HMV going into administration

arse..biscuits wrote: »

If you owned a shop and you knew it was going under, would you hold on till Christmas, sell loads of vouchers and then refuse to accept them, then close up shop?

Would you?

Sadly true.

At a guess, someone in HMV might have known what was coming and also knowing they were sooner or later going to be chased for big money by the bigger debtors they owed, were trying to pull in as much revenue as they could before the doors were quickly closed.

An unfortunate way of doing business but probably not the first time and won't be the last.
The losers more so will always be the public with smaller notes of credit - when it comes to lining up behind the bigger businesses owed money.

arse..biscuits wrote: »

If you owned a shop and you knew it was going under, would you hold on till Christmas, sell loads of vouchers and then refuse to accept them, then close up shop?

Would you?

If i was trying to keep afloat, hoping that someone would come along and buy the business, even if it meant rationalising it and shrinking it, yeah, i would.

because if someone did buy the business then the closing up bit wouldn't necessarily happen.

And if the stores didn't close then the thief would have been able to pay with the vouchers.

And more to the point, there would not be 300 people looking for jobs today, wondering how they are going to pay their bills.

arse..biscuits

knucklehead6 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0116/hmv-vouchers.html

Recievership

Stores closed

People like the thieving granddad have caused this

If you owned a shop and you knew it was going under, would you hold on till Christmas, sell loads of vouchers and then refuse to accept them, then close up shop?

Would you?

chops018 wrote: »

I'm very familiar with the principles of contract law. But if you want to discuss contract law then I would say to you: the Granddad, paid for the voucher so his offer was already accepted and he provided the consideration by giving the money for the voucher...

It might be argued that earlier 'consideration' was completed by someone originally (handing over cash) for just the previous purchasing a note of credit.

The later tried further transfer of 'consideration' for later goods could be seen as a separate entity/business transaction.

chops018 wrote: »

So, back to the original argument, there was no contract formed for the games he took, the issues here are theft - which we have discussed already. Contract law doesn't come into the equation with the games he took as there was or never had been any contract.

The only issue related to contract law is the agreement of the Granddad and HMV relating the voucher purchased and their refusal to accept it.

Contract law came up only as part of the act of entering into purchasing a line of credit basically.
The thread went skewered in this area via some (not their fault) just not too clear in the complicated details of it all.

seamus

Boombastic wrote: »

The had no legal basis for refusing his voucher

They don't require a legal basis to refuse the voucher. They're entitled to refuse anything as payment.
A company is only required to accept legal tender to discharge a debt. Where there is no debt, the company can refuse to accept whatever form of payment they wish, including legal tender.

As the company is in receivership, if the receivers refuse to honour the vouchers, then all people can do is get their name on the list of creditors for HMV. Any money left over after the company is ripped apart and sold off is then used to pay off the creditors.

It's a long shot, but it's about all you can do.

MagicSean wrote: »

No it is not one of the reasons. How much theft do you think happens in your average HMV?

Childish comment is childish.

Blu-Ray never took off the way shops had hoped.

I've no idea how much theft happens..... But stock loss is stock loss, It doesn't matter how it happens, it's still loss.

as for childish comments, out of the mouths of babes and all that.

The guy is a thief. Simple as.

efb

This has been bugging me- could the misspelling in the Thread title be corrected?

Allyall wrote: »

While theft probably contributed, HMV's downfall was definitely down to them not making the correct changes at the correct times.

Okay, they went from Vinyl to Cassette. And from Cassette to CD.

Video to DVD, DVD to Blu-Ray etc.

But. No. They are the destruction of their own demise. They got the guy blamed for Jessops failing in to fix them, For Gods Sake, makes you wonder could a 12 year old have done better.

They (for some public unknown reason) didn't manage to grasp the internet concept alone well.
The workings of the top people were certainly behind the times it seems - and unwilling to be progressive.

chops018

Biggins wrote: »

For any sale to be legal and complete, "consideration" has to be made.
This is the basis of any agreed exchange of goods be it across a counter from a member of the public or a company delivering its manufactured parts to a further company that makes a larger finished product.

Be the scale big or small, no sale is legal till consideration is completed successfully.

(This is why sometimes on a rare occasion you might see something (property for example) sold off for the value a Pound/Euro. Its to make a sale confirmed legal.)

Historic note as regards Ireland laws: Currie v Misa (1875) defined the matter as 'some right, interest or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by another'.

I'm very familiar with the principles of contract law. But if you want to discuss contract law then I would say to you: the Granddad, paid for the voucher so his offer was already accepted and he provided the consideration by giving the money for the voucher, HMV are therefore breaching the original contract as that was already complete, I'm assuming the T's and C's mention that it is allowed to be used as legal tender in their stores, let's just hope it doesn't mention anything about being allowed to not accept such vouchers when being in administration - although this would be considered an unfair term (assuming he was the one who purchased the voucher that is).

