OT (But it could be helpfull)
Linda
be a little too expensive. Thanks for sharing that with us Dave, have
bought one too :-)
Linda
"Davey" <da...@transportdogtraining.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pleg3ugv16i1ff3cg...@4ax.com...
> A Kodak digital camera for £100?
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?L3CC2254
> From Kodak themselves.
> I found this link in another group (uk.adverts.computer) and it does
> seem too good to be true. The general concensus is that either Kodak
> have made an error of biblical proportions, or that they've a lot of
> stock they want to get rid of so are using a *back door outlet*
> Either way it's worth a look and yes, I've ordered one :-)
> --
> take the dog out to reply
Grimly Feindish
"Davey" <da...@transportdogtraining.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pleg3ugv16i1ff3cg...@4ax.com...
> A Kodak digital camera for £100?
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?L3CC2254
> From Kodak themselves.
> I found this link in another group (uk.adverts.computer) and it does
> seem too good to be true. The general concensus is that either Kodak
> have made an error of biblical proportions, or that they've a lot of
> stock they want to get rid of so are using a *back door outlet*
> Either way it's worth a look and yes, I've ordered one :-)
> --
> take the dog out to reply
Are you sure that is Kodak's site, the URL doesn't seem to belomg to Kodak,
try this one, where it is priced at £299.99 !!
http://www.kodak.com/GB/en/corp/store/catalog/Category.jhtml?CATID=7354
mike{'o'}
Grimly Feindish <Al...@sexfiend.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a19v4h$51h$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > A Kodak digital camera for £100?
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?L3CC2254
> > From Kodak themselves.
> > take the dog out to reply
>
> Are you sure that is Kodak's site, the URL doesn't seem to belomg to
Kodak,
> try this one, where it is priced at £299.99 !!
>
> http://www.kodak.com/GB/en/corp/store/catalog/Category.jhtml?CATID=7354
>
You need to get out more i think.-;(
Ive bought one as well thanks Dave,
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2001_reviews/dx3700.html
http://www.kodak.com/GB/en/corp/store/catalog/Product.jhtml?PRODID=20869&CAT
ID=7354
--
Mike
ROS402dn
"Grimly Feindish" <Al...@sexfiend.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Nope 'Davey's link is correct, and it is a kodak site, the full URL is
http://www.kodak.com/GB/en/corp/store/catalog/Product.jhtml?PRODID=20869&CATID=7354
Grimly Feindish
"mike{'o'}" <replya...@isok.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XI0_7.5231$qL3.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> Grimly Feindish <Al...@sexfiend.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:a19v4h$51h$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > A Kodak digital camera for £100?
> > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?L3CC2254
> > > From Kodak themselves.
> > > --
> > > take the dog out to reply
> >
> > Are you sure that is Kodak's site, the URL doesn't seem to belomg to
> Kodak,
> > try this one, where it is priced at £299.99 !!
> >
> > http://www.kodak.com/GB/en/corp/store/catalog/Category.jhtml?CATID=7354
> >
>
>
> You need to get out more i think.-;(
>
Anyway i was just being cautious, i'm not very trusting - especially with
internet purchases, but maybe i'll
make this an exception, has anyone checked that the correct amount (£100)
has been debited yet ?
John
mac
has anyone checked that the correct amount (£100)
> has been debited yet ?
give it a try Grimly? then you can post your photo to Satan's web site :-)
--
/\/\ /-\ C.
(remove MYLEG to reply.)
Richard Lane
"mike{'o'}" <replya...@isok.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XI0_7.5231$qL3.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
I'm guessing here, but I'd say it's an old URL with a mistake that hasn't been
taken off the server. Anyone actually recieved one at this price yet?
Chris Game
>
> "Grimly Feindish" <Al...@sexfiend.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:a1an8s$bip$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> has anyone checked that the correct amount (£100)
> > has been debited yet ?
>
> give it a try Grimly? then you can post your photo to Satan's web site :-)
>
LOL! But a high price to pay! Or were you suggesting we club
together?
