standing over a totally unlawful position. I cannot think of a single principle of contracts that justifies what they are trying to do.

I'm not agreeing with what they're doing, however I can see it from the other side. It's not really relevant to the legal discussion so it can be left to one side. From the point of view of contracts simpliciter surely its a basic tenant of contract law that you can breach a contract and the remedy is damages? I realise that consumer contracts are afforded greater protection however.

I'm not sure how unfair contract terms would apply given the contract has been (wrongly of course) breached. I am of course open to correction. I think Carraway has hit the nail on the head that the CPA is the correct way to go about trying to get satisfaction.

I'm sorry that I may come across as rather cynical about all of this but what the publishers are going to get up to after all the bricks and mortar stores are gone puts this in perspective for me. Xtravision / HMW are purely trading on the back of this console launch and once they've got as much out of it as they can they will be gone again. I'll give Gamestop a few more years but I don;t expect they'll do another generation of launches. This will eventually be played out in a anti-trust case that will make the Microsoft cases look like small potatoes.

ThirdMan

Bepolite wrote: »

Can someone please let me know what all the fuss is about? I'm sure there's maybe 1% of genuine cases where little Johnny had saved only enough for the manufacturers bundle but in all seriousness who wasn't going to buy an extra controller for the thing anyway?

The problem is that once again a million pound company has put the boot in on the Irish consumer. It doesn't matter whether it's little Johnny or anyone else. If I've handed over 500 quid for a day one console, I should be entitled to it. I shouldn't be strong-armed into forking out a further 70. The fact that I might wish to pick up a second controller or game at a later state is irrelevant. An agreement was in place between me and the retailer, and they've changed the terms of that agreement because it suits their bottom line. Put aside your smug little attitude and ask yourself whether that's acceptable.

pillphil

What would have happened if a group of people refused xboxs without an extra game just walked around the counter and took them?
Is that theft?

Bepolite

ThirdMan wrote: »

The problem is that once again a million pound company has put the boot in on the Irish consumer. It doesn't matter whether it's little Johnny or anyone else. If I've handed over 500 quid for a day one console, I should be entitled to it. I shouldn't be strong-armed into forking out a further 70. The fact that I might wish to pick up a second controller or game at a later state is irrelevant. An agreement was in place between me and the retailer, and they've changed the terms of that agreement because it suits their bottom line. Put aside your smug little attitude and ask yourself whether that's acceptable.

I'd ask you to consider whether you want there to be bricks and mortar stores in the future? The fact is they can't go through each customer on launch asking would you like this, would you like that. They're going to have upwards of 100 people to serve and a need, not a desire, to make a profit on the machines. I can guarantee you I know exactly what's happened as regard the communication from their Head Office as well. It will have been filtered down to the point that store management will have essentially been told, want a job next week - sell x number of accessories.

Now if you'd put your faux sense of moral outrage aside for a sec and ask yourself whether it's worth all this fuss. A mass shooting in the states we get a thread in after hours, this we've got threads in Games, Consumer Issues, Legal discussion and probably half a dozen other places.

Now do I find it acceptable no not really, am I surprised, no to that as well. I can however divorce myself from the emotion of it which is something you don't seem to be able to do. I still don't understand what all the fuss is about. If you don't like it don't shop there again, you won't have a choice in that in a few months anyway - it will be gone.

I reiterate I don't find this sort of business practice acceptable, but it warrants a proportionate response. The mad thing is in three weeks 90% of the people that said never again will be back in there. If people actually did stop shopping somewhere that gave crap service, we'd actually start to develop a decent service culture in this country.

Okay - my bad for dragging it off topic by asking what the fuss was about. I'm a gamer myself so I know how invested kids (of all ages) get. Can we get back to a legal discussion?

Bepolite

pillphil wrote: »

What would have happened if a group of people refused xboxs without an extra game just walked around the counter and took them?
Is that theft?

No, there are various elements to theft and one is acting dishonestly. The issue would be if that portion was over come it would be a burglary and not a theft with more severe penalties.

Pat Mustard

pillphil wrote: »

What would have happened if a group of people refused xboxs without an extra game just walked around the counter and took them?
Is that theft?

Just because somebody has paid for an XBox, does not mean that they own the XBox on display behind the counter.

