jonathan452 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 This is not unusual at all. As others have commented, sales and marketing are different organizations. Marketing's responsibility is new product definition and promotional activity. Sales is responsible for, somewhat predictably, sales. What ever happened to a bit of 'joined up thinking'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold big jim Posted January 11, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2014 Surely Hornby's legal department (if they have one) wouldn't have just arbitrarily decided to make these T&C up and send them out without authority. Would they? . maybe instead of a legal department they put out statments on internet forums and use the collective answers and knowledge of members to find where the holes are in the documents and revise them accordingly, save them a fortune in lawyers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Vistisen Posted January 11, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2014 What ever happened to a bit of 'joined up thinking'? The best explaination of the difference betweens sales and marketing I heard goes like this: a salesman and a marketings man for shoes where sent to a newly discovered tribe, The saleman wrote back "This is hopeless no one wears shoes here ", The marketing man wrote back "this is brilliant, no one wears shoes here !" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike at C&M Posted January 11, 2014 Author Share Posted January 11, 2014 "Retailers are granted permission to only sell within the territories classified as the United Kingdom and Eire". This is a very vague statement. Question? where has this statement originated from?? Sasquatch, This is clause 8 of the Internet Sales Terms and Conditions quoted in full. As has been mentioned within this thread, it can be read to have a different meaning, and may have been wrongly inserted anyway. No wonder we retailers are so confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimbus Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 This is not unusual at all. As others have commented, sales and marketing are different organizations. Marketing's responsibility is new product definition and promotional activity. Sales is responsible for, somewhat predictably, sales. Hornby's marketing man, though, as their public face, seems expected to take any flak from outside the organisation that may arise from absurdities created anywhere inside his company. This is why I earlier expressed sympathy for his position. And it does seem absurd that communications down a corridor at Margate seem as difficult to manage as to China! The Nim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium brushman47544 Posted January 11, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 11, 2014 Returning to the Amazon issue, when I buy books for example VAT is added because it is payable here in Portugal. This is because Amazon is registered in Portugal as I believe it is in all EU Member States. Therefore even if I buy from Amazon.co.uk I am effectively buying in Portugal not the UK. This is very different to buying from Hatton's etc. with business premises in the UK from which they sell and then ship to the buyer wherever they may be. In this case the sale clearly takes place in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimbus Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Knock Knock. Someone at the door. Oh no it's the HBI (Hornby Bureau of Investigations). That'll explain the high prices!! I'm going for a late night stroll before my blood boils over. Stop it. You're making me laugh. Imagine the scenario.... Small man knocks at your door. He is dressed in a gaberdine mac, wearing a moustache, and carrying a clipboard... High pitched nasal voice. "Excuse me, I'm from the Hornby Revenue Team. You appear to have bought some Hornby 4-wheel wagons, at a discounted price". "Err, no. Not me, Guv'ner. Honest!" "I can see them on your layout. They're easy to spot, they've got cr*p couplings, and the finish is lacking. Large fine for you, my boy!" If it's going to save Hornby enough revenue, it may become worth their while inserting tracker chips in their products. (Where's the smiley for 'Stirring'?) The Nim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted January 11, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2014 If it's going to save Hornby enough revenue, it may become worth their while inserting tracker chips in their products. (Where's the smiley for 'Stirring'?) The Nim. Aaah, that's what DCC really means. Detector Chip Control.... Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted January 11, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2014 I thought the basis of law was innocent until proved guilty...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted January 11, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2014 There's been several posts like this along the lines of "how can they prove it". If you'd read the Honda vs David Silver judgement from the High Court that I posted early on in this thread, you'd be under no illusion that Hornby don't have to prove the UK retailer is selling outside the EU. The onus is on the retailer to prove their innocence. The agreement is easily enforceable on the basis of the decided Honda case of trademark infringement. Note, this case has nothing to do with motor trade restrictions on type approval, merely trademark infringement. Given the judgement in place, it would be a very brave and/or foolish retailer that contravenes their agreement or mounted an expensive legal challenge that would almost certainly fail. If Hornby take a dealer to the High Court, the Internet will be alive with it - and their reputation will nosedive. Any legal victory would be distinctly pyrrhic. As it is, we have multiple dealers running the abacus to see whether the Hornby agency is worth having under new restrictions. Is this really what the shareholders want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted January 11, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2014 Hornby's marketing man, though, as their public face, seems expected to take any flak from outside the organisation that may arise from absurdities created anywhere inside his company. This is why I earlier expressed sympathy for his position. And it does seem absurd that communications down a corridor at Margate seem as difficult to manage as to China! The Nim. Fairly typical in a lot of large organisations - only the degree varies.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
