# HMV sit in



## dewdrop (19 Jan 2013)

Wondering what can be achieved by such sit ins when the premises may have little value like a leasehold at high rent.  I can understand a situation where the premises might have a good value and the receiver would be eager to sell. As for the stock most might be subject to reservation of title.


----------



## Knuttell (19 Jan 2013)

dewdrop said:


> Wondering what can be achieved by such sit ins



Publicity,some of these workers are owed money since before Christmas,they are dead right to make an issue of it.

The receiver in this instance seems to have behaved in a very high handed manner if the treatment of voucher holders is anything to go by.


----------



## callybags (19 Jan 2013)

Knuttell said:


> Publicity,some of these workers are owed money since before Christmas,they are dead right to make an issue of it.
> 
> The receiver in this instance seems to have behaved in a very high handed manner if the treatment of voucher holders is anything to go by.



High handed how exactly?
Receivers have to follow the letter of the law and cannot just decide to make decisions on a whim.

It is possible that HMV acted improperly just before the company went into receivership, but I don't see any evidence of the receivers acting other than in a proper manner.

I too don't see the point in a sit-in. The wheels of a receivership turn slowly and both staff and other creditors have to be patient.

I have been through the process and its not nice, but protesting will get you nowhere.


----------



## Knuttell (19 Jan 2013)

callybags said:


> High handed how exactly?



The treatment of voucher holders was pretty shabby by refusing to honour that which they were selling right up to the day before entering receivership.

In a receivership the gift vouchers still have full value and cannot be legally written down in value.

In a receivership, the receiver will take control of the assets of a company, but they have no legal right to extinguish the value on a voucher; only a liquidator or Judge can do that.


----------



## dewdrop (19 Jan 2013)

I have the utmost sympathy for anyone who loses their job but thousands have done so without any such like publicity. I wonder how genuine is the public response and in my view workers use this tactic in  a situation where a disposable asset is involved.  As already pointed out receivers would run the risk of legal action if deals were done in order to get the premises vacated.


----------



## RonanC (19 Jan 2013)

Knuttell said:


> The treatment of voucher holders was pretty shabby by refusing to honour that which they were selling right up to the day before entering receivership.
> 
> In a receivership the gift vouchers still have full value and cannot be legally written down in value.
> 
> In a receivership, the receiver will take control of the assets of a company, but they have no legal right to extinguish the value on a voucher; only a liquidator or Judge can do that.



The vouchers were being refused by HMV before the receiver was appointed. Once receiver was appointed, shops were shut straight away. The UK company went into Administration and some thought the Irish stores were part of this, but in fact they are totally seperate and required the appointment of the receiver.


----------



## Knuttell (21 Jan 2013)

> Some good news for anyone who got a HMV gift card this Christmas and didn’t have a chance to spend it before they went into administration. HMV stopped accepting gift cards after Deloitte took over its affairs last Tuesday,.
> 
> They will now accept gift cards from Tue 22nd Jan.
> 
> ...



Reckon there will be a few people out rooting in the bins tonight.


----------



## RonanC (21 Jan 2013)

Knuttell said:


> Reckon there will be a few people out rooting in the bins tonight.



Doesn't really improve the situation here in Ireland. The shops may never open again.


----------



## Knuttell (21 Jan 2013)

Its really a business model that seems to have gone past its sell by date,personally I still prefer to actually own the CD itself complete with jewel case etc I am unfortunately in the minority.

Xtra vision is another similar model that I sometimes wonder how its survived this long.

Good news for voucher holders though.


----------



## RonanC (21 Jan 2013)

Knuttell said:


> Its really a business model that seems to have gone past its sell by date,personally I still prefer to actually own the CD itself complete with jewel case etc I am unfortunately in the minority.
> 
> Xtra vision is another similar model that I sometimes wonder how its survived this long.
> 
> Good news for voucher holders though.



I'm a cd/dvd man myself too. Not into downloading at all. Much prefer having the artwork and booklets and having something to hold, look at. 

On the vouchers situation. Nothing at all has changed unless the shops re-open and the receiver has a change of heart or they can find a buyer for the business. I'm 99% sure ROI vouchers will not be accepted up North or anywhere else in the UK.


----------



## Ceist Beag (22 Jan 2013)

I read of one man on Henry St the morning before the shops closed down, who walked in, picked up a few dvds and tried to pay with his voucher (worth €40) and €6.80 in change for the balance. When they refused to accept the voucher he walked out the shop, dvds in hand. Staff tried to persuade him to return the items but he refused and stated that he will post the voucher and a cheque for the remaining €6.80 into the shop. I applaud that man.


----------



## Mel (22 Jan 2013)

I've been in the situation where a company went into liquidation owing us a month's wages. We weren't paid by the company in the end as other creditors came first and emptied the pot, but the state covered it, albeit after quite a delay (5-6 months if i recall correctly).
There is a cap on what they will receive, but I'm assuming these workers are not on exhorbitant salaries and the cap won't apply. 
This situation makes no sense to me, i'm not sure what they're hoping to achieve, as someone else said, there is a process to follow here. 