I imagine that it would be likely that the guards would be called to investigate theft, in that instance.

pillphil

I didn't think it'd be legal, I'd be damn tempted if it was me though.

Now if you'd put your faux sense of moral outrage aside for a sec and ask yourself whether it's worth all this fuss. A mass shooting in the states we get a thread in after hours, this we've got threads in Games, Consumer Issues, Legal discussion and probably half a dozen other places.

I dunno, a mass shooting usually ends with an arrest or a suicide. Are xtravision going to receive any punishment for this? I doubt it.
And it's not like it doesn't belong in any of those forums. If it turns up in motors, you'll have a point.

I'm pretty pissed off about it and it doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever.

Bepolite

pillphil wrote: »

I didn't think it'd be legal, I'd be damn tempted if it was me though.

It would be ill advised but there's plenty of similar situations where people have got off. I'm just trying to increase the market for legal services :pac: Also you asked specifically about theft, which it isn't IMHO - there is going to be other issues such as trespass and probably assault on anyone trying to stop you.

pillphil wrote: »

I dunno, a mass shooting usually ends with an arrest or a suicide. Are xtravision going to receive and punishment for this? I doubt it.
And it's not like it doesn't belong in any of those forums. If it turns up in motors, you'll have a point.

Aye point taken, and it was ill advised to rattle the cage - I wish people would put things into perspective and take the punishment into their own hands. Boycott - you don't even need to forgo the console - buy it, never go there again. You'll have made them about €2 on the console and €5 on the controller - that won't keep them afloat long.

pillphil wrote: »

I'm pretty pissed off about it and it doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever.

You'll be even more pissed off when the only way you'll be able to get Battlefield 9 is via Origin for Xbox 2.0 and it's €99.99. But then I'm dragging this OT again sorry.

troyzer

Bepolite wrote: »

Given I worked in Games retail for ten years and did every console launch from the PS2 slim to the various DSs I understand it perfectly. I just don't think you like people disagreeing with your little pocket of moral outrage. Thats fine I didn't hijack the thread in the Games forums, but if you're going to come here I'm afraid there is going to be a bit of a reality check and logical discussions of all sides.

N00b :P

I'm sure you've worked in games retail. Maybe you worked for GAME? Maybe you noticed that they went bust in Ireland. Why? Because an increasing amount of people want to purchase their games online or digitally, that's just a fact. On the launch of the PS2 it was obvious that you were going to buy a game with it. Now it isn't, a lot of people are downloading or getting them off Amazon or even just waiting because the consoles come with free games. In the case of the Xbox One, it comes with Forza or FIFA. And if you have a PS4 you've almost certainly got access to the free games on PlayStation Plus. That's not even taking into consideration that Xtra-Vision's prices for Xbox One and PS4 games are about ten to fifteen euro more than they are online. There are loads of reasons why you wouldn't want to buy a game in Xtra-Vision. It's like buying an iPod and being told to buy a CD. Fair enough, there's no point having one without the music and a CD would definitely allow you to start up your library. But you could also go with iTunes, buy the CD in another shop, online etc. Fact is, you don't see this happening in any other sector except the gaming industry. Xtra-Vision are deliberately taking advantage of the short supply. But you are technically right, for a lot of people this DOES make absolutely no difference.

doublej

Before answering the OP, can anyone tell me if the price being asked by xtravision for the additional products are the same as everywhere else?

troyzer

doublej wrote: »

Before answering the OP, can anyone tell me if the price being asked by xtravision for the additional products are the same as everywhere else?

Not a chance, Dead Rising 3 is 70 euro in HMV and Xtra-Vision which are now one and the same apparentely and 55.95 on Amazon including free delivery. It's not even close.

Should also say that Amazon are also guaranteeing delivery on release. So if you pre-ordered Battlefield 4 for the PS4 it would both be cheaper than Xtra-Vision and you would still have it on Friday morning. There are no advantages at all to buying in a brick and mortar store.

