Printable View
No To Pixmania This protest is about pixmania.co.uk not honoring the price for the LG LCD TV, even after they took money out of people accounts and now are trying to refund the money, trying get out of the contract between both parties. All we want is the TV for the price it said on the website, there is nothing in their T&Cs about mispricing.
Somehow, I doubt you're going to get a lot of support.
This happens all the time, and on every previous occasion it's been brought up on here the conclusion has been that the firm did nothing wrong.
Still irritating, but when HUKD and so on exist to take advantage of these deals it's no surprise that they don't ship the products. If it was one or two, then they probably would, but these days it seems like every deal of this nature is jumped on by a few thousand people.
So long as Pixmania do refund people who want to cancel their order they're doing nothing wrong.
Mistakes happen and many businesses wouldn't survive if they were forced to honour them all.
, If it were the other way round, they would hold you too it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazaar
You mean if Pixmania were buying something off you and you got the price wrong?
You'd have every right to continue the sale at the full amount or offer a refund, at the purchasers choice. This sort of situation has been discussed at length before now and the various trades acts are fairly clear about it.
Just because something's priced up one way doesn't make the seller beholden to sell it at that price (though it does make them look rather foolish).
I'm afraid you have almost zero chance of getting a bargain of a lifetime TV just because some Pixmania merchandiser made a typo.
Not really. DSR provides 7 days cooling period in which to withdraw from the contract.
Edit: Don't know if Pixmania also buy stuff back, so I assumed that it meant that if the buyer somehow misread the cost of a product he bought.
I think he meant if Pixmania had overpriced the item and you bought it, and then when they corrected the price, you asked for a refund. And the answer would be no (except as a gesture of goodwill) because they are offering the goods at a price - you are free to accept or decline - you are not forced to buy at the price they offer it at. If you accept, then it is a price you are happy with. If they subsequently reduce it - thats just the way it is.
That said, Amazon.co.uk refunded me £2.xx without fuss when I noticed the price of my .mp3 player dropped the day after I ordered (and before it had shipped).Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Ah, I see what you mean.
If the price drop was in the 7 days after purchase then I would have thought that the DSR would be applicable - ask for a refund and then repurchase (or not) at the lower price. If it was outside the 7 days then it's just one of those things that happens in retail - prices do drop after a while, you just have to accept it.
Either way I don't think it has a lot of bearing on the OPs problem (or lack of - buy TV, TV not available for price displayed, money refunded).
Yeah, I seem to remember that Amazon is one of the few retailers that have a pro-active policy on this. Good on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmunk
The problem is they took the money and the TV was in stock, now they have refunded the money.
Its like me buying a tv then finding out i paid too much for it and then just dumping it in the shop, and stopping the payment.
What was the price difference? How much would you expect to pay retail, and how much did pixmania have it at online?
If it's just 'a great deal' that they're not honouring, then you might have a point. If it's a genuine mistake and there's no way they'd be selling them at such a low price, then you're just being a pikey.
So they've cancelled the sale and refunded you? What have you actually lost? Are you in any way worse off than before the sale?Quote:
Originally Posted by petercook7
All that's happened is that you've not gotten a TV for a price that would have presumably* cost Pixmania to fulfil.
*If it was making them money then they wouldn't have cancelled the order.
^Waste of time perhaps? I don't think that it is something they could possibly honour, though as a little PR spin, it wouldn't hurt to give out some £5 vouchers, or through free shipping with the next order. I am sure it won't please everyone, or even most, but it would score some points for me.
I am guessing it's probably this deal: http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/65958...-led-tv-199-2?Quote:
Originally Posted by IBM
It's £1.4k at Dixons, the cheapest I've seen after a quick Google is just over £1.1k so definite misprice.
Bottom line on this one is the point at which you are deemed to have made a contract with pixmania. That will be stipulated somewhere in the T&Cs, but I doubt very much that it's when they take the money from your bank account, as counter-intuitive as that may seem. It's one of the big discrepancies between distance selling and retail - the shop can take your money without actually promising to sell you anything, and as far as I'm aware there's nothing in law to stop them.
