This was posted 15 years 5 months 26 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Dell Vostro 220ST Desktop with 19" monitor - $350.46 @ Dell (Expired)

654
Dell Vostro 220ST Desktop with 19" monitor - $350.46 @ Dell (Expired)Affiliate
Go to Deal
Cashback
dansor on 10/11/2008 - 09:29 configure.ap.dell.com (4952 clicks)
HK$7SKXL4F?932
This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

Enter coupon code HK$7SKXL4F?932 for 5% off….sorry for those who jumped and bought without it :(

  • Intel Pentium Dual-Core Processor E2200
  • 2GB (2X1GB) NECC Dual Channel DDR2 800MHz SDRAM Memory
  • 160GB SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with Native Command Queuing
  • Integrated Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X4500HD
  • Dell 19" Entry (E198FP) Flat Panel LCD Monitor (Analog only)
  • No Speaker
  • Dell USB Quietkey Keyboard(English)
  • Dell Optical USB Mouse
  • Integrated 5.1 Channel (Audio) Capable
  • 16X DVD + / - RW WITH Dual Layer Write Capabilities
  • Genuine Windows Vista Home Basic 32 bit SP1 Edition (English)
  • Microsoft Works 9.0 (Does Not Include Microsoft Office 2003/2007 Software)
  • 1 Yr Next Business Day Onsite Service

(Edited by scotty — looks like the deal is no longer valid. Marked as expired)

Computing Computer Dell Desktop Computer

Related Stores

Dell
Dell

closed Comments

    • johnnyonelove on 14/11/2008 - 10:40

      lol.. johnforeskin.. very creative vanessa… you.. umm.. poopy pants!

      yeah, if they still have your coin, thats fkn shit by dell. i suppose my comments were more for those who had not been inconvenienced in any (significant) way.

  • Ben V Dell on 14/11/2008 - 09:42

    Guys,

    The following are some legal thoughts. If someone were to see a lawyer, this could give them a head start (or lead them in the wrong direction).

    Bens' top 20 reasons for Dell to be worried.

    1) A simple contract requires little in the way of formality. In normal circumstances, it may be written … it may even be implied from parties' actions.

    2) … It is quite possible for any statement - even a statement in an advertisment aimed at the public generally - to be an offer and not just and invitation to treat if that is what the person making the statement or authorising the advertisment intended.

    3) … an offer cannot be terminated once it has been accepted

    4) Like the offer itself, any revocation must be communicated to the offeree before it becomes effective. Until the offeree becomes aware of the revocation, he or she can accept the offer and any such acceptance will create a valid and binding contract.

    5) __ Contracts need not be contracts:
    Long v Millar (1879) 4 CPD 450
    Millar sold Long 3 plots of land. He did not sign the sale of contract, but did however sign the deposit slip for Longs payment when he cashed it.
    Millar claimed as there was no signed contract, he could not be liable

    Outcome:
    When the written agreeement and Longs receipt were taken together, they were sufficient to satisfy the statute of Frauds requirements.
    Millar was found liable.

    6) __ Contracts need not be contracts:
    As Heydon JA put it in Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153 at 179:
    It is relevant to ask: in all the circumstances can an agreement be inferred? Has mutual assent been manifested? What would a reasonable person in the position of the [plantiff] and a reasonable person in the position of the defendant think as to whether there was a concluded bargain

    7) __ Language of offer and acceptance:
    As Finkelstein J noted in Fitzwood v Unique Goal (2001) 188 ALR 566 at 591:
    This does not mean that contracting parties must use language such as: "I promise to do X if you pay me Y" followed by a statement such as "I agree". Whether a particular proposal amounts to an offer and whether a response is regarded as an acceptance of that offer, are questions of fact, the resolution of which must take account of the past communications of between the parties, the precise language used by them when it is said they reach an agreement, and the circumstances in which the parties communicated with one another

    8) __ Offer for sale or invitation to treat:
    Goodwins (Newtown) PTY LTD v Gurry (1959) SASR 295 at 299, Brazel J said:
    I think the words 'offered for sale by retail' in an Act designed to regulate retail shopping hours must be constructed in the sense in which those words are understood in ordinary everyday use… The [goods] were 'preseted', or put forward, or displayed for sale… This amounts in my opinion, to offering goods for sale by retail.

    <B>Sale of Goods Act 1923 No 1</B>

    9) 8 Contract of sale how made
    Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any statute in that behalf, a contract of sale may be made in writing (either with or without seal), or by word of mouth, or partly in writing and partly by word of mouth, or may be implied from the conduct of the parties:
    (The conduct by Dell here, has implied a sale. I have an email ackownledgement of my order, and they are stating delivery in this email)

    10) 23 Rules for ascertaining intention
    Unless a different intention appears, the following are rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer.
    Rule 1. Where there is an unconditional contract for the sale of specific goods in a deliverable state, the property in the goods passes to the buyer when the contract is made, and it is immaterial whether the time of payment or the time of delivery, or both, be postponed.
    (a) when the buyer signifies approval or acceptance to the seller, or does any other Act adopting the transaction,

    11) 30 Duties of seller and buyer
    It is the duty of the seller to deliver the goods, and of the buyer to accept and pay for them, in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale.