I'd love to know what legal rights we have here.

doublej

Xteavision cannot insist that you purchase additional products that would cost more, this would be considered to be an unfair commercial practice, This would be if the customer had paid a deposit for the product without having been made aware of these additional purchase requirements.
If the company wishes to take deposits for a product that is not distributed exclusively by them ( in that there is a competitive market) and states that the product can only be supplied on the basis of making an additional purchase of a specified product that would not be unfair in so far as the customer was given the choice to deal or not in advance of a purchase.
The NCA should be advising Xtra vision that their actions are in breach of Consumer legislation. This may seem extraordinary but they cannot be forced to complete the deal but there would be consequences if they don't.
Contact NCAto get the ball rolling and both Conor Pope Irish Times Pricewatch column/ Aideen Sheehan Irish Independent to increase the pressure upon xtravision to behave fairly.

ThirdMan

Bepolite wrote: »

I'd ask you to consider whether you want there to be bricks and mortar stores in the future? The fact is they can't go through each customer on launch asking would you like this, would you like that.

People should allow themselves to be ripped-off so they can have stores to be ripped-off in? I'm not sure I'm with you on that one. Either way, no other 'bricks and mortar' stores are doing this so it's a non-issue. And there was no need to ask people what they wanted on an individual basis. If it's a blanket 'policy' then letting people know about it form the start would have been enough.

Bepolite wrote: »

Now if you'd put your faux sense of moral outrage aside for a sec and ask yourself whether it's worth all this fuss. A mass shooting in the states we get a thread in after hours, this we've got threads in Games, Consumer Issues, Legal discussion and probably half a dozen other places.

Faux sense of moral outrage? And yet you refer to the ubiquitous 'mass shooting in the States' in the very next sentence. People don't live objective lives. I don't and you don't. Be honest with yourself

Bepolite wrote: »

I still don't understand what all the fuss is about.

Fair enough.

Bepolite

ThirdMan wrote: »

People should allow themselves to be ripped-off so they can have stores to be ripped-off in? I'm not sure I'm with you on that one. Either way, no other 'bricks and mortar' stores are doing this so it's a non-issue. And there was no need to ask people what they wanted on an individual basis. If it's a blanket 'policy' then letting people know about it form the start would have been enough.

All the B&Ms have done this in the past, either through the stores themselves or through 'bundles' put together by their Head Office. The manufacturers and publishers do this themselves also. I'd reiterate I don't agree with what they're doing I'm just find it all so predictable, and frustrating that Irish consumers will let them get away with it by continuing to shop there.

I do take your point that it was the cheek of doing on the day which is causing the frustration and my posting style seems like borderline trolling - I'm afraid I'm just flippant by nature it was not my intention to offend.

It's doubly frustrating for me as even in the larger stores if they'd got someone to ring the pre-orders and sell the accessories and games to people voluntarily they'd have sold way more than one per machine, and people would having been posting (in far fewer numbers) about how great the service was. It always worked for me.

ThirdMan wrote: »

Faux sense of moral outrage? And yet you refer to the ubiquitous 'mass shooting in the States' in the very next sentence. People don't live objective lives. I don't and you don't. Be honest with yourself.

Hyperbole on both sides I think.

Bepolite

troyzer wrote: »

I'm sure you've worked in games retail. Maybe you worked for GAME? Maybe you noticed that they went bust in Ireland. Why?

I worked for two or three of the major games retailers in a couple of different capacities. Terms of my parole preclude me for mentioning which ones. GAME went bust because of the acquisition of GameStation, they pulled out of Ireland as the business was too small and too complicated to keep as a going concern and would detract from the sale of the business once restructured. Several stores were profitable.

troyzer wrote: »

Because an increasing amount of people want to purchase their games online or digitally, that's just a fact. On the launch of the PS2 it was obvious that you were going to buy a game with it. Now it isn't, a lot of people are downloading or getting them off Amazon or even just waiting because the consoles come with free games. In the case of the Xbox One, it comes with Forza or FIFA.

Now as I've said in the previous post I understand where the frustration arises but on the one hand it's fine for Microsoft to bundle but not for a retailer?

troyzer wrote: »

And if you have a PS4 you've almost certainly got access to the free games on PlayStation Plus. That's not even taking into consideration that Xtra-Vision's prices for Xbox One and PS4 games are about ten to fifteen euro more than they are online. There are loads of reasons why you wouldn't want to buy a game in Xtra-Vision. It's like buying an iPod and being told to buy a CD. Fair enough, there's no point having one without the music and a CD would definitely allow you to start up your library. But you could also go with iTunes, buy the CD in another shop, online etc. Fact is, you don't see this happening in any other sector except the gaming industry. Xtra-Vision are deliberately taking advantage of the short supply. But you are technically right, for a lot of people this DOES make absolutely no difference.

