Jump to content

1x10 / 1x10 /1x10


nikon F

Recommended Posts

i bought a barefaced 1x10 last year and decided to add another last week ,but as the shop had put the price up by £70 ( after i had ordered and paid for it only to be told later on the same day by phone that i couldnt have it for that price because they hadnt remembered to update their website ) i'm looking at the trace elf 1x10 ( £280 ish ) and the warwick gnome (  £150 ish ). has anyone any thoughts on either as to how good or not so good they are ?

thanks Andy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes i see that,,,but ive got three heads and  two combos so i dont really want another ,,although i did see Andy T had pm 'd about the head but i didnt see any outcome as in head sold cab is now left. thanks ,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fretmeister said:

Put a wanted ad up.

 

I gigged a pair of One10 for ages and it was excellent. I wouldn't want to mix and match

I expect the Barefaced would be SO much better than any other similar cab at a lower price point.
I'd pick up a second hand One10 if I was you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you love the sound of your 110 then stick to getting a second, you'll get a worthwhile increase in sound levels if you need it and will preserve your sound. They come up used on BC fairly frequently so your wait shouldn't be too long.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bill Fitzmaurice said:

Don't mix different cabs. If they're not identical, most especially if the drivers aren't identical, you're creating a weak link in the chain scenario.

 

Maybe from a scientific perspective it isn't 'correct' but to me what's correct is what sounds good

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I compared the Bf 110 to the TE 208 both through an Elf at the Bass Gallery a few years ago.  The Barefaced cab sounded much better, the TE cab sounded thin in comparison. I don't think the Bass Gallery had the TE 110 at the time.  I bought a second BF110 from them 6 months later.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, acidbass said:

Maybe from a scientific perspective it isn't 'correct' but to me what's correct is what sounds good

When you have one driver that can only take 50 watts before reaching its mechanical limit and another that can take 500 watts before reaching its mechanical limit you don't need a scientific background to see that it's a bad pairing. It's not about being correct, it's about being logical.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my book if a retailer has accepted an order at a certain price and that price has been paid by the customer then that customer should receive what he/she paid for forthwith. The customer is not liable for the retailers' mistake! I'd discuss the situation with the owner and demand satisfaction.

Edited by BassmanPaul
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BassmanPaul said:

In my book if a retailer has accepted an order at a certain price and that price has been paid by the customer then that customer should receive what he/she paid for forthwith. The customer is not liable for the retailers' mistake! I'd discuss the situation with the owner and demand satisfaction.

whilst i agree , i just couldnt be *rsed to fight about it . what could i do threaten legal action ? lifes too short especially when youve turned 60 .😁.anyway im going to buy the cab i was after from a BC member today so all will be right in the world .( in a small way at least )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Geek99 said:

You open a case for breach of contract at the local Court. You’ve paid, a contract is made. If they’d just promised, or if you hadn’t yet paid it would be different 

i had put the order in and hit the buy button .the money was showing as a pending transaction so had been taken off my available funds in the account .not sure if that would be considered that i had actually paid in law .anyway a moot point now .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/01/2022 at 07:20, nikon F said:

i bought a barefaced 1x10 last year and decided to add another last week ,but as the shop had put the price up by £70 ( after i had ordered and paid for it only to be told later on the same day by phone that i couldnt have it for that price because they hadnt remembered to update their website ) i'm looking at the trace elf 1x10 ( £280 ish ) and the warwick gnome (  £150 ish ). has anyone any thoughts on either as to how good or not so good they are ?

thanks Andy.

If you paid for an item at its advertised price and you have a receipt then you and the vendor have entered a contract whereby they have a duty of care to supply at the agreed price.

I would have contacted trading standards regarding the legality of the price increase after payment or, simply said no and walked away.

What they are doing is wrong!

You can bet your last cent that if the price turned out to be less then they would have said nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The relevant law here is offer and acceptance.

 

The get out clause that often applies in online cases is that the sellers T&C's states that acceptance of the offer only takes place when the goods are shipped or the buyer is notified they are shipped.

 

I don't know if that is specifically in this sellers T&C's here but it is a fairly standard online retailer clause.  I'd be surprised if it isn't, its a handy clause for suppliers to have as it gives them the opportunity to catch things like this.

 

We all normally agree to all the sellers T&C's by ticking the box on payment that we agree to the T&C's, and of course hardly anyone reads through the T&C's.  

 

Agreed poor customer service, PR etc, but unlikely that it would be termed as a breach of contract.......

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if such a clause would stand up in real world courts against accepted precedents like fisher v bell and boots v royal pharmaceutical 

 

id argue relative balance of power of the parties against it 

 

Edited by Geek99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Geek99 said:

Not sure if such a clause would stand up in real world courts against accepted precedents like fisher v bell and boots v royal pharmaceutical 

 

id argue relative balance of power of the parties against it 

 

 

Each case depends on the individual circumstances.

 

No contract is formed in my online case example though.  This is very common.  No contract formed until shipped or notification of shipping.

 

Fisher Vs Bell is actually the same principle, a shop website is an invitation to treat, the modern day shop window if you will.

 

Online purchase, putting into your basket and making a payment is your offer to the seller.

 

The sticking point is then where does acceptance of this offer take place.

We firstly need both offer and acceptance to form the contract.

 

Commonly the acceptance will be deemed to be once goods are shipped or notification of shipment is made, thus giving the seller ample time and opportunity to review the offer and accept or not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Happy Jack said:

In truth, service like that deserves to be recognised. Which shop was it? Do tell ...

all i will say is the establishment has already been mentioned in this thread ....just not by me tho 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, evan47 said:

If you paid for an item at its advertised price and you have a receipt then you and the vendor have entered a contract whereby they have a duty of care to supply at the agreed price.

I would have contacted trading standards regarding the legality of the price increase after payment or, simply said no and walked away.

 

They didn't increase the price after payment, they cancelled the payment saying that the goods were no longer available which is almost certainly in the T&C. Every shop will have this if they are trading as a shop as well as online, as someone could buy it on the shop at the same time as it is being sold online, and then the order would have been cancelled.

In this case, the reason it isn't available is because it is available at a new price, but although that is bad, it is covered by above.

 

Certainly wouldn't be happy and would complain about it on all review sites, but there is no legal redress to it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...