The worst time I had for this was when I purchased (from two different etailers) an MSDN subscription and a large LCD TV / monitor. I was well over £1000 down from my savings account for more than a month, and both etailers messed me around before eventually admitting that they couldn't supply the goods. That screwed me out of a lot of interest, and caused me a lot of inconvenience and hassle. Personally, I chalked it up to experience and won't buy from those etailers anymore...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TooNice
Haha a 47" £1100 TV for £199 ? I bet you do...Quote:
Originally Posted by petercook7
..and ordered in the thousands by the HUKD forumers...
Nicely put :) Pikey is such a great word.Quote:
Originally Posted by IBM
And if you Google 'LG LCD misprice' you'll find pages of that 'deal' being linked everywhere. It was actually not easy to find many e-tailers selling the same unit Google return pages of that deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikerr
Well it's not, is it? If they shipped you the goods, then decided they'd made a mistake and raided your house to take it back... THAT wouldn't be on. But when something is mis-priced and scores of people try to take advantage of it, the company can either cancel the transaction or go out of business... simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by petercook7
:laugh: bunch of chancers, i hope your next DD fails because of this, that will learn ye
Ts & Cs, dear boy, Ts & Cs :D
first post claims there was nothing in the terms and conditions about mispricesQuote:
Originally Posted by cookie365
That's not the point - the T&Cs will contain details of when a contract has formally been entered into, and up to that point the seller (in this case pixmania) can refuse to sell for any reason. So as long as they hadn't reached the point of the transaction which is considered legal and binding according to pixmania's T&Cs, they're fine. I know from personal experience that this can actually be some time after payment has been taken, and if you check the fine print of the order confirmation emails next time you buy something online you'll almost certainly find some small print somewhere explicitly stating that you've not yet entered into a contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by colincliff
Aside from that, there may also be clauses in the contract that allow them to back out of a sale even after that point, and you can bet a 42" LCD TV that they'll have been legally fine-tooth-combed before publication to ensure they complied with consumer law.
Erm, actually, just had a quick scan of the Pixmania general Ts & Cs.
In which case:
Voidable contract through unilateral mistake dear boy, voidable contract through unilateral mistake :D
Indeed - It was an obvious mistake, and the OP amongst others have been trying to take advantage of it.
It's not so bad when you take it as read ("taking a punt"), but when you start throwing around legal terms and kicking up a stink, you just look like a cheapskate.
The "game" was rumbled, and you lost. Get over it. :P
Though they have left themselves a bit vulnerable. I think in the past sales at 1/3 'correct' cost have been allowed to stand by the courts as it was held that the buyer could reasonably believe the price was correct.
But in this case I'd personally reckon that the chances of winning don't justify the court issue fees.
£199 versus £1399 might be a touch unlikely though, eh? :p
It's highly likely that a district judge would think so, yes. Once someone had explained to him what a 'television' was, of course. ;)
Usual crap with HUKD, not only did pretty much every member order, but surprise surprise they all ordered as many as they could afford including some saying they bought like 5... i mean really hardly helps the case does it, you should keep to the price on the website... so i can make loads of money on ebay haha.
Only time i have seen this kind of case go right for buyer was in China, Dell was forced to sell a mispriced product at the price, but only one per customer and only so many if i remember correctly, so basically you haven't got a leg to stand on.
But again im sure HUKD would have no problem with making this company go bust if it did sell all those tvs at a massive loss to every single order... hell while they're at it might as well just be FREE, haha.
I was thinking actually, if it wasn't for HUKD I bet some of these would be processed.
I mean, let's say Pixmania have 10 customers buy a TV at £1k off the asking price, because only those few people found it before somebody discovered the mistake. They ship the TVs, costing them around £10k total, and obviously ensure that the story is spread around the net - loads of people think "Wow, that's a great deal. I wonder if they've got anything similar at the moment that's nobody's found yet." And all of a sudden they've improved their reputation, got loads of extra traffic... it would probably work out well for them.
When it goes onto HUKD though, loads of people buy several sets, and before you know it you've sold about 2,000. I doubt you'd taking a hit of £2m would lead to anything other than phenomenal losses. And you probably wouldn't be able to get enough of the things to sell in the first place.
I had ebuyer claim that some TFTs I'd ordered where a miss-price, I'd ordered 4.
The problem was they could easily have been 'just good value', there where only a small percentage below the current market price, not enough to be worth the effort of selling them on either.
They eventually saw sense and hounered it, seeing as they could see I'd also bought a second graphics card and was able to tell the lady the stupidly high spec for the time machine they where going on.
This has happened before and will no doubt happen again.
I believe it was Kodak that was the first high-profile case like this several years ago. Since then, every web retailer has made damn sure they're covered for things like this.
STOP ACTING LIKE YOU'RE ENTITLED TO BUY A TELLY FOR AN OBVIOUSLY ERRONEOUS PRICE.
Seriously, do you really, really think that a big company such as Pixmania are going to send you out a TV even though their T&Cs state that they don't have to, and the price is ridiculously unbelievably low?
If for some reason Pixmania were forced to honour the price, you're totally ripping them off. Unscrupulous companies exist, but so do unscrupulous customers who think "ahh well, it's a business, it won't matter if they lose shedloads of money". Pixmania aren't without their faults, but you're on a par with dole scroungers who have no intention of looking for a job. "It's the government, why do I care?" It's not your money, you don't deserve it, it was an obvious mistake in data entry. If you want a 47" TV, then pay for a 47" TV. Look for a proper deal and stop whinging.
...also think about this - if it were your company, would you refund the hordes of slavering greedy customers?
The best way for companies to gain some positive PR out of this is to offer the same item at a reasonable discount to those who ordered the misprice.
I wonder how many of these "customers" would order that TV if offered it at a very reasonable £800 ?
Low enough to still be an amazing bargain, but less likely to be destined for ebay.
Thing is most of these companies have quite a low margin on these things, they probably can't afford to sell the item at such a loss.
Just a quick query, but are pixmania actually covered under the UK DSR as they're a french registered company, although they have a UK VAT registration so I would presume are possibly operating a branch in the UK?
If the company is selling in the UK it is covered by UK consumer law, regardless of where they are based. I recently got a full refund on a knackered tent that I bought off a German company on ebay which they claim I wouldn't have been entitled to under German law.
Pixmania can't be forced to honour the mis-priced, price advertised at.
If it was just a misprice in an advert, they certainly couldn't be forced. That's the old "invitation to treat" thing, and it isn't part of the contract process. It's a bit more complex than that when it comes to an argument over whether the contract has been formed or not, in an e-commerce sale because the actual process is usually a good bit more complex. As for Pixmania, I agree with cookie365 .... their T&Cs do a competent job of covering it, and they can do was they have. The art of it is getting both the T&Cs right, and the e-commerce process, being careful to stipulate precisely when a contract is formed, and not to send "order confirmation" emails before it's formed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris P
There was an interesting test case some years ago, in the early days of e-commerce, and ironically, it was also over an erroneously priced TV. If I remember correctly, it was Argos and a T that should have been up for £300 was up at £3. Again, as I remember it, the crux of the case was that Argos' T&Cs and e-commerce process correctly anticipated this situation, and specifically allowed them to cancel. It'd be a rather naive (or small and new) e-commerce site that didn't have this covered by now, about 10 years later, and while I haven't looked, I'll take a wild stab in the dark and guess you've got it well covered Chris. :D
Then there was Kodak and the furore over that camera (which wasn't the first one, as someone suggested). The problem there was that it was much less clear that the T&Cs and e-commerce process let Kodak of the hook. But, again as I remember it, it never got to court. In the end, Kodak bit the bullet and ponied up. So we still don't know what a court would have said or whether Kodak blinked first because of the damaging publicity, or because their lawyers said they stood a good chance of losing ... or both.
Personally, I feel the moral position if that going after a £300 TV for £3 is simply attempting to exploit an obvious mistake, and one that any reasonably buyer must have known was a mistake, so it shouldn't be allowed to succeed. Of course, the law doesn't always do what's moral or reasonable.
The Kodak case, on the other hand, the deal while still a bargain, was a lot less obviously a cockup. From memory, it was about £130 instead of £300-ish, but was advertised as a Christmas special. It certainly struck me as probably a mistake, but conceivably a genuine end-of-line clearance, and in a tech product line where the pace of development, at that time, was incredibly fast moving so it seemed quite conceivable it was legit, though I thought it was a mistake. But buyers could well have thought they were really buying a bargain, not exploiting a mistake. I certainly had sympathy for those that ordered that I didn't have for those trying it on with the £3 TV.
Oh, and as Pixmania appear to be based in France, it'd be interesting to see if we're discussing contract issues under French or English law. My guess would be the former.
I would think most companies would or at least should have the sense to have this situation covered in their T&Cs.
The vast majority of people who order when there is a clear mis-price are just after a " quick buck " just to sell on, they wouldn't have had any interest in the product if it was priced reasonably, which is understandable, of course. But don't get to surprised when your order is cancelled and refunded.
Of course as you say Saracen there are less obvious pricing error's, which I also have more sympathy for but as long as the corrected price is fair, there shouldn't be too much argue about.
Completely agree, Chris, that most companies should get it right ... but it's astonishing how many can't even get DSR coverage right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris P
Agree about the fair price, too. I would have thought that if an error was made, then a gesture would be good PR. Of course, a lot depends on how big the margin is, or in the case of most computery bits, isn't (;)), but it would, I'd have thought, be worth taking a cut in margin and maybe even a small loss, to turn a potential PR gripe into a PR victory. I guess that all feeds into "fair".
But where you've got people trying to do what amounts to legalised robbery, like the £3 TV, no "fair" offer is likely to satisfy them because they were after something wholly unrealistic and probably wouldn't have bought at anything remotely resembling "fair". And that applies with bells on the the greedy gits that order a dozen, or whatever. That's just an attempt at exploiting a mistake for profiteering, and I really enjoy reading them moan about the orders getting cancelled, and they can see all of that lovely money they thought they had slipping out of their grasp. :D
they have broken the law, trading standards are looking into it,
there are 3 steps
1st offer made by me
2nd confirmation of the offer by pixmania
last stage 3rd payment taken.
by law they have to sell you the product,
i advise you all to contact consumer direct, they have passed it onto trading standards.
now they need to prove that they mispriced, but it very difficult because for them because it was on special offer at a discount rate.
I wouldn't hold your breath, I can't see this one coming out in your favour.
Do you know which law it is that they've supposedly broken?
Yep 100% broke contract law according to trading standards, which they are looking into it, and we have a good case against pixmania.
Send me £50 if you win please.
I am confident that any case brought to court would be quickly dismissed.
Pixmania have this line in their Terms..
"We would like to inform you that if an obviously incorrect price appears on our website (a price that is clearly too low, for example), and for whatever reason (IT bug, human error, technical error etc.), your order will be cancelled, even if it has been initially validated."
Maybe they added this in after this issue occurred?
Seems pretty clear to me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixmania
Pretty sure that wasn't there a few days ago.
it wasntQuote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Even if they are in breach of contract, I'm pretty sure they can't be forced to sell a TV at that price to everyone who ordered, as the contract would no longer be valid (you know, having been breached already). You could almost certainly apply for compensation, but how much do you think you'll get on a £200 purchase that was clearly erroneous and for which you have been fully refunded?
It'll make an interesting test case though - I'll be intrigued to see the result...
You have a screenshot?
Quote:
Yep 100% broke contract law according to trading standards
I'm confused that Trading Standards have said Pixmania have %100 broken contract law but then said Pixmania need to prove this was a mis-price. If this is true why?, if they have already decided they have broken the law, what difference would proving a mis-price took place, unless this has some relevance and therefore they should hold off on a decision until Pixmania have the chance to prove this was mis-priced as requested by Trading Standards.Quote:
now they need to prove that they mispriced
Proving the mis-price is extremely easy. A £1100 TV advertised for £200, clearly mis-priced, plus it will be well below their cost, which again is easy to prove.
Once they prove this as Trading standards require there is no case and it would be dismissed if taken to court.
They may have broken the law. For a start, there are regulations about mispricing, and that is the type of issue trading standard deal with.Quote:
Originally Posted by petercook7
As for the above description of the process of forming a contract, that is the basic situation and would pretty much be it were you face to face in a shop. However, e-commerce is more complex than that because, as I said earlier, it depends on exactly what their T&Cs say, and on the precise wording of any emails you got, because that will determine precisely when a contract is formed. As was said earlier, if that point hasn't been reached, you're dead out of luck. For instance, if that second confirmation from Pixmania confirms that a contract exists, you've got them. If it merely confirms their receipt of your offer, you don't.
It as certainly not the case that merely taking payment in e-commerce forms the contract. It does not. I don't care what someone at TS says, that much has been settled in (UK) court decisions.
So yes, it may well be that they've broken the law, but that doesn't mean you have a binding contract .... or that you don't. They also may get prosecuted by TS (though unless there's a lengthy pattern of such abuses, I doubt it), if they were a UK fir, but they're French. Also TS do not sue people over contract breaches on your behalf. You get to do that yourself in small claims court (or, it seems, a French court in this case), and the arbiter of your claim will be the judge in that court, not Trading Standards.
As for them "having" to sell you the product, erm, no. It is possible for a court to order what is called "specific performance", but it's relatively unusual, and among the conditions where it won't be ordered are where an equitable remedy could be achieved by damages, or where the claimant has acted unreasonably. Even if you take this to court, and even if you win, you're unlikely to find a court compels Pixmania to supply. You might get damages, but if it's viewed that you were acting unreasonably and could not realistically have believed the price was anything other than a mistake (and my bet would be an £1100 TV for £200 would fall in that bracket) you run the risk of getting minimal damages even if you win the case. Whether you do will depend on the T&Cs and the exact e-commerce process used.
Did you tell trading standards the company is a French company based in Paris?
Did you tell them you agreed to this by pacing the order ....
If you think you can enforce this, go ahead. You may be proven right. It'll be interesting to see what happens. I won't be holding my breath, though. :DQuote:
We would like to inform you that if an obviously incorrect price appears on our website (a price that is clearly too low, for example), and for whatever reason (IT bug, human error, technical error etc.), your order will be cancelled, even if it has been initially validated.
they are obviously a bit worried about all the angry bargain hunters. Cached version of their t+c's from a few days ago (http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&gl=uk) doesn't have the line about misprices they have now. Not that that makes any real difference. In a few days everyone will be more relaxed and realise that mistakes happen.......
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...&postcount=454 - made me chuckle
Just to clarify - I don't think that term was in their Ts & Cs when I checked yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
I just assumed that they would have had their Ts & Cs drawn up by somebody who had a basic understanding of e-commerce law, then thought to check afterwards and discovered they didn't ;)
But as I mentioned earlier, they don't need the Ts & Cs in this case anyway as they're protected by established case law anyway. The Ts & Cs would have just saved them a bit of aggro in this case and possibly their bacon if the figures were more borderline.
The new addition to the Ts & Cs looks like a stopgap until they find someone who really knows their stuff. Competent as you say but hardly elegant or precise.
Similarly, I'd have thought that Trading Standards would have known a bit about consumer contract law, but evidently not.
What we need here is more lawyers :)
I think this is the only time most customers actually read the T&C ;)
It's obviously not an occurrence applicable only to Pixmania - this (someone unable to accept that they won't get their mispriced purchase) seems to be something that crops up every so often. Most people would shrug off the cancellation, as although it would have course been nice to get something at a misprice, they'd have thought it unlikely to actually do so.
Occasionally, when pushed an etailer might honour the misprice (and sometimes without being pushed the/some orders are honoured without being cancelled), but when it's a misprice of this magnitude, I find it very doubtful that the OP (and the others pushing for this particular misprice to be honoured) will be that fortunate.
Simply put, I doubt the outcome of this will be any different to previous attempts.
nope , because of there mispricing i lost out on another deal, because i was £180 short, thats my legal argument.
At what point in time did this new deal come up as any court is going to throw this argument out unless there has been some pretty serious delay in procesing any refund.Quote:
Originally Posted by petercook7
Have you filed your claim yet with the court? Post a copy up so we can all have a laugh.
Irrelevant argument - if you bought a product and received it, then sent it back for a refund because you didn't like it, you couldn't claim against them because you "didn't have the money to buy a better alternative before the refund was processed".
This was in there T&CsQuote:
Originally Posted by [GSV]Myocardial
Quote:
Once you have chosen your method of payment, you must pay for your order, which legally finalises the purchase agreement made with Pixmania.”