    12) 31 Payment and delivery are concurrent conditions
    Unless otherwise agreed, delivery of the goods and payment of the price are concurrent conditions, that is to say, the seller must be ready and willing to give possession of the goods to the buyer in exchange for the price, and the buyer must be ready and willing to pay the price in exchange for possession of the goods.

    13) 53 Damages for non-delivery
    (1) Where the seller wrongfully neglects or refuses to deliver the goods to the buyer, the buyer may maintain an action against the seller for damages for non-delivery.
    (2) The measure of damages is the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting in the ordinary course of events from the seller’s breach of contract.
    (3) Where there is an available market for the goods in question, the measure of damages is prima facie to be ascertained by the difference between the contract price and the market or current price of the goods at the time or times when they ought to have been delivered, or if no time was fixed, then at the time of the refusal to deliver.

    <B>Fair Trading Act 1987 No 68</B>

    14) 23B Implied representation that goods or services will be able to be supplied at advertised price
    (1) When a person, in trade or commerce, publishes or causes to be published a statement advertising goods or services for supply at a specified price, the statement is taken to include a representation that the person will be able to offer the goods or services for supply at the advertised price for a period that is, and in quantities that are, reasonable having regard to the nature of the market in which the person carries on business and the nature of the advertisement.

    15) Division 2 Dual pricing
    40 Dual pricing
    (1) A supplier shall not sell goods to which more than one price is appended at a price that is greater than the lower, or lowest, of the prices.
    Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

    16) 42 Misleading or deceptive conduct (TPA s 52)
    (1) A person shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

    17) 44 False representations (TPA s 53)
    A person shall not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connection with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services:
    (g) make a false or misleading representation concerning the price of goods or services,

    18) 51 Bait advertising (TPA s 56)
    (1) A person shall not, in trade or commerce, advertise goods or services for supply at a specified price if there are reasonable grounds, of which the person is aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, for believing that the person will not be able to offer for supply those goods or services at that price for a period that is, and in quantities that are, reasonable having regard to the nature of the market in which the person carries on business and the nature of the advertisement.

    19) 53 Accepting payment without intending or being able to supply as ordered (TPA s 58)
    A person shall not, in trade or commerce, accept payment or other consideration for goods or services where, at the time of the acceptance:
    (a) the person intends:
    (i) not to supply the goods or services,

    20) People power:
    http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/7696
    http://www.buckscoop.com.au/forums/showthread.php?t=12308
    http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1084759
    http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=728689

    • neosin on 14/11/2008 - 21:11

      ever heard of an exclusion clause? lol

      the exclusion clause on the dell website fits into the reasonable category. i.e. if they can prove that it was a computer mistake or just human error, a judge will rule in favor of dell :P

      remember people, these are big companies with smart lawyers that know how to get around the system.

  • gooey on 14/11/2008 - 10:26

    Before getting any calls from supervisors, I had a chat with VIC Office of Fair Trading this morning, they said simply if they haven't charged your credit card, it's going to be hard to force them to deliver you the computer at that price, even though legally there is a case as per above (if you want to go to court over this or VCAT-then good luck), if they DID charge your credit card, then they would be in trouble, and for those who did pay by bank deposit, youre in a better situation then the guys who paid by CC, as they have your money, even though THEY didnt take the money, YOU sent to them.

    • totom on 14/11/2008 - 11:39

      I paid by bank transfer but I guess it will be the same case with the CC since they haven't sent out the confirmation email yet -> means they haven't accepted the money anyway. We sent it to them only. Anyway, very upset with the way Dell handling this case. I bought & paid on Monday and now Friday, no one calls me yet. A but unsure whether I should just take the money or stay firm.

  • VanessaT72 on 14/11/2008 - 10:33

    I paid Monday and they still haven't returned my money either gooey.

    • Buzz on 14/11/2008 - 11:59

      Dell actually needs you to supply them with your bank details before a refund can be issued.
      I paid by bank transfer last time they had a major stuff up and received a call asking for it as they didn't have the details on hand.

      Good Luck.

  • Foma2 on 14/11/2008 - 11:08

    +1 for RockDJ
    +10 for Ben V Dell

    Thanks guys for your contribution.
    I think the ones who do not want for their rights can just watch instead of saying that all this is hopeless. At the moment things look pretty optimistic (at least as optimistic as such kind of matter can look like). Dell does not refer to any particular articals in our legislation. Instead they keep saying that it was a so called "technical error". It is pathetic. Cause I believe it was a genuine one. I won't change my opinion till Dell provides us with a written document descrbing technical error conditions which would be based on our legislation.
    btw I still do not have anything from Dell in writing.