Knuttell said:


> Xtra vision is another similar model that I sometimes wonder how its survived this long.


 
Xtravision baffle me - I don't even buy my son's xbox games there anymore as they hassle you for your membership number and take all day - I don't understand what they are doing with this information, and why they feel they should get it. 

I've also heard them hassling people for small 'overdue' fines going back 4/5 years. Ridiculous carryon and driving customers away IMHO.


----------



## MrMan (22 Jan 2013)

You mean they expect their customers to pay for the service, how odd.


----------



## Latrade (22 Jan 2013)

Buying physical copies of music and films is now a niche market and a market that has been taken up by online purchasing, HMV just didn't move quick enough.

Golden Discs would be an interesting case study as they weren't too far from going under, but they changed their products to some extent. They largely sell cheap dvd box sets (TV shows, but also "documentary" type), compilation cds (aimed at use in cars and/or parties) and more importantly for us; children's dvds and lots of them and very cheap. All much more gift and impulse buys, all easier to getin a store than online, but also all largely none are freely available as pirated copies. I'd be interested to see how they're doing.

But on the protest, I don't blame the staff and I think they had to. Not just to get a deal with the creditors, but to stop the ridiculous media focus on vouchers. People were owed 5 weeks pay, they had rent, bills and food to get with no money and the only thing the media/public was concerned about was someone who couldn't geta dvd with a €20 voucher.

It's simple, if you've a voucher you're a creditor, but way, way down on ladder of creditors. Your real anger should be with the relative/loved one who couldn't be bothered to think of an actual present for you and instead just bought you a voucher.


----------



## Mel (22 Jan 2013)

MrMan said:


> You mean they expect their customers to pay for the service, how odd.


 
conversations along the lines of 
staff - "you owe €3 late fee"
customer "from when?"
staff - "2008"
customer - "?"


----------



## Leo (22 Jan 2013)

Ceist Beag said:


> ...he walked out the shop, dvds in hand. I applaud that man.


 
That man is guilty of theft.


----------



## Ceist Beag (22 Jan 2013)

Leo said:


> That man is guilty of theft.



Indeed he is Leo and I'm sure he was aware of that. No doubt the courts would come down on the side of HMV if it ever came to that. But I doubt it will come to that. Legally HMV might be in the clear on taking money from customers and denying goods in return but morally they are in the gutter on this and I doubt they have the balls to make an issue of this. Legally taking money from customers knowing full well you won't provide the goods in return may not be termed theft but you explain to me how it differs. People in this country are fed up with banks/big businesses ****ing all over the individual and hiding behind legalities, walking away from responsibilities and getting away with it. This might be a very small gesture of two fingers up to one such firm but fair play to him in my book.
All that aside, obviously as Latrade states, those who buy vouchers should have learned the lesson a long time ago that it is about the worst way to transact with business as the advantage is all on the side of the business. And also, obviously, the bigger victims here are the staff who have not yet been paid.


----------



## jhegarty (22 Jan 2013)

Leo said:


> That man is guilty of theft.



I don't think it's that clear.

To prove theft you would need to show both the act of taking item (easy) and an element of dishonesty.


----------



## Leo (22 Jan 2013)

jhegarty said:


> To prove theft you would need to show both the act of taking item (easy) and an element of dishonesty.


 
Not so, it's actually pretty straightforward. A shop is under no legal obligation to sell you any item, at the indicated price or otherwise. The indicated price is considered an 'invitation to treat'. 

This man offered vouchers and cash in exchange for the goods, that offer was rejected, and the shop is legally entitled to do so. The man proceeded to leave with the goods after the shop had refused to sell them to him.


----------



## Leo (22 Jan 2013)

Ceist Beag said:


> Indeed he is Leo and I'm sure he was aware of that. No doubt the courts would come down on the side of HMV if it ever came to that.


 
That's the thing, HMV or the receivers have nothing to lose in pursuing him. 

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very underhanded to continue to sell vouchers while refusing the acccet them (if this indeed did happen, I'm not fully up to speed on all the ins and outs here).

I'm just surprised HMV lasted so long here. In 2003 they closed all their German stores, the press release stating that the German market was 'too price-focused' for their operating model.


----------



## Ceist Beag (22 Jan 2013)

Leo said:


> That's the thing, HMV or the receivers have nothing to lose in pursuing him.



Nothing to lose Leo? They have already lost a lot of face with this fiasco - do you really think they will chase someone through the courts for €40 because they refused to honour the voucher? That would be a PR disaster even HMV couldn't stomach I would imagine!


----------



## Leo (22 Jan 2013)

Ceist Beag said:


> Nothing to lose Leo? They have already lost a lot of face with this fiasco - do you really think they will chase someone through the courts for €40 because they refused to honour the voucher? That would be a PR disaster even HMV couldn't stomach I would imagine!