--
===============================================
Chris Game <chri...@bigfoot.com>
===============================================
Chris Darkfire
<da...@transportdogtraining.co.uk> scribbled with a virtual crayon
>seem too good to be true. The general concensus is that either Kodak
>have made an error of biblical proportions, or that they've a lot of
>stock they want to get rid of so are using a *back door outlet*
>Either way it's worth a look and yes, I've ordered one :-)
David - my thanks to you, sir - ordered one for me and another for
work - both orders confirmed and in stock for £100. Just checked back
to teh site and they are now priced at £329! Just hope they arrive ok!
Cheers Mate
CHRIS
mike{'o'}
>>Chris Darkfire <ng...@darkfire.co.uk.NOSPAMPLEASE> wrote in >>message
news:3c3980c8...@news.freeserve.net...
>>Kodak have made an error of biblical proportions, >
>. Just checked back
> to teh site and they are now priced at £329!
>
Woops..... I wonder if they will try and get out of that Blunder, did you do
a print-out of the order and web page.
--
Mike
Reply-to address is valid but not my primary mailbox.
Tim ...
> Woops..... I wonder if they will try and get out of that Blunder, did you
do
> a print-out of the order and web page.
I did a print out of the page, the transaction confirmation, the order
status and the email that was received which they say is the receipt. I have
also got electronic versions in .pdf format.
I've some doubt that those who have 'purchased' the camera will be
successful in getting one at that price.
Just have to wait and see.
Chris Darkfire
>(Chris Darkfire) wrote:
>
>>David - my thanks to you, sir - ordered one for me and another for
>>work - both orders confirmed and in stock for £100. Just checked back
>>to teh site and they are now priced at £329! Just hope they arrive ok!
>Makes you kinda wonder if it was a mistake after seeing the initial
>price. Just checked my order status via the Kodak site and it says
>it's processing it.......here's hoping :-)
Whether a mistake or weekend bargain they have accepted my order,
agreed price and said it was in stock - I have a copy of the page
archived as well as a print of the confirmation page.
I remember Argos did something a while back advertised £200 TV for £20
or something an obviuos mistake which they backed out of - But I don't
think people had had order confirmation from them and in this case it
clearly said it was a special offer and they have 'electronically'
sigened their side of teh contract.
I'm just looking forward to the postman :)
See ya
CHRIS
Chris Darkfire
<usenet_bounce@}-{otmail.com> scribbled with a virtual crayon
>"mike{'o'}" <replya...@isok.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:cuh_7.9400$qL3.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
>> Woops..... I wonder if they will try and get out of that Blunder, did you
>do a print-out of the order and web page.
>
>I did a print out of the page, the transaction confirmation, the order
>status and the email that was received which they say is the receipt. I have
>also got electronic versions in .pdf format.
Whether a mistake or weekend bargain they have accepted my order,
agreed price and said it was in stock and they were dispatching it - I
too have a copy of the page archived as well as a print of the
confirmation page and the emails they have sent me.
>I've some doubt that those who have 'purchased' the camera will be
>successful in getting one at that price.
>Just have to wait and see.
Perfectly legal purchase as far as I can see, they clearly advertised
the goods clearly marked 'Special Deal' and confirmed everything in
writting.
Have to wait for Mr Postman to arrive :)#
Chris Game
> Perfectly legal purchase as far as I can see, they clearly advertised
> the goods clearly marked 'Special Deal' and confirmed everything in
> writting.
All this comes down to the invitation to treat/offer/acceptance
stuff we were taught in law classes (A level I'm afraid - I'm not a
lawyer). If they've accepted your money and confirmed the purchase
I'd have thought you have them by the nuts (er, a technical term to
do with contracts!).
Max Planck
<da...@transportdogtraining.co.uk> wrote:
>A Kodak digital camera for £100?
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?L3CC2254
>From Kodak themselves.
>I found this link in another group (uk.adverts.computer) and it does
>seem too good to be true. The general concensus is that either Kodak
>have made an error of biblical proportions, or that they've a lot of
>stock they want to get rid of so are using a *back door outlet*
>Either way it's worth a look and yes, I've ordered one :-)
So has anyone got one of these at the bargin price yet?
Or was it a mistake?
David D
"Max Planck" <An...@fake.address.org> wrote in message
news:7apj3uk3qs0ksrohb...@4ax.com...
Welcome back, Max, (sod the subject).
D.