    • randoom on 14/11/2008 - 11:24

      Hopefully they actually pay attention to some of the legislation, but I know from experience, they'll try and weasel their ways out of it if they can. Hence them calling everyone to try and get them to concede defeat just like that.

      I'm still waiting for my phone call. I'm not in a rush though, the longer they wait I suppose the more it is implied to me that nothing is wrong (even though I know it's not the case).

      Anyone had any luck getting an person in Aus on the phone? Last time I tried to attack something like this it took me calling the delivery company for Dell before I could get transferred to someone on-shore who actually helped me.

  • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2008 - 11:50

    I wonder if Dell will try to play the "you're not a business" card, since this was ordered in the business store.

    • theguru1 on 14/11/2008 - 12:09

      Itsross, As D may be monitoring this thread I wonder about the wisdom of making this comment.

      • neosin on 14/11/2008 - 21:16

        dude, they prob have lawyers that get paid 20x what we're earning lol!

        they're not stupid :P

  • VanessaT72 on 14/11/2008 - 12:11

    I'm a photographer so I'm not worried about the business thing.

    If Dell is monitoring (which I hope they are) you are the most useless sack of monkey-shit company I have ever dealt with.

  • Ben V Dell on 14/11/2008 - 12:12

    I see no issue with that - I saw no limiting factor saying "Business only".
    Either way, I have an ABN (Which I was given no opportunity to enter during sale acceptance) and I would suggest alot of other people may have an ABN that could be provided anyway.

  • mick123 on 14/11/2008 - 13:03

    ok.. i have no history with dell and I may not know the full story as too many posts to read (eg. if this has happened before etc etc) but hey… let's just call it even. If you have given your card details and have not been charged - drop the case. If you have been charged - ask for a refund. If you paid via direct deposit, ask Dell for your money back plus any fees or charges you may have incurred. The thing is, people make mistakes and yes, they mae a big one. But get over it… we are all human. Enjoy life

    • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2008 - 13:11

      Or Dell could just let it go and give us the computers we ordered. Being a multi billion dollar company, you'd think they'd love to keep their customers happy and give us our orders which are basically at cost price (they're not losing any money here).

      They're the ones who stuffed up, why should we be the ones to suffer for that.

  • randoom on 14/11/2008 - 13:38

    Just had my phone call. Man, I wish I was taping it.

    Essentially, the lady on the end of the phone was so freaked out she was stumbling across herself and actually confirmed to me - no joke - that Dell is in breach of the Trade Practices act! I asked her straight out "are you aware that what you are doing is against the Trade Practices act" and she said, "yes, yes..um yes..but we have system error and want to resolve this for all customers".

    If they can't even get their story straight, then get lost I say. I'm waiting for the Dell supervisor to call me.

    As for an excuse about why it took 4+ days to get back to me about this: "oh..we need 2 days for confirmation, one day for management decision, and we start calling customers"..

    Blah blah blah..just give my computer already and stop being morons.

  • spot2001 on 14/11/2008 - 13:42

    If Dell had sent us an email within 24hrs of when they made the mistake, highlighting how the mistake was made and possibly given us different options in that e-mail, I think most of us would said "ok, fine it's honest mistake, we can either cancel the order or maybe take on the different option they offered.

    However, instead of make all this transparent, they make calls to everyone. In my opinion, they are simply trying to avoiding leave a trail of the mistakes they made and more or less trying to keep this quite.

    And still, till today, 4 days now gone pass, all I did get was an phone call, no e-mail what so ever apart from the acknowledgment e-mail.

    I think it's alright for company to make mistakes, however, it's the way they handling this I'm not agree with. And it does make you wonder, are they trying to cover up this "technical error/honest mistake"? Why do they need to do that and then sell the same PC to us at almost twice the price? really sounded like bite and switch to me.

    Just my two cents worth.

    • randoom on 14/11/2008 - 13:45

      Even if they get a few people with the switch, they'll still have sold more computers than they would have normally. Shonky, illegal, and wrong for those people who unknowingly accept Dell's stupid offer.

      And to think I recommended them to others in the past…

  • quackster on 14/11/2008 - 13:54

    I'm curious, can anyone tell me how we would have accessed this price from the front page of the store, without entering any special codes or URLs? When the offer was up i never saw it anywhere except the posted URL however I don't know if it was just me.

    • randoom on 14/11/2008 - 13:57

      It was via an eValue code that you input into the Dell site

      See here: http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/topics/topic.aspx/ap/topics/…

      and try and enter the code: R221122AU

      It used to take you to the system for $350~, but they took it down. Now, however, they've fixed up the code to link to the stupid system they're trying to pass off now to everyone.

  • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2008 - 14:26

    Has anyone had a call from a Supervisor yet???? What was the outcome?

  • Professor on 14/11/2008 - 14:29

    Everyone I know who tried to order one of these has been rung by Dell and asked if they would like to take the $799 deal (with 5% or 10% discount) or asked if they (the customer) would like to cancel the order.
    I declined either option. I called Dell today and the CSR looked at my order on the system, seeming to indicate it has not been cancelled.
    I would suggest that Dell are trying to get people to voluntarily cancel their orders - perhaps indicating that they can't cancel the order themselves for some reason.

    • randoom on 14/11/2008 - 14:46

      Pretty sure (from my phone conversation this morning with a lowly employee) it's because they know they can't cancel the orders themselves. Hence, the phone calls asking everyone what they want to do and not some mass email that says "hey, we're cancelling your orders!".

      This infers that we have the upper hand legally and they know it.

      Actually, them not being able to cancel orders proves the existence of a contract. If there was no contract then, they could do whatever they want!

      Keep that in mind everyone.

  • theguru1 on 14/11/2008 - 14:30

    The system you referred isn't eactly the same as what was listed for $350.00, as there was an upgrade to a 20" lcd for some $20 more. That option isn't there anymore, only 22" and larger.

    Plus it is 4Gb standard ram, not 2GB with the option of another 2Gb.

  • cattop on 14/11/2008 - 15:13

    Finally got my phone call. Told the girl to send me an email as I don't conduct business over the phone. I really don't - no audit trail or record. I don't mind people ringing me to tell me that an order is confirmed or delivery details - things like that but when it comes to money I want a record either paper or electronic.

  • Ben V Dell on 14/11/2008 - 15:26

    Oh my!

    Pay attention to the frontpage ofozbargains for an even bigger Dell Deal!!!!!

    • unitedbythemoment on 14/11/2008 - 15:48

      I dont see any Dell Deal 0n the front page?????

    • ESEMCE on 14/11/2008 - 15:55

      Yeah, it was a bit of a confusing comment..

    • ESEMCE on 14/11/2008 - 16:27

      Now it all makes sense…

      Where the hell do people find these "bargains"??
      Nice work!!

  • randoom on 14/11/2008 - 15:31

    Check the media coverage now:

    http://apcmag.com/Content.aspx?id=3192

    Presumably by the guy posting before on here, given the name

    • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2008 - 16:16

      He could have at least got the link to OzBargain right! :)

      This is good news though, hopefully Dell will see this and suddenly feel generous in the interest of keeping a good public image.

      • djsflynn on 14/11/2008 - 16:22

        Hey, don't blame me for that mistake, it was a production error — but I'm getting that fixed now. :P

        • randoom on 14/11/2008 - 19:22

          Thanks for the coverage. Hopefully I can use your article to get a computer. Cheers.

  • WhiteEvo6 on 14/11/2008 - 16:28

    friend just got off the phone with an australian Dell supervisor that rang and said credit card buyers will get zero but those that direct deposited will get machines as payment was made. For those that did pay via that method I suggest you keep fighting Dell is aware they MUST send you the machine. I paid via card and will keep fighting as long as I can

  • Ben V Dell on 14/11/2008 - 17:26

    Sorry there was a delay guys - Carry on with this deal over here:
    http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/7810

  • VanessaT72 on 14/11/2008 - 21:24

    They reckon they've sent me a refund - which they can have right back if it's true that direct depositers get the goods.

  • Rosered on 15/11/2008 - 12:46

    Anyone else receive a Dell satisfaction survey? Found it in my email this morning.

  • crstna on 15/11/2008 - 13:27
    +1

    guys, lets bring this to the media, contact today tonight/current affairs, use our PEOPLE POWER

    if this case happened in any TV ads, DELL would be in BIG trouble, they can't simply claim they made a mistake and dishounour their offers. just because this happens on the internet, does it mean we can be treated unfairly?

    1. this is bait advertising, firstly they significantly lower the price to attract buyers, using people to pass on the good deals(which is us), then they dishonour the deal and pushing customer to pay full price or with little 5% discount. this has not happened just once, not twice, but three times in last few months!! we are the victims here can't you see guys? we've been manipulated!

    2. CC transfer should be the same as EFT, because CC customers agreed to the money transfer just as the EFT did. in a normal retail shop a CC transaction can happen after a few days we made the purchase, but since we agreed to the transfer, the shop/DELL can charge you money whenever they like.

    we have our consumer rights and we have people power guys, Fair Trading and ACCC don't always stand by consumers (I run a retail shop and I know it). but media works for general publics!

    http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/contactform/30607

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join