 
They're no longer trading, they never will again! So they're not going to be too concerned about more bad publicity. 

That said, they're very, very unlikely to take on the expense of such a case.


----------



## oldnick (22 Jan 2013)

Leo - before you call someone a thief perhaps you should, as you state, "get fully up to speed on the ins and outs" of the situation.

If I was that person -whose name appeared in the press - and read your post I think I'd seek legal advice.


----------



## jhegarty (22 Jan 2013)

Leo said:


> Not so, it's actually pretty straightforward. A shop is under no legal obligation to sell you any item, at the indicated price or otherwise. The indicated price is considered an 'invitation to treat'.
> 
> This man offered vouchers and cash in exchange for the goods, that offer was rejected, and the shop is legally entitled to do so. The man proceeded to leave with the goods after the shop had refused to sell them to him.



Proof of mens rea is still required. You have only proved the actus reus.


----------



## Knuttell (22 Jan 2013)

Ceist Beag said:


> Staff tried to persuade him to return the items but he refused and stated that he will post the voucher and a cheque for the remaining €6.80 into the shop. I applaud that man.



As did I,glad to see there are some still left in this Country with a bit of backbone and gumption.


----------



## cork (23 Jan 2013)

What I used find annoying about the HMV website is that paying in euros was never an option.

That said, hopefully they will return in some guise.


----------



## Leo (23 Jan 2013)

jhegarty said:


> Proof of mens rea is still required. You have only proved the actus reus.


 
The shop refused the transaction, this person still took the goods, hard to argue there was no intent there.


----------



## Firefly (23 Jan 2013)

Leo said:


> The shop refused the transaction, this person still took the goods, hard to argue there was no intent there.


 
I'd say there's been an often lot of stock gone walkie-walkie since then


----------



## TarfHead (23 Jan 2013)

Leo said:


> That man is guilty of theft.


 
+1

Well, maybe not so much for the use of the term '_guilty_', but what was done is theft.


----------



## oldnick (24 Jan 2013)

If someone leaves payment for goods, whether or not the shop refused to serve him , how on earth is this theft ?

The payment being the voucher which clearly states that the it can be exchanged for goods equal to amount stated.

Surely taking money from someone for a voucher and then refusing to honour the voucher fits the description of "theft" more aptly.


----------



## RonanC (24 Jan 2013)

oldnick said:


> If someone leaves payment for goods, whether or not the shop refused to serve him , how on earth is this theft ?
> 
> The payment being the voucher which clearly states that the it can be exchanged for goods equal to amount stated.
> 
> Surely taking money from someone for a voucher and then refusing to honour the voucher fits the description of "theft" more aptly.


 
I was thinking around this line myself. If I buy a voucher from a shop, I pay for a product upfront before taking delivery of it. It is up to me then to decide when and on what I want to use it on, obviously depending on any restrictions the voucher may have. The shop has recieved full payment and will allow an "exchange" of the voucher in return for a product or service. So, how in the eyes of the law is this theft, if I leave the voucher on the counter or with a staff member and tell them I am taking a product from the shelf to the value of the same voucher.


----------



## Knuttell (24 Jan 2013)

TarfHead said:


> but what *HMV* done is theft.



That really needed fixing.


----------



## MrMan (25 Jan 2013)

oldnick said:


> If someone leaves payment for goods, whether or not the shop refused to serve him , how on earth is this theft ?
> 
> The payment being the voucher which clearly states that the it can be exchanged for goods equal to amount stated.
> 
> Surely taking money from someone for a voucher and then refusing to honour the voucher fits the description of "theft" more aptly.




He took more than the voucher was worth.


----------



## TarfHead (25 Jan 2013)

Knuttell said:


> That really needed fixing.


 
If you're conscientious about 'fixing', then it should have been 'fixed' to "_what HMV *did*_"


----------



## Knuttell (25 Jan 2013)

TarfHead said:


> If you're conscientious about 'fixing', then it should have been 'fixed' to "_what HMV *did*_"



Nah,carrying on like some sort of sad grammar nazi would have been rude,just fixed what annoyed me most about your post 

(nazi is deliberately in lower case btw)


----------



## TarfHead (25 Jan 2013)

Knuttell said:


> Nah,carrying on like some sort of sad grammar nazi would have been rude,just fixed what annoyed me most about your post
> 
> (nazi is deliberately in lower case btw)


 
Yeah, because putting it in lower-case makes it less offensive ?

Brilliant  !


----------



## Firefly (25 Jan 2013)

There's a pub in Cork called Sober Lane and they're exchanging HMV vouchers for a pizza....http://www.breakingnews.ie/discover/hmv-honour-my-voucher-581505.html fantastic publicity move on their part


----------



## Leo (28 Jan 2013)

oldnick said:


> If someone leaves payment for goods, whether or not the shop refused to serve him , how on earth is this theft ?


 
The guy here took the goods and left the shop saying he would post the vouchers and money later.


----------