David D
"Chris Game" <see....@message.body> wrote in message
news:MPG.16a3df977...@news.ntlworld.com...
> In an earlier post, Chris Darkfire said...
>
> > Perfectly legal purchase as far as I can see, they clearly advertised
> > the goods clearly marked 'Special Deal' and confirmed everything in
> > writting.
>
> I'd have thought you have them by the nuts (er, a technical term to
> do with contracts!).
> --
Is that the same as 'got them by the short and curlies'.
D.
mike{'o'}
Tim ... <usenet_bounce@}-{otmail.com> wrote in message
news:101041122...@iapetus.uk.clara.net...
>
> > Woops..... I wonder if they will try and get out of that Blunder, did
you
> do
> > a print-out of the order and web page.
>
> I did a print out of the page, the transaction confirmation, the order
> status and the email that was received which they say is the receipt. I
have
> also got electronic versions in .pdf format.
>
> I've some doubt that those who have 'purchased' the camera will be
> successful in getting one at that price.
> Just have to wait and see.
>
Not looking good it was indeed a mistake ;(
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M3F14474
--
Mike
Grimly Feindish
already a page with at listed at £299.99.
If it was (as it seems it may be) a mistake i'm sure they won't part with
them easily, you may get it but you'll
have to fight for it !!
Tim ...
> Not looking good it was indeed a mistake ;(
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?M3F14474
Loads of threads all over, but this link :
http://www.theinquirer.net/07010209.htm
suggests there may be a case in favour of the consumer.
Chris Game
> > So has anyone got one of these at the bargin price yet?
> > Or was it a mistake?
>
> Welcome back, Max, (sod the subject).
You see he's still uncertain!!
Chris Game
> > I'd have thought you have them by the nuts (er, a technical term to
> > do with contracts!).
> > --
> Is that the same as 'got them by the short and curlies'.
No I think one's a civil term and the other's a criminal one.
David D
"Chris Game" <see....@message.body> wrote in message
> In an earlier post, David D said...
>
> > > So has anyone got one of these at the bargin price yet?
> > > Or was it a mistake?
> >
> > Welcome back, Max, (sod the subject).
>
> You see he's still uncertain!!
D.
Chris Game
> > You see he's still uncertain!!
> Maybe, but I still think he is a bright poster.
Just my attempt at a physicists joke, but a bit feeble on account
it was Heisenberg not Plank.
(Ain't Google wonderful it even corrects your spellings on proper
names when you check! Off to tape excellent Howard Stern movie on
C4 later so that's it for now.)
Max Planck
Hello there!
Really wasn't expecting anyone to remember me after all this time!
Must be months since my last post.
Anyway, hi to everyone else who remembers me to :-)
Max.
Max Planck
wrote:
>In an earlier post, David D said...
>
>> > So has anyone got one of these at the bargin price yet?
>> > Or was it a mistake?
>>
>> Welcome back, Max, (sod the subject).
>
>You see he's still uncertain!!
The old jokes are the best!!
Did you do this joke when I was first on this group in like '97.
Good to here it again m8.
Max
Graham W
"Chris Game" <see....@message.body> wrote in message
> In an earlier post, Chris Darkfire said...
>
> > Perfectly legal purchase as far as I can see, they clearly advertised
> > the goods clearly marked 'Special Deal' and confirmed everything in
> > writting.
>
> All this comes down to the invitation to treat/offer/acceptance
> stuff we were taught in law classes (A level I'm afraid - I'm not a
> lawyer). If they've accepted your money and confirmed the purchase
> I'd have thought you have them by the nuts (er, a technical term to
> do with contracts!).
I had a look at the web page and was not impressed with the
specs of the camera. I wasn't impressed with the site either.
It was surprisingly difficult to find some hard facts about the
camera.
Although it has a large CCD, it doesn't have a zoom lens and
may well be a limited focus lens. (Kodak have made fixed focus
digicams in the past.) There is no mention of the focus range
in the PDF spec sheet.
I had intended to take a peek at the dpreview site but ran out
of time yesterday.
It certainly is no bargain at £300+. I just hope you guys think
it was worth what you paid for it.