So, back to the original argument, there was no contract formed for the games he took, the issues here are theft - which we have discussed already. Contract law doesn't come into the equation with the games he took as there was or never had been any contract.

The only issue related to contract law is the agreement of the Granddad and HMV relating the voucher purchased and their refusal to accept it.

melekalikimaka wrote: »

if the tills broke and the feature was disabled 5 years ago for an afternoon, would it have been ok for the silly old man to just walk out? no, you can dress it up all you want, the old man was trying to make a point, and he did, he's still a thief and i do hope that he gets the full whack of the law, this behavior shouldnt be condoned

That's not the same thing as I suspect you already know...blah, blah, blah

MagicSean

knucklehead6 wrote: »

It's one of the reasons.

Every bit of stock loss hurts the bottom line

No it is not one of the reasons. How much theft do you think happens in your average HMV?

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Glad to see you realise that the granddad is a thief though

Childish comment is childish.

Allyall wrote: »

While theft probably contributed, HMV's downfall was definitely down to them not making the correct changes at the correct times.

Okay, they went from Vinyl to Cassette. And from Cassette to CD.

Video to DVD, DVD to Blu-Ray etc.

But. No. They are the destruction of their own demise. They got the guy blamed for Jessops failing in to fix them, For Gods Sake, makes you wonder could a 12 year old have done better.

Blu-Ray never took off the way shops had hoped.

melekalikimaka

Boombastic wrote: »

Management should never have authorised for it to be shut on tills

if the tills broke and the feature was disabled 5 years ago for an afternoon, would it have been ok for the silly old man to just walk out? no, you can dress it up all you want, the old man was trying to make a point, and he did, he's still a thief and i do hope that he gets the full whack of the law, this behavior shouldnt be condoned

knucklehead6 wrote: »

That's not down to store management, that's down to H/Q I.T. nerds

I never said store managers. I'm on about the people with the power who authorised it.

Anyway company gone in to receivership now

Boombastic wrote: »

Management should never have authorised for it to be shut on tills

That's not down to store management, that's down to H/Q I.T. nerds

Allyall

MagicSean wrote: »

You think theft is the reason HMV is closing? Nothing to do with entering the digital age?

While theft probably contributed, HMV's downfall was definitely down to them not making the correct changes at the correct times.

Okay, they went from Vinyl to Cassette. And from Cassette to CD.

Video to DVD, DVD to Blu-Ray etc.

But. No. They are the destruction of their own demise. They got the guy blamed for Jessops failing in to fix them, For Gods Sake, makes you wonder could a 12 year old have done better.

Thwip! wrote: »

It has been said already in this thread that that function was shut down on their tills... How were they supposed to put it through?

Management should never have authorised for it to be shut on tills

chops018 wrote: »

Why are you mentioning consideration, this isn't contract law we are discussing...

For any sale to be legal and complete, "consideration" has to be made.
This is the basis of any agreed exchange of goods be it across a counter from a member of the public or a company delivering its manufactured parts to a further company that makes a larger finished product.

Be the scale big or small, no sale is legal till consideration is completed successfully.

(This is why sometimes on a rare occasion you might see something (property for example) sold off for the value a Pound/Euro. Its to make a sale confirmed legal.)

Historic note as regards Ireland laws: Currie v Misa (1875) defined the matter as 'some right, interest or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by another'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOdjCb4LwQY

MagicSean wrote: »

You think theft is the reason HMV is closing? Nothing to do with entering the digital age?

It's one of the reasons.

Every bit of stock loss hurts the bottom line

Glad to see you realise that the granddad is a thief though

MagicSean

knucklehead6 wrote: »

By robbing. Therefore reducing profits. It's not that difficult to understand

You think theft is the reason HMV is closing? Nothing to do with entering the digital age?

Allyall

Thwip! wrote: »

It has been said already in this thread that that function was shut down on their tills... How were they supposed to put it through?

Thwip!

Boombastic wrote: »

The had no legal basis for refusing his voucher

It has been said already in this thread that that function was shut down on their tills... How were they supposed to put it through?

In other news, Lapin going back to collage with Lisa.

MagicSean wrote: »

How?

By robbing. Therefore reducing profits. It's not that difficult to understand

MagicSean

knucklehead6 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0116/hmv-vouchers.html

Recievership

Stores closed

People like the thieving granddad have caused this

How?

The One Who Knocks

Lapin wrote: »

adminastration

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0116/hmv-vouchers.html

Recievership

Stores closed

People like the thieving granddad have caused this

Allyall

I wouldn't have bet on Golden Discs outlasting HMV, They made Golden Discs near invisible. But maybe that's what helped Golden Discs stop expanding. They worked within their grasp. GD are going to have to change their market shape. Some drastic changes will need to be made.

Just read this

On 5 February 2011 HMV Ireland announced that its profits had fallen by almost 90% to €465,000, compared to €4.1 million the previous year. :eek: