Atom - DELAYED AGAIN?!?!

Christine, I would argue that just because I accidentally deleted one post in amongst so many others that were unfit to remain does not warrant my moderation being described as either moderating "haphazardly" or "without direction or planning".  It was an error, plain and simple for which I have apologised to the poster -  in my defence, it was very late at night and I was on an iPhone.  Deleting and editing posts is not as easy as it may seem and it needed to be cleared up as fast as possible.

As for your second point, as moderator I have a degree of discretion where something is not a clear cut breach of forum AUP - in this case as it was not clear cut, and I gave the OP the benefit of the doubt, so I elected to let the thread stand.

Everyone seems to be getting very tetchy, with some showing a strange sense of entitlement.

It's a forum, they get moderated, we're not exactly moving into a totalitarian dictatorship, for God sake could some of you just grow up?

.sjb

Richard Dane posted:

Christine, I would argue that just because I accidentally deleted one post in amongst so many others that were unfit to remain does not warrant my moderation being described as either moderating "haphazardly" or "without direction or planning".  It was an error, plain and simple for which I have apologised to the poster -  in my defence, it was very late at night and I was on an iPhone.  Deleting and editing posts is not as easy as it may seem and it needed to be cleared up as fast as possible.

As for your second point, as moderator I have a degree of discretion where something is not a clear cut breach of forum AUP - in this case as it was not clear cut, and I gave the OP the benefit of the doubt, so I elected to let the thread stand.

Points accepted, thank you.

Christine, if you wish to make a formal complaint about my moderation of this forum, you are at liberty to write to the MD of Naim.  It may not always be perfect (see above) but I do try to be as fair and impartial as possible towards all members.

Christine posted:

Richard Dane posted:

Christine, I would argue that just because I accidentally deleted one post in amongst so many others that were unfit to remain does not warrant my moderation being described as either moderating "haphazardly" or "without direction or planning".  It was an error, plain and simple for which I have apologised to the poster -  in my defence, it was very late at night and I was on an iPhone.  Deleting and editing posts is not as easy as it may seem and it needed to be cleared up as fast as possible.

As for your second point, as moderator I have a degree of discretion where something is not a clear cut breach of forum AUP - in this case as it was not clear cut, and I gave the OP the benefit of the doubt, so I elected to let the thread stand.

Points accepted, thank you.

No problem.

Christine posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Pev posted:

It seems to me there are two issues  being conflated here: the delay in delivering the products, and the practice of taking significant sums of money in advance of product availability.

The delay is extremely annoying and there have been issues around communication but Naim are clearly suffering themselves and doing their very best to resolve it. 

The taking of large deposits, or even the full price well in advance is inexcusable. My word is good enough for my dealer and so it should be. There is little chance of a dealer being lumbered with unwanted stock and a gesture of £50 or so should be more than sufficient if the customer is unknown to the dealer. As for the price hike, the price charged to the dealer and thus the customer should be the price in force at the time of placing an order. 

I am not entirely sure - but legally in the UK I believe if you have paid for a product and effectively entered into a contract  on the understanding it is the agreed  price - then you can't be charged extra if you were not made aware at the time of purchase for the goods to be provided.... otherwise I think it would be considered a type of extortion.

 

It's actually breach of contract and your right of action would be the price difference between what was agreed when the contract was made (when you gave them your money in your case) and what they try to charge you upon delivery.

When you buy something, you enter into a contract with the seller, not the manufacturer. Any subsequent change in the manufacturers Recommended Retail Price is therefore irrelevant. Besides, I find it hard to imagine that a retailer faced with a customer who expresses their disappointment with the long delay would actually respond by asking them for more cash!!!

ChrisSU posted:

Christine posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Pev posted:

It seems to me there are two issues  being conflated here: the delay in delivering the products, and the practice of taking significant sums of money in advance of product availability.

The delay is extremely annoying and there have been issues around communication but Naim are clearly suffering themselves and doing their very best to resolve it. 

The taking of large deposits, or even the full price well in advance is inexcusable. My word is good enough for my dealer and so it should be. There is little chance of a dealer being lumbered with unwanted stock and a gesture of £50 or so should be more than sufficient if the customer is unknown to the dealer. As for the price hike, the price charged to the dealer and thus the customer should be the price in force at the time of placing an order. 

