Retailers often try to sell scarce goods with additional accessories, which is, in principle, illegal, but many turn a blind eye to this. Below is the story of our reader, Dmitry bought a game console in the “Connected”, and here’s what happened. Let’s read his letter.
Eldar, good afternoon.
You are probably well aware of the situation with game consoles in the market (their shortage).
On January 8, I saw on Svyazny’s website that the Microsoft Xbox Series X game console is available in the store in the European shopping center, I made an order, I had to pay on the website.
But since lately, very often the situation that you pay, but not available and offer to wait or return the money.
After the order, I did not start paying immediately, but called Svyaznoy, where I was confirmed that I was available and I could drive myself to make sure and pay (it takes 2 hours).
After 40 minutes I was in the store, the console was really available, but the sellers offered to pay me at their terminal, not on the link from the online store.
Since it was not important to me, I paid in the store.
Picking up the console, I asked about the Xbox Game Pass Ultimate for 12 months [Цифровая версия] which comes complete with the console as indicated on the website.
To understand, the very imposition of Game Pass already violates the ZZPP, as it is forbidden to impose additional goods, but Svyazny apparently not profitable to sell the console on the RRC for 49,990 rubles. So they came up with such a clever move that you can only buy with Game Pass which costs 10,776 ₽
And thus the cost of the console was 60,790 rubles.
Well, realizing that there is no other way to buy, people agree to it.
In my case, I was told that once I paid in the store, it is not an online order, but a retail purchase and the code is not attached to it, then came up with a story that someone returned the console and forgot the code (but why am I here why I paid for it, could not explain)
I called the hotline, I was offered to return the console and I will get my money back, and then, when it appears on the site and if I manage to order it, they will sell it to me with Game Pass. (What nonsense, and such a feeling that realizing that it did not roll, they had to return the console to the store in any way).
I refused to return, then on the hotline I was offered to send them a check in the mail and they will solve the problem.
As you may have guessed, the decision was “The Fool Himself” and we don’t owe you anything.
Buying in the center of Moscow from an official online retailer, I felt like a Gorbushka in the early 90’s.
I will be grateful for your help in covering this situation and resolving it.
Although now, after such a boorish attitude on the part of Svyazny, I would be more satisfied with the decision not to issue a code, but to return the money for it.
Perhaps the icing on the cake were the automatic mailings from Svyazny, set up to sell at least something to a site visitor. The letter contains prices that are not on Svyazny’s website, if you follow the links provided, but this is a trifle against the background of the situation as a whole.
Now let’s try to remove all emotions and discuss the situation. I have no doubt that this was the story. It is also obvious that the sellers “saved” on the subscription and increased the profitability for the company. And it looks at least ugly, because such an approach can be called fraud in one form or another, when the buyer was fooled. Sellers had to say that payment at the terminal means buying goods with a different set of supplies. They didn’t.
When we discuss RRC, we must remember that the key in this term is “recommended”, in fact it can be both lower and higher, the manufacturer has no right, according to the law, to limit prices in one way or another. Therefore, Svyaznoy could, in theory, sell the prefix from Microsoft at any price, the company in its own right.
Of course, the magic of numbers looks amazing, when the cost of subscription and RRC on the console form the most cherished 60,790 rubles, it is unlikely that a coincidence is possible and it is accidental. The feeling that someone just stole the subscription code and now it is gone, and Svyaznoy does not want to bear the cost of compensation.
The actions of the buyer in this case may be as follows: the company’s claim that the goods sold do not meet the stated characteristics, the delivery set. It will not be difficult to prove it. Please correct this omission. If this is not done, then there is simply no civilized way to resolve the issue. Trying to call on the media to force Svyaznoy to correct the situation does not make sense, the result will most likely be zero. As well as when trying to solve the problem through social media. It is clear that it is long, tedious and many do not want to do it, but it is the only real way to defend their rights.
What do you think about this situation?