Again, playing Devil's advocate here somewhat - they are forced to do this as they can't compete with the online market and know it's the only way they're going to make enough profit too see them through Xmas. I've alluded elsewhere to the fact that this might be all they're trying to do.

Bepolite

Hmmm couple of things I forgot:

1) Seems it's an extra on top of extras already ordered, thats inexcusable to be fair.

2) I requested a copy of their T&Cs and it seems they don't have retail T&Cs beyond anything that is on their website. There's nothing there that would help them other than ownership does not pass until delivery, thats for online orders so I can't see that applying to retail sales.

troyzer

Bepolite wrote: »

I worked for two or three of the major games retailers in a couple of different capacities. Terms of my parole preclude me for mentioning which ones. GAME went bust because of the acquisition of GameStation, they pulled out of Ireland as the business was too small and too complicated to keep as a going concern and would detract from the sale of the business once restructured. Several stores were profitable.



Now as I've said in the previous post I understand where the frustration arises but on the one hand it's fine for Microsoft to bundle but not for a retailer?




Again, playing Devil's advocate here somewhat - they are forced to do this as they can't compete with the online market and know it's the only way they're going to make enough profit too see them through Xmas. I've alluded elsewhere to the fact that this might be all they're trying to do.

I'm sure there were other reasons why GAME went bust but the fact that retail gaming has been in decline can't have been a small part. Microsoft bundles are fine if you choose them and pay for them. Xtra-Vision aren't bundling. They're just announcing at the last second you have to pay them for an extra game at a premium price. If they were making you get a game at a discount bundle price with sufficient notice I don't think anybody would have a problem. But Xtra-Vision not only gave no notice, they're charging WAY more than anybody else.
You're probably right in that Xtra-Vision are just trying to get through Christmas. And I understand console SKUs aren't particularly profitable. But as much as I hate GameStop, they're not demanding extra purchases. No retailer is. Which just makes it more suspicious that they're claiming it's a Microsoft mandate. If they can't compete and make a profit out of it, DON'T DO IT. You can't just rob your customers with made up rules at the last second to squeeze out a few extra penneys. It just immediately alienates them. It's stupid for every reason. Xtra-Vision can't win with this. The gamers are the ones keeping their business afloat whether they admit it or not and they're throwing them under the bus.

FreudianSlippers

OP: Can you post the Terms and Conditions or any receipt/documentation that they gave you when you ordered? I see they certainly don't have anything online (you have to go in to actually pre-order).

In order for their claim to have any merit, they would have had to have stated that when you actually made the pre-order. They cannot form a valid contract with offer, acceptance and consideration and then amend the terms unilaterally. That being said, I'm not sure what your loss or damage is here - can't you just purchase it for the same price elsewhere?

chops018

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That being said, I'm not sure what your loss or damage is here - can't you just purchase it for the same price elsewhere?

It would be extremely difficult to get one of these consoles without pre-ordering anywhere until after Christmas, maybe even longer. Not impossible, but very difficult.

This is why people are giving out because it seems Xtra-Vision are using this to try sell the extra game. If it was as simple as going up the road and getting one somewhere else immediately after a refund then I don't think there would be this many threads on the topic.

Bepolite

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

OP: Can you post the Terms and Conditions or any receipt/documentation that they gave you when you ordered? I see they certainly don't have anything online (you have to go in to actually pre-order).

In order for their claim to have any merit, they would have had to have stated that when you actually made the pre-order. They cannot form a valid contract with offer, acceptance and consideration and then amend the terms unilaterally. That being said, I'm not sure what your loss or damage is here - can't you just purchase it for the same price elsewhere?

chops018 wrote: »

It would be extremely difficult to get one of these consoles without pre-ordering anywhere until after Christmas, maybe even longer. Not impossible, but very difficult.

This is why people are giving out because it seems Xtra-Vision are using this to try sell the extra game. If it was as simple as going up the road and getting one somewhere else immediately after a refund then I don't think there would be this many threads on the topic.

