*** NVIDIA GEFORCE RTX 3080 SERIES STOCK SITUATION - NO COMPETITOR DISCUSSION ***

[David Hughes]

A

I wonder what will happen the first time someone challenges the fairness of that contract in court.

Bro speaking facts right now

 

[Richard Joy]

So no update from Gibbo.

 

[Goosy]

Unfortunately not. As far as OcUK is concerned, the contract of sales is not final until the we ship the goods and B2B orders, such as us buying from suppliers, simply aren't subject to any protection at all.

the only way to negatively impact those responsible for the lack of supply is to voice your displeasure on their social media and buy an alternative product instead of theirs.

Are you the father of MattyB?

 

[ivan-ent]

Wondering if there's any update on the Ireland situation my card is just sitting there and Im really hoping for a light at the end of the tunnel its been 3 months

I'm the same given zero info anymore jist left in the dark and told to wait or cancel....

 

[ScottiB]

I wonder what will happen the first time someone challenges the fairness of that contract in court.

That person would likely be left out of pocket from court costs. As I understand it, it's fairly common practice these days to do it this way, or even at point of accepting the delivery. I think this and the 'errors and omissions excepted' clauses became common place following a spate of companies being sued for accidental pricing errors, it gives the reseller a modicum of protection.

Here's an extract from the T&C of the largest reseller in the world:

The Order Confirmation E-mail is acknowledgement that we have received your order, and does not confirm acceptance of your offer to buy the product(s) ordered. We only accept your offer, and conclude the contract of sale for a product ordered by you, when we dispatch the product to you and send e-mail confirmation to you that we've dispatched the product to you (the "Dispatch Confirmation E-mail"). If your order is dispatched in more than one package, you may receive a separate Dispatch Confirmation E-mail for each package, and each Dispatch Confirmation E-mail and corresponding dispatch will conclude a separate contract of sale between us for the product(s) specified in that Dispatch Confirmation E-mail

Consumer law exists to protect the consumer from risk, when there is no risk to the consumer there's no question of 'fairness'. Unfortunately, commercial sale is subject to no such protection. We deal with risk every day and the terms & conditions that we have to abide by vary from one supplier to the next and are legally binding before an order even takes place. For example, for one major supplier, purchase orders are non-cancellable, price can be subject to change and delivery can occur any time in the next twelve months. So we are locked in to buying what we asked for even if the price increases from what we were originally quoted.

Are you the father of MattyB?

eeerrrrrrr....who?

Matt is such a boring name, I'm definitely never calling a child Matt
(and there I go offending over a million men in an instant)

 

[Teal]

That person would likely be left out of pocket from court costs. As I understand it, it's fairly common practice these days to do it this way, or even at point of accepting the delivery. I think this and the 'errors and omissions excepted' clauses became common place following a spate of companies being sued for accidental pricing errors, it gives the reseller a modicum of protection.

Here's an extract from the T&C of the largest reseller in the world:


Consumer law exists to protect the consumer from risk, when there is no risk to the consumer there's no question of 'fairness’i

Correct, and the bit people challenging this always seem to forget, the consumers right to redress is to cancel the contract and receive a refund.

That is it, there is no right to receive the product ordered, there is no right to stay in a queue but get the money back while you wait, just to cancel and receive a refund.

OCUK have always honoured that right to cancel and be refunded, so what exactly would the pretext be for taking this to court in the first place?

‘It’s not fair’ isn’t going to cut it...

 

[Joxeon]

Correct, and the bit people challenging this always seem to forget, the consumers right to redress is to cancel the contract and receive a refund.

That is it, there is no right to receive the product ordered, there is no right to stay in a queue but get the money back while you wait, just to cancel and receive a refund.

OCUK have always honoured that right to cancel and be refunded, so what exactly would the pretext be for taking this to court in the first place?

‘It’s not fair’ isn’t going to cut it...

TBF some places have just cancelled pre-orders and refunded customers so they can sell the cards at higher prices rather than be locked into the pre order price so atleast OCUK are honouring pre-orders and the prices that were paid.

 

[Goosy]

That person would likely be left out of pocket from court costs. As I understand it, it's fairly common practice these days to do it this way, or even at point of accepting the delivery. I think this and the 'errors and omissions excepted' clauses became common place following a spate of companies being sued for accidental pricing errors, it gives the reseller a modicum of protection.

Here's an extract from the T&C of the largest reseller in the world:


Consumer law exists to protect the consumer from risk, when there is no risk to the consumer there's no question of 'fairness'. Unfortunately, commercial sale is subject to no such protection. We deal with risk every day and the terms & conditions that we have to abide by vary from one supplier to the next and are legally binding before an order even takes place. For example, for one major supplier, purchase orders are non-cancellable, price can be subject to change and delivery can occur any time in the next twelve months. So we are locked in to buying what we asked for even if the price increases from what we were originally quoted.



eeerrrrrrr....who?

Matt is such a boring name, I'm definitely never calling a child Matt
(and there I go offending over a million men in an instant)

There was some kid that was a "meme" like 10 years ago that I realised sounds like your nickname at about 5 am.

