"per person per household" - meaning?

• 

  ozy on 14/06/2013 - 12:17

  +1

  EDIT: Sorry I read that wrong.

  1 person, per household (which is self-explanitary),
  Means: ONLY 1 person, per house of people, can claim a cashback.

  • 

    kman1904 on 14/06/2013 - 13:12

    But it's "1 PER person per household", not:
    -"1 person per household"
    -"1 per household"

    What made you change your mind?

• 

  ozy on 14/06/2013 - 12:28

  Your post is a bit confusing: your post title says:
  "per person per household" - meaning?
  Then your question is really:
  "What do you guys think "1 per person per household" means?"

  • 

    kman1904 on 14/06/2013 - 13:10

    +2

    What do you mean? Aren't they the same question?

• 

  ssx on 14/06/2013 - 12:29

  +8

  I agree, they put an extra "per" (1 PER person) and changed the whole meaning.

  Per means "for each", so one for each person for each household.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 16/06/2013 - 11:43

    Yes. If they meant 1 per household the first bit is redundant, or as they might have put it: "totally redundant in most circumstances". By adding it they are suggesting that every member of a household is eligible, in which case the household bit is itself redundant. Just another case of an inejucated person riting rong stuff.

• 

  tsunamisurfer on 14/06/2013 - 12:52

  So whats going to happen to your D-Link DIR-865L Cloud Router now?

  • 

    kman1904 on 14/06/2013 - 13:21

    +2

    Haha, OzBargain investigators at work! So much for not naming the company :P

    In the end the lady let me state a different address so I put my work address down. And NO, we were not trying to profit from the deal.
    Our house has a granny flat so we needed more than 1. They are actually being used on a daily basis. Not everyone in the household went and bought one, because we didn't want to be greedy. We thought it was fair enough if we bought only as many as we honestly needed.

• 

  Natt on 14/06/2013 - 13:11

  +1

  oops I read that wrong as well! If its "1 per person per household", then I would read that as each person at the household can make only one claim.

  Which is non-sensical really as it would not matter is people were at the same household or not if there was a one claim per person limit.

  Its possible they made a mistake with their purs, and should have said 1 person per household.

  If they did not, then its ambigous enough imho that they should suck it up and honour it.

  per (pûr)
  prep.
  1. To, for, or by each; for every: Gasoline once cost 40 cents per gallon.
  2. According to; by: Changes were made to the manuscript per the author's instructions.
  3. By means of; through.
  adv. Informal
  1. For each one; apiece: sold the cookies for one dollar per.
  2. Per hour: was driving at 60 miles per.

  ---

  so 1 for each person, for each household
  or 1 for every person, for every household.

  • 

    kman1904 on 14/06/2013 - 13:16

    I agree 100% with you. And quite honestly, I did not think I was taking advantage of them and that they actually meant 1 per household. I figured they intentionally put in "per person" to let each person within a house take advantage of the deal.

    Then I question, why not simply write "1 per person"? I guess that is their own fault, or maybe they wanted people to be able to claim for more than 1 house. (e.g. if I spent time at 2 places, then I would be able to buy a product for each place of residence)

    • 

      Natt on 14/06/2013 - 13:25

      well thats a point too, a person could technically have more than one "household" I which case they could claim once for each household.

      I really hope that they honour it, it was them that created the confusion and their opinion is no more valid than yours. I imagine the whole "reasonable person" thing might apply.

      I would escalate it and hopefully they will figure its better to do err on your side with confuding T&C. Either that our you could chat to "The Checkout" they seem to LOOOVVE cashbacks ;P

      • 

        kman1904 on 14/06/2013 - 13:34

        +1

        Thanks for that. In the end after speaking to her manager, she came to a middle point. I supplied her my work address and she changed my application to that address.
        So I got the overall outcome I was after, and she didn't have to admit that "per person per household" meant that more than 1 person could claim from the same address :)

        I posted this more out of curiosity than anything. I wasn't trying to take advantage of an obvious accident (e.g. pricing mistake). I honestly believed I was in the right.

• 

  _Bruce_ on 14/06/2013 - 13:32

  My opinion is that it is unclear enough that it can be read either way. In this case they should accept either case, or fix their terms.

• 

  retiredfeline on 14/06/2013 - 13:45

  It's badly phrased. If it's one per person the per household is superfluous. If it's one per household the per person is superfluous. If they meant that a person belonging to more than one household cab only get it once they should have used another sentence. The marketing dweeb who wrote it should be strung up.

• 

  SpaceNinja on 14/06/2013 - 15:40

  +1

  op should have argued that he is a gremlin not a person;
  limit only applies to persons.

  • 

    retiredfeline on 14/06/2013 - 15:54

    But they might come back and say that non-persons get nothing. :)

• 

  Natt on 14/06/2013 - 15:59

  maybe they did not want pets to claim. My dog gets freebies all the time addressed to her (we use her name for freebies)

• 

  Almost Banned on 15/06/2013 - 11:24

  I think the meaning is relatively clear and is not good for DSE.
  Adding additional words changes the meaning.
  It cannot mean 1 per person OR 1 per household if they have not said that.
  The wording they used means that each person in each household can order one.
  That means if you have 4 people in your family and you own two households you can get 8 modems.
  Good luck.

• 

  minijumbuk on 15/06/2013 - 11:51

  -1

  There is no ambiguity over this at all…if she doesn't give you the cash back I think you should complain to ACCC

• 

  p1 ama on 15/06/2013 - 19:15

  I think the "1 per household" rule is used to stop people from "making up" names and getting more freebies. For example, if there was a company sending out samples and my name is Mr. X, living at a certain address, I could technically make up Mr. Y, Mr. Z and Mrs. A who all live at my address and get samples under their names. So it does make sense why companies might want to have only "1 per household".

  I'm sure if you're unhappy, you can complain to the ACCC, but you will probably not get very far because the company isn't obliged to give you the cashback and they've been pretty clear about their terms, it's not like they're actively trying to cheat you.

  But either way, there's ways to get around it, get a friend who lives elsewhere to do it for you or use another address, e.g. work address or relative's place…etc.

• 

  Natt on 15/06/2013 - 19:52

  Hmm long rational post on response to this comment.. Nah .

  You can't be serious! Cashbacks are not straightforward and that's before poor T&C's

• 

  grasstown on 15/06/2013 - 20:36

  Youre right, I think it also means that each person can use all their households for multiple valid claims.