250BOB Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I still ride Honda motorcycles - I have 3 of them. I see no reason to change. Excellent.....!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Don't Hornby supply mains electrical components for the British market with British plugs.Anyone who changes the plug would be doing so at their own risk thus no infringement on local laws apply. I have always argued that being taught how to wire up plug should be obligatory at schools. It is something that you going to need to do at some point in your life sooner or later. One day I expect there will be restrictions in changing light bulbs and each time one goes pop you will to pay a qualified fitter (given some long title containing the word Engineer in it) to fit it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 There's been several posts like this along the lines of "how can they prove it". If you'd read the Honda vs David Silver judgement from the High Court that I posted early on in this thread, you'd be under no illusion that Hornby don't have to prove the UK retailer is selling outside the EU. The onus is on the retailer to prove their innocence. The agreement is easily enforceable on the basis of the decided Honda case of trademark infringement. Note, this case has nothing to do with motor trade restrictions on type approval, merely trademark infringement. Given the judgement in place, it would be a very brave and/or foolish retailer that contravenes their agreement or mounted an expensive legal challenge that would almost certainly fail. Yes but a retailer can say that they have permission to sell outside the UK from Hornby,s competitors and that is why they offer world wide postage. Now if Hornby were to force the issue to choose between them or their competitors, I can which way most would choose (and such action may be illegal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Basically if they are trying prevent sales outside the UK then they shot themselves in the foot. I,d bet that 10% of sales are for overseas. The second thing is, what sort of problem are they trying resolve with such a clause? I mean how people in the UK would buy British outline from a shop in France and how many French people in France buy French locos from the UK? I would surprised if you could find one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyman7 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 If Hornby take a dealer to the High Court, the Internet will be alive with it - and their reputation will nosedive. Any legal victory would be distinctly pyrrhic. As it is, we have multiple dealers running the abacus to see whether the Hornby agency is worth having under new restrictions. Is this really what the shareholders want? Well, we still haven't clarified exactly what is intended by the clause re sales to UK and Eire, but assuming that it is designed to, ahem, 'manage' overseas sales I suspect that in practice any 'measures' would be restricted to closing a retailer's account. There isn't some international grey market in Hornby P2s where a retailer can go to Uzbekhistan and buy trade quantities, unlike with motor spares, Chanel No.5 or other high value branded goods traded worldwide, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Devil Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 There's been several posts like this along the lines of "how can they prove it". If you'd read the Honda vs David Silver judgement from the High Court that I posted early on in this thread, you'd be under no illusion that Hornby don't have to prove the UK retailer is selling outside the EU. The onus is on the retailer to prove their innocence. The agreement is easily enforceable on the basis of the decided Honda case of trademark infringement. Note, this case has nothing to do with motor trade restrictions on type approval, merely trademark infringement. Given the judgement in place, it would be a very brave and/or foolish retailer that contravenes their agreement or mounted an expensive legal challenge that would almost certainly fail. Isn't the David Silver case somewhat different though? My understanding is that they were buying spares bypassing Honda UK to retail within the UK etc. In this case the retailers are buying direct from the manufacturer and selling within the UK and then exporting said sale wherever the customer lives. If they were buying cheap Hornby stock ex the factory in China or through a middleman in the grey area then re selling in the UK that would be a more similar case, which I could understand Hornby being upset with. I honestly think the whole thing is much fuss about nothing and the status quo will remain, that said it doesn't affect me in any way as the day Hornby make something ready to run for what I'm currently modelling the words 'backside, town hall steps and show' will come into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium finelines Posted January 11, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 11, 2014 Death wish. Destroying the goodwill with their prime customers, the dealers and the buyers. R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Devil Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 It is still trademark infringement, so there is no practical difference I'm afraid. How? Sorry I don't see that, an internet sale at a UK retailer is processed in the UK, it's no different if I order here or on holiday in Australia, that's the actual point of sale. I then enter into a contract for the retailer to deliver the goods to me by a method of his providing and my choice. If Hattons for example set up Hattons USA selling to the North American continent from a warehouse in the US using stock sourced in the UK bypassing Hornby's US distribution network then that's a similar problem and I would fully expect Hornbys response. If I choose to order motorcycle bits from for example a Yamaha dealership in downtown Tokyo and have them sent to me as a private retail customer I cannot see a problem, it's the bypassing of the wholesaler/national distributor that is the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 If I remember wrightly there are 2 T&C. One as a retailer and the other for internet/online sales. Does the normal retail one have the same restriction? If no, and it only applied to online sales then technically I could place my order by phone or letter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted January 11, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2014 The contents of Post 168 of this thread appear to have been overlooked by almost all subsequent posters (including me). The explanation quoted seems to make a lot more sense. If I read it correctly, it means that anybody can supply bona-fide retail customers living abroad but not overseas traders who can only deal with Hornby. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 For people with websites they can also argue that they need 1 year to affect modifications to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
confussedshop2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 The Terms definitely cover all Retailers not just wholesalers - it says so on the covering letter we all received with the T&C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted January 11, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2014 So customer 'x' in Australia who has been buying Hornby models from retailer 'y' in the UK since before he emigrated will now be forced to buy direct from Hornby instead? Sounds rather like hijacking to me. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Devil Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Because you can only supply those territories you have permission to supply. Supply outside and you breach your agreement. Yes, but EC laws have greater power than any trade agreement. So how are they going to enforce that? The crux of the argument is where the actual sale takes place. I think the whole argument is flawed in the first place as already stated above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.