Television part exchange offer

Francis Portelli is the consumer in this case, and the trader/company is Jokate Group of companies. Like many consumers, he has asked me to feature his case. Mr Portelli wrote:

Jokate of Guardamangia had an offer for a television part exchange. On March 3, I went to the showroom and told the salesman that I wanted to part exchange my old TV set, and chose a 26ʺ Grundig marked Lm370 (was Lm395). I gave them a Lm50 cheque, and had to pay a balance of Lm270 on delivery. The new television was in fact delivered on March 8. My old TV set was also taken and I gave them a Lm270 cheque.

Now, here's the rub. I saw a half-page advert featuring a 26ʺ Grundig television set, identical to the one I bought, priced at Lm280, as a March offer.

On March 22, I went to Jokate at 6 p.m. A salesman told me I had to speak to Michael Abela, who had left work at 5 p.m. I saw Mr Abela on the morning of March 24. He gave me a copy of the warranty card and told me to call the following week for a reply.

On April 2 Mr Abela told me they could do nothing about the issue, saying that there was an offer from the mother company in Germany, and that was it. I drew his attention to the fact that the offer was for the whole of March, therefore they were deceiving the public and I intended to take the matter further. He said "No problem".

I am requesting your intervention because the March 8 delivery date is well within the limit of March 1 to 31. I therefore request reimbursement of the difference. (Francis Portelli, April 3)

Jokate's lawyer Anthony P. Farrugia, wrote:

Our client has drawn our attention to a letter addressed to you by Mr Portelli of 25 Joseph Burlo' Street, Tarxien.

This customer is complaining of 'deceit', in that he expects to take advantage of an offer launched in the public media on March 18 in respect of the same item that Mr Portelli purchased on March 3. He alleges that his purchase was within the 'March offer' so he should benefit from this offer rather than the one under which he affected his purchase.

This claim is most unfortunate, since there can be no doubt that the client was fully aware of the conditions of sale under which he part-exchanged his old TV, receiving Lm50 for it, and purchased his new set at the displayed price at the time, minus the Lm50.

Mr Portelli affected his purchase under a particular promotional sales scheme. He is, of course, unable to show that the 'March offer' he now wants to exploit was in operation at the time he concluded his purchase, because clearly it was not at the time.

This became available exceptionally to my clients on account of a special concession from their principals, which they immediately passed on to their prospective clients rather than retaining the possibility of a larger margin. How's that for customer consciousness?

I believe it should be clear to the 'bona fide' purchaser that this March offer was available from date of launch up to and not further than the end of March. The client who intends making a purchase is, via the media and from that moment, being invited to do so within the month of March, rather than later, to exploit the advantage obtained by clients for their market.

I will advise the client that nonetheless, to avoid aggravating clients like Mr Portelli, it is desirable for such promotions to clearly indicate that no retrospective application of a promotional effort can be interpreted.

My client resents accusations of deceit, and reserves all rights available at law. (Dr Farrugia)

We have been dealing with this case since April. In all fairness, on having read the consumer's and trader's versions of the issue, I dare say Mr Portelli does not have a case. However, on my part, I would suggest a positive approach on Jokate's part, by offering a consolatory settlement, whereby we would be able to feature the case 'on a positive note'.