--
Graham W http://www.gcw.org.uk/ DIY Astro Projects, Graphics Tutorial
WIMBORNE http://www.wessex-astro-society.freeserve.co.uk/ Wessex
Dorset UK Astro Society's Web pages, Info, Meeting Dates, Sites & Maps
Chris Game
> The old jokes are the best!!
>
> Did you do this joke when I was first on this group in like '97.
> Good to here it again m8.
Yes I probably did. I have this regrettable habit of flogging jokes
to death which may be ok with a running one with e.g. Freda but
sometimes I know just gets tedious.
Tim ...
"Graham W" <gra...@gcw.org.ukINVALID> wrote in message
news:k%t_7.6478$Jm.425108@stones...
> It certainly is no bargain at £300+. I just hope you guys think
> it was worth what you paid for it.
at £100, it is an absolute bargain!
at £300, I wouldn't have touched it with your credit card!
Grimly Feindish
LOL
Grimly Feindish
!!
John
Tim Jackson
0000....
>
> Just my attempt at a physicists joke, but a bit feeble on account
> it was Heisenberg not Plank.
Physics exam question:
Explain the equation E = h * nu.
Student's answer:
Nu is Plank's constant, and h is the thickness of the plank.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@winterbourne.freeserve.co.uk
(Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' in my address to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
Tim Jackson
2002 16:17:03 GMT....
> >"mike{'o'}" <replya...@isok.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:cuh_7.9400$qL3.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> >> Woops..... I wonder if they will try and get out of that Blunder, did you
> >do a print-out of the order and web page.
> Perfectly legal purchase as far as I can see, they clearly advertised
> the goods clearly marked 'Special Deal' and confirmed everything in
> writting.
Take a look in a legal textbook on contract law under the heading
"operative mistake".
It will all depend on the facts, it gets complicated, and I've no
qualifications in the field of contract law. So I'm not going to venture
any firm opinions.
But I suspect it will depend on whether you knew or ought to have known
that they had made a mistake (and from the discussion here it looks as if
some people at least suspected that they had). If so, the contract may
be void.
In real life, of course, you could get somewhere by kicking up sufficient
fuss, even if the contract is arguably void.
Chris Game
> Chris Darkfire ng...@darkfire.co.uk.NOSPAMPLEASE wrote on Mon, 07 Jan
> 2002 16:17:03 GMT....
>
> > >"mike{'o'}" <replya...@isok.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:cuh_7.9400$qL3.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > >
> > >> Woops..... I wonder if they will try and get out of that Blunder, did you
> > >do a print-out of the order and web page.
>
> > Perfectly legal purchase as far as I can see, they clearly advertised
> > the goods clearly marked 'Special Deal' and confirmed everything in
> > writting.
>
> Take a look in a legal textbook on contract law under the heading
> "operative mistake".
>
> It will all depend on the facts, it gets complicated, and I've no
> qualifications in the field of contract law. So I'm not going to venture
> any firm opinions.
>
> But I suspect it will depend on whether you knew or ought to have known
> that they had made a mistake (and from the discussion here it looks as if
> some people at least suspected that they had). If so, the contract may
> be void.
>
> In real life, of course, you could get somewhere by kicking up sufficient
> fuss, even if the contract is arguably void.
Good summary of this on Working Lunch this, er, lunchtime.
Tim ...
"Chris Game" <see....@message.body> wrote in message
> Good summary of this on Working Lunch this, er, lunchtime.
there's a more detailed version of how a lawyer sees it at
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/23/23608.html
It's looking better and better for the consumer.
Chris Game
Provided they can convince a court they're dim enough to believe it
was a genuine offer.
Anyway all that aside, this fiasco seems to show up - again - the
problems caused by inadequate configuration management of your web-
site, dangers of allowing any Tom Dick or Harry write privileges on
your (customer facing) server, and penalties of insufficient
quality assurance. Probably another company that rejected ISO9000!
Chris Darkfire
scribbled with a virtual crayon
>
>Provided they can convince a court they're dim enough to believe it
>was a genuine offer.
Er it siad 'Special Offer' next to it and it is January traditional
time of the sales - My assumpition was that there was a new better
version coming out so there were dumping old versions. Happens all the
time.
Chris Darkfire
http://www.richardruane.co.uk/
Site dedictaed to what is happening to try and get Koday to honour
their commintmenst.