So? There's legal precedent for companies to cancel the order if a genuine error has been made and people take the piss.
How does that relate to the "deal" you allegedly missed out on? What exactly do you expect the court to award you? :O_o1:Quote:
Originally Posted by petercook7
Doesn't sound like much of an argument to me, and certainly not a legal one. It's not pixmania's responsibility to ensure that you have enough money to buy things, and if you hadn't been trying to screw pixmania out of a TV at 1/6th of the going price, you'd've had the money to pick up your other deal.
Sure, you've been inconvenienced, but I'm afraid that it's not illegal for people to inconvenience you. Annoying, but not illegal. "I didn't enough enough money to buy something else" is not a "legal argument". Your legal argument is that pixmania broke their contract with you. And that remains to be proven, btw. And even if it is proven, as many people have said they are unlikely to be forced into selling you a product at a ridiculous price - what exactly do you think the legal system is for?
I was going to write a reply, but I think the quoted post sums up my thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
To think that people have time to engage in a vendetta against Pixmania, when they know fully well that they were trying to take advantage of a genuine mistake, is rather sad. Why not invest your time in something more worthwhile, i.e. an ACTUAL problem, rather than bitching about the fact that Pixmania won't just print money for you.
Much as I hate to add fuel to the fire:
Comapring google's cache of the page on 18th April:
http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:s...&ct=clnk&gl=uk
to today's:Quote:
4. Prices
The prices indicated on the Site are in Pounds Sterling and in Euros and include all taxes but do not include delivery.The chosen possible delivery costs are indicated for the User during the product selection and are invoiced at the end of the order in addition to the price of the products. We reserve the right to modify our prices at any moment but will apply the current rates as indicated to you on the site at the time the order was placed.
http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/conditions.html#cgv_4
Shows the following has been added:
of course the easier way for them would just to have no stock of the item ;)Quote:
4. Prices
The prices indicated on the Site are in Pounds Sterling and in Euros and include all taxes but do not include delivery.The chosen possible delivery costs are indicated for the User during the product selection and are invoiced at the end of the order in addition to the price of the products. We reserve the right to modify our prices at any moment but will apply the current rates as indicated to you on the site at the time the order was placed.
We would like to inform you that if an obviously incorrect price appears on our website (a price that is clearly too low, for example), and for whatever reason (IT bug, human error, technical error etc.), your order will be cancelled, even if it has been initially validated.
as they don't even have to give you a similar TV, just that exact model if availableQuote:
Please note that we will honour your order while stock is available.
Either way, you won't get a TV out of them, move along, nothing more to see here ;)
To be honest, that's not worded in a particularly "legalese" manner.
I reckon that's been added out of genuine frustration, two fingers up to all the people who are trying to swindle them - a direct result of what's just happened.
If anything, it's an attempt to make things clearer for people in the future, rather than a new point that they'll bring up in court. I'm sure it was already covered by the T&Cs in the first place. Mind you, since virtually nobody reads them - and certainly not people out to scam them - I'd imagine it won't make the slightest of differences in the future.
I can't be bothered wading into the HUKD thread again, but IIRC Pixmania informed buyers that the price had been deemed "vile." Needless to say this caused much hilarity (so much so that the same jokes were repeated ad nauseam), but apparently it's a term recognised under French law, to the effect that a vendor isn't contractually bound to honour an advertised price which is clearly an error.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikerr
I imagine the new addition to the T&Cs is simply to inform UK customers accordingly, rather than a retroactive squirming out of their obligations. :)
Which a number of people on the HUKD thread were of course doing (I'm sure I read one person say they'd ordered six!), but it's always something that people are going to try, obviously so if they get it they can sell it on for a huge profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve
but thats also part of what ive stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
So how long was it up at that price. You would think the system should be able to automatically
detect anomalies like this and alert someone.
I'd imagine they noticed when their systems showed that the most popular item on the site was a 47" TV
Deleted for now.
Yes, but you lessen the impact of your good legal point if you also add "and they stopped me getting a better deal because they had a small amount of my money". It makes you sound like a penny-pinching whiner who's more concerned about money than about the legality of their behaviour.Quote:
Originally Posted by petercook7
And that's not a good look.