One of you might refresh my memory on damages in contracts where time is of the essence please? I suppose a rather aspirational route might be to go down the lines of package holidays and the ability to sue for emotional distress.

As for concluded contracts Would there be any merit in taking the case to the Small Claims Court on the basis of Unfair terms, if for nothing else to create a paperwork storm for Xtra vision.

chops018

Bepolite wrote: »

One of you might refresh my memory on damages in contracts where time is of the essence please? I suppose a rather aspirational route might be to go down the lines of package holidays and the ability to sue for emotional distress.

As for concluded contracts Would there be any merit in taking the case to the Small Claims Court on the basis of Unfair terms, if for nothing else to create a paperwork storm for Xtra vision.

I'm a bit hazy on it, but there would have to be loss for damages to accrue, could xtra vision argue that there was no loss seeing as the xbox was never handed over?

I suppose as you pointed out BePolite; sue for inconvenience/emotional distress.

wishwashwoo

It's noting to do with Microsoft my nephew got his Xbox and was not asked to buy an extra game he is in Scotland . It's just another case of rip off Ireland shame on xtra vision.the people of Ireland keep talking this crap and won't do anything about it.. Some Day Soon Something Is Going To Change......

wishwashwoo

XTRA VISION . Pay Xtra When you get there. Vision... They think your blind as a bat

234

Bepolite wrote: »

One of you might refresh my memory on damages in contracts where time is of the essence please? I suppose a rather aspirational route might be to go down the lines of package holidays and the ability to sue for emotional distress.

As for concluded contracts Would there be any merit in taking the case to the Small Claims Court on the basis of Unfair terms, if for nothing else to create a paperwork storm for Xtra vision.

chops018 wrote: »

I'm a bit hazy on it, but there would have to be loss for damages to accrue, could xtra vision argue that there was no loss seeing as the xbox was never handed over?

I suppose as you pointed out BePolite; sue for inconvenience/emotional distress.

Well what you really want is specific performance.

If you sue for damages your loss is the loss of the use of the console for the period in which you could not go out and buy another. So unless they refuse to return your deposit then you have sustained no loss, or no loss that a court would entertain.

Even if you were to persist with a hypothetical where there was no available market for the consoles and you had to wait two weeks what are the damages. I'm guessing that these are costing ~€650. They have roughly a three year lifespan (again an educated guess). So if that entire lifespan can be valued at 650 then what does two weeks break down to? €8.33. Or if you had to buy another at an increased price you could claim the difference. Again, hardly worth litigating.

It's sad to say, and I mean horrifically soul-destroying, but Joe Duffy really is the best option here.

paulpd

There's a piece on this issue on Morning Ireland at some stage, just heard on the introduction to the programme a few mins ago.

hullaballoo

http://pic.twitter.com/wMP6m2NQup

That's from the Last Word (Today FM) twitter account. Make of it what you will.

KERSPLAT!

hullaballoo wrote: »

http://pic.twitter.com/wMP6m2NQup

That's from the Last Word (Today FM) twitter account. Make of it what you will.

'unopened' that's most people out I'd say.

My name is URL

XTRA-VISION HAVE backtracked on their policy regarding pre-ordered Xbox One consoles.

The company have now said that from today any person who collects their pre-ordered XBox One will not have to purchase an additional game in order to receive their console.

http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/xtra-vision-xbox-2-1192946-Nov2013/

Pat Mustard

My name is URL wrote: »

http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/xtra-vision-xbox-2-1192946-Nov2013/

It follows media attention, social media backlash and complaints to the the National Consumer Agency (NCA) over their initial policy which came to light when the console was released last Friday.

Very interesting.

hullaballoo

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

'unopened' that's most people out I'd say.

That may be the case, but if you bought and opened/played the game, then you are effectively ruling yourself out of any contractual remedy in relation to the "pre-order" agreement.

The remedy available would have been specific performance of the initial agreement. If there's a subsequent bilateral agreement to new terms, there is a new contract in place. For that reason, Xtravision have gone a step further than they needed to from a legal perspective by offering the refund.

That said, the offer doesn't go anywhere near rectifying the PR damage this has done, in my view. They'd nearly want to give the refund, let you keep the game/accessory and offer hand jobs to recoup the PR damage.