 

[yakacm]

Here's a question for you fellas

Anyone advise how much their 3080 TUF OC moved this week? So i can estimate my own position...

I'm a bit higher at 211 now, again like you I think I moved 1 place, it's really frustrating as it's slowed down to a trickle in the last few months.

 

[DarkMic]

Correct, and the bit people challenging this always seem to forget, the consumers right to redress is to cancel the contract and receive a refund.

That is it, there is no right to receive the product ordered, there is no right to stay in a queue but get the money back while you wait, just to cancel and receive a refund.

OCUK have always honoured that right to cancel and be refunded, so what exactly would the pretext be for taking this to court in the first place?

‘It’s not fair’ isn’t going to cut it...

If any court challange would be issued it would be for the fact that the full amount of money has been debited from customers account. In this case the OCUK will be responible for the loss of interest and will have to restore customer to the state that they were if they would never been debited in the first place. Now proving how much it is a bit problematic as nobody would be able to prove to you how much you would have made in interest if you would never place this order. Since we talk about over 6 months now it would be an interesting court case indeed. OCUK "amended" ordering for this product and charged fukll amount to protect themselves form customer whom would place orders with multiplke etailers and then cancel. This would potentialy cost OCUK (in normal circumstance) as they would be left with ordered product that the custoner no longer would receive. Unfortunately by introducing this change they have also changed the T&C as it is nowhere confirmed that that custoemr would be charged this amount when placing order, rather when the item is dispatched.

 

[five8five]

OCUK "amended" ordering for this product and charged fukll amount to protect themselves form customer whom would place orders with multiplke etailers and then cancel. This would potentialy cost OCUK (in normal circumstance) as they would be left with ordered product that the custoner no longer would receive. Unfortunately by introducing this change they have also changed the T&C as it is nowhere confirmed that that custoemr would be charged this amount when placing order, rather when the item is dispatched.

OC have charged the full amount up front for as long as I can remember. Are you confusing them with someone else?

The refund option is there so I can't see what the issue is......

 

[DarkMic]

OC have charged the full amount up front for as long as I can remember. Are you confusing them with someone else?

The refund option is there so I can't see what the issue is......

There is no issue. It is just to point out that should the contract be cancelled by OCUK it might end up being problmeatic in light of consumer law. I am absolutely ok with waiting in queue if it means I will get my product.

 

[NemoNeil]

I don't mind being in the queue. Please put me in the queue. I wont take anyone to court. Promise

 

[Tom1921]

Zotac non OC que is dead, no shipments since October
I'd take any other card at this point

ordered @ 14:35:32 on launch day
position date
28 02-Oct
24 14-Oct
21 23-Oct
6 06-Nov
6 13-Nov
5 20-Nov
5 27-Nov
5 04-Dec
5 11-Dec
5 18-Dec
4 24-Dec
3 08/01/2021
3 15/01/2021
3 22/01/2021
3 29/01/2021
3 05/02/2021
3 14/02/2021
3 19/02/2021
3 26/02/2021

]

 

[Werewolf]

If any court challange would be issued it would be for the fact that the full amount of money has been debited from customers account. In this case the OCUK will be responible for the loss of interest

With current interest rates for normal banking i suspect the court would come to the conclusion it was nothing, or pennies

In the mean time the consumers have a contract for a video card that has gone up in value by a very considerable margin but aren't expected to pay that extra.

It's a case of the consumer, if patient, coming out of the deal on op by quite a margin in my mind, as they're got the card locked in at the price it was on the day it was ordered (and the ability to cancel at any time), whilst the price of the cards has been going up far faster than any normal bank interest rates (I can't remember how much my isa paid me in interest last year, but it was something tiny and IIRC my current account pays no interest).

 

[cliffy]

Happy days. Asus 3080 TUF OC just showed up out the blue, ordered Jan 18th for £780. Time to load some games

 

[Teal]

If any court challange would be issued it would be for the fact that the full amount of money has been debited from customers account. In this case the OCUK will be responible for the loss of interest and will have to restore customer to the state that they were if they would never been debited in the first place.

Creative, I'll grant you that, but still not something provided under current consumer laws in the UK.

Your only right and remedy is to cancel the contract and receive a full refund. There is no right to a theoretical interest penalty...

... and as has been pointed out, 6 months interest on £650 at typical interest rates wouldn't even buy you a coffee in Starbucks so I wouldn't get excited...

 

[Dwas]

Happy days. Asus 3080 TUF OC just showed up out the blue, ordered Jan 18th for £780. Time to load some games

Take it that was from the magical shadowrealm that cannot be named

 

[cliffy]

Take it that was from the magical shadowrealm that cannot be named

Retailer that only sells to corporations, my work buys fro them soi was able to purchase with them as a staff perk

 

[ZombieFace]

TBF some places have just cancelled pre-orders and refunded customers so they can sell the cards at higher prices rather than be locked into the pre order price so atleast OCUK are honouring pre-orders and the prices that were paid.

Honouring so far. They can hold for a little bit longer to get more interests. Ending it sooner is more fair, in my opinion. Unless COUK will honour it until the end... I am not a believer.