I am not entirely sure - but legally in the UK I believe if you have paid for a product and effectively entered into a contract  on the understanding it is the agreed  price - then you can't be charged extra if you were not made aware at the time of purchase for the goods to be provided.... otherwise I think it would be considered a type of extortion.

 

It's actually breach of contract and your right of action would be the price difference between what was agreed when the contract was made (when you gave them your money in your case) and what they try to charge you upon delivery.

When you buy something, you enter into a contract with the seller, not the manufacturer. Any subsequent change in the manufacturers Recommended Retail Price is therefore irrelevant. Besides, I find it hard to imagine that a retailer faced with a customer who expresses their disappointment with the long delay would actually respond by asking them for more cash!!!

This isn't actually correct in UK law and I will demonstrate by way of examples.

1.  If the "seller" of the Core were to go bankrupt your warranty would still be valid via the Manufacturer under statutory law.  This is a contract with the manufacturer.

2.  If the Core were to electrocute you due to a design fault then your right of action would be against the manufacturer, not the seller.

Thus when you purchase via a dealer you are actually entering into a contract with the manufacturer also.

Christine posted:

ChrisSU posted:

Christine posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Pev posted:

It seems to me there are two issues  being conflated here: the delay in delivering the products, and the practice of taking significant sums of money in advance of product availability.

The delay is extremely annoying and there have been issues around communication but Naim are clearly suffering themselves and doing their very best to resolve it. 

The taking of large deposits, or even the full price well in advance is inexcusable. My word is good enough for my dealer and so it should be. There is little chance of a dealer being lumbered with unwanted stock and a gesture of £50 or so should be more than sufficient if the customer is unknown to the dealer. As for the price hike, the price charged to the dealer and thus the customer should be the price in force at the time of placing an order. 

I am not entirely sure - but legally in the UK I believe if you have paid for a product and effectively entered into a contract  on the understanding it is the agreed  price - then you can't be charged extra if you were not made aware at the time of purchase for the goods to be provided.... otherwise I think it would be considered a type of extortion.

 

It's actually breach of contract and your right of action would be the price difference between what was agreed when the contract was made (when you gave them your money in your case) and what they try to charge you upon delivery.

When you buy something, you enter into a contract with the seller, not the manufacturer. Any subsequent change in the manufacturers Recommended Retail Price is therefore irrelevant. Besides, I find it hard to imagine that a retailer faced with a customer who expresses their disappointment with the long delay would actually respond by asking them for more cash!!!

This isn't actually correct in UK law and I will demonstrate by way of examples.

1.  If the "seller" of the Core were to go bankrupt your warranty would still be valid via the Manufacturer under statuary law.  This is a contract with the manufacturer.

2.  If the Core were to electrocute you due to a design fault then your right of action would be against the manufacturer not the seller.

Thus when you purchase via a dealer you are actually entering into a contract with the manufacturer also.

You are right insofar as the manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that their products are fit for purpose, although complaints should invariably be taken up with the seller in the first instance, regardless of the fact that many manufacturers are happy to deal directly with customers. I don't see why any of this is relevant, though, as all we are talking about so far is contract of sale, which is entirely a contract between the seller and the buyer. 

ChrisSU posted:

Christine posted:

ChrisSU posted:

Christine posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Pev posted:

It seems to me there are two issues  being conflated here: the delay in delivering the products, and the practice of taking significant sums of money in advance of product availability.

The delay is extremely annoying and there have been issues around communication but Naim are clearly suffering themselves and doing their very best to resolve it. 

The taking of large deposits, or even the full price well in advance is inexcusable. My word is good enough for my dealer and so it should be. There is little chance of a dealer being lumbered with unwanted stock and a gesture of £50 or so should be more than sufficient if the customer is unknown to the dealer. As for the price hike, the price charged to the dealer and thus the customer should be the price in force at the time of placing an order. 

I am not entirely sure - but legally in the UK I believe if you have paid for a product and effectively entered into a contract  on the understanding it is the agreed  price - then you can't be charged extra if you were not made aware at the time of purchase for the goods to be provided.... otherwise I think it would be considered a type of extortion.

 

It's actually breach of contract and your right of action would be the price difference between what was agreed when the contract was made (when you gave them your money in your case) and what they try to charge you upon delivery.

When you buy something, you enter into a contract with the seller, not the manufacturer. Any subsequent change in the manufacturers Recommended Retail Price is therefore irrelevant. Besides, I find it hard to imagine that a retailer faced with a customer who expresses their disappointment with the long delay would actually respond by asking them for more cash!!!

This isn't actually correct in UK law and I will demonstrate by way of examples.

1.  If the "seller" of the Core were to go bankrupt your warranty would still be valid via the Manufacturer under statuary law.  This is a contract with the manufacturer.

2.  If the Core were to electrocute you due to a design fault then your right of action would be against the manufacturer not the seller.

Thus when you purchase via a dealer you are actually entering into a contract with the manufacturer also.

You are right insofar as the manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that their products are fit for purpose, although complaints should invariably be taken up with the seller in the first instance, regardless of the fact that many manufacturers are happy to deal directly with customers. I don't see why any of this is relevant, though, as all we are talking about so far is contract of sale, which is entirely a contract between the seller and the buyer. 

It is relevant because there are pages of posts on this forum from Core customers, myself included, with multiple complaints which are swaying to the Core NOT being fit for purpose. 

Christine posted:

ChrisSU posted:

Christine posted:

ChrisSU posted:

Christine posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Pev posted:

It seems to me there are two issues  being conflated here: the delay in delivering the products, and the practice of taking significant sums of money in advance of product availability.

The delay is extremely annoying and there have been issues around communication but Naim are clearly suffering themselves and doing their very best to resolve it. 

The taking of large deposits, or even the full price well in advance is inexcusable. My word is good enough for my dealer and so it should be. There is little chance of a dealer being lumbered with unwanted stock and a gesture of £50 or so should be more than sufficient if the customer is unknown to the dealer. As for the price hike, the price charged to the dealer and thus the customer should be the price in force at the time of placing an order. 

I am not entirely sure - but legally in the UK I believe if you have paid for a product and effectively entered into a contract  on the understanding it is the agreed  price - then you can't be charged extra if you were not made aware at the time of purchase for the goods to be provided.... otherwise I think it would be considered a type of extortion.

 

It's actually breach of contract and your right of action would be the price difference between what was agreed when the contract was made (when you gave them your money in your case) and what they try to charge you upon delivery.

When you buy something, you enter into a contract with the seller, not the manufacturer. Any subsequent change in the manufacturers Recommended Retail Price is therefore irrelevant. Besides, I find it hard to imagine that a retailer faced with a customer who expresses their disappointment with the long delay would actually respond by asking them for more cash!!!

This isn't actually correct in UK law and I will demonstrate by way of examples.

1.  If the "seller" of the Core were to go bankrupt your warranty would still be valid via the Manufacturer under statuary law.  This is a contract with the manufacturer.

2.  If the Core were to electrocute you due to a design fault then your right of action would be against the manufacturer not the seller.

Thus when you purchase via a dealer you are actually entering into a contract with the manufacturer also.

You are right insofar as the manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that their products are fit for purpose, although complaints should invariably be taken up with the seller in the first instance, regardless of the fact that many manufacturers are happy to deal directly with customers. I don't see why any of this is relevant, though, as all we are talking about so far is contract of sale, which is entirely a contract between the seller and the buyer. 

It is relevant because there are pages of posts on this forum from Core customers, myself included, with multiple complaints which are swaying to the Core NOT being fit for purpose. 

This is a discussion about the delayed availability of a product, your issues regarding the functionality of the Core may or may not be valid, but as far as I can see, they are irrelevant to this conversation.

More out of general interest. If a contract is entered into once goods are purchased, if the goods are not forthcoming in a timely fashion would this then be a breach of contract? Just curious really.

ssmith posted:

More out of general interest. If a contract is entered into once goods are purchased, if the goods are not forthcoming in a timely fashion would this then be a breach of contract? Just curious really.

Was a date specified when you made the purchase? Did the sellers receipt give details of their sales terms and conditions? if not then the law is open to interpretation and the rules of reasonableness come into play. 

guys. It's just hifi. I really think we're taking this all too seriously.

MangoMonkey posted:

guys. It's just hifi. I really think we're taking this all too seriously.

This "just hifi" is a few thousand pounds, it may take people on here many months of hard work to be able to afford such "hifi", as with anything don't we all expect to be treated fairly?

Christine posted:

MangoMonkey posted:

guys. It's just hifi. I really think we're taking this all too seriously.

This "just hifi" is a few thousand pounds, it may take people on here many months of hard work to be able to afford such "hifi", as with anything don't we all expect to be treated fairly?

Then go to your dealer, request the return of your money because they have been unable to fulfil your order in a timely fashion and buy something else. 

Only if they refuse do you really have grounds for complaint.

(In my opinion of course)

Christine posted:

MangoMonkey posted:

guys. It's just hifi. I really think we're taking this all too seriously.

This "just hifi" is a few thousand pounds, it may take people on here many months of hard work to be able to afford such "hifi", as with anything don't we all expect to be treated fairly?

Not forgetting those who work at the factory in Salisbury, or Naim's dealers.

But they tell me now its coming in June......

ssmith posted:

More out of general interest. If a contract is entered into once goods are purchased, if the goods are not forthcoming in a timely fashion would this then be a breach of contract? Just curious really.

Yes, it would be a breach of contract. Most retail transactions are verbal, but are nonetheless legal contracts of sale. As such, I'm sure the manufacturers predicted delivery date, where relevant, would be deemed part of this contract, and any delay would entitle you to a full refund.

(Where goods are ordered for delivery to the customer, you are entitled to a full refund if the goods are not received within 30 days, but that's a separate issue.)

If it's really that many months of income, you're better of getting an Arcam...

Not at all, some, including me, saved many many months for some of my Naim equipment... I was always brought up to consider it deferred gratification... but that says probably more about social class than anything else.

I don't subscribe to the view it's 'only' Hi-Fi. That is really patronising to the people who work and put a huge amount of professional energy to develop the field. Further I am sure the Queen's Award for Exporting would not be applied to a superficial UK manufacturer.

No lives will be lost if the Atom ships a month or two later - or even if Naim decides to recall that line. 
Thence the 'only Hifi'.

If you don't want to be in line, just ask for your money back is my point - not sure why we're talking about contracts and such.

MangoMonkey posted:

No lives will be lost if the Atom ships a month or two later - or even if Naim decides to recall that line. 
Thence the 'only Hifi'.

 

If you don't want to be in line, just ask for your money back is my point - not sure why we're talking about contracts and such.

 

Because there was some debate about who had the money from paid for units and the conversation evolved from that. 

Not sure that the 'only HiFi' phrase that keeps on appearing is relevant. Surely in the scheme of things that mantra could be rolled out everytime someone has a Tidal dropout, hard drive failure or compare Chord to Nalm. Sure in the scheme of things it's not the end of the world but it would be a uninteresting, short lived forum.

The longer this discussion takes, the more I feel the urge to buy one to show my loyalty to a brand which has captivated me in a few seconds by opening a cd door of a Uniti 2 which hardly can be a reason to spend silly money for any of the hifi purists on this most appreciated forum.

I'd rather Naim get the New range just right than ship a product which needs to be sent back to the dealer.

I can wait, it's only hi-fi.

After all, one can always buy a Muso and/or QB and enjoy the music, life goes on.

Or "upgrade" to the classic series 

Ardbeg10y posted:

The longer this discussion takes, the more I feel the urge to buy one to show my loyalty to a brand which has captivated me in a few seconds by opening a cd door of a Uniti 2 which hardly can be a reason to spend silly money for any of the hifi purists on this most appreciated forum.

Show to whom? You can better serve the company you feel loyal to by being critical and patient rather than by being indulgent and impulsive.

I do not know what you mean by "hifi purists" but I guess that many contributors to this forum would indeed see very good reasons for spending their money on a Uniti2. I certainly do so and I would have no reservations buying a Uniti2 now. I would know what I buy. This is something that I could not claim if I would order one of the new Uniti devices.

This brings us back to the issues discussed in this thread. My view is that, by all troubles with delays, price increases, etc., we should not forget that what actually matters at the end of the day is not the price of a device or the time it takes to be released but its value. If we are satisfied with what we have bought, we will associate to it a high value. The other way round if we feel disappointed, of course.

Thus, if we do not particularly enjoy returning units or reselling them on the second hand market, it is crucial not to order devices that we do not fully trust to meet our expectations. By contrast, if we feel very confident of our choices, it does not really matter if a unit comes a bit later or if it costs a bit more. A little bit, I mean.