We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Trading Standards vs incarexpress.co.uk

Options
1…1314161819…24

Comments

  • mdbarber
    mdbarber Posts: 1,116 Forumite
    Bamber19 wrote: »
    Why can you not udnerstand that the act creates rights, it doesn't nullify other potential rights, which would be a ridiculous starting point. It's not for anyone to point out a section of an act that says you don't have a right, there wont be one...it's for you to point out a section that says you do have the right you claim you have, and you simply cannot because nowhere in the act does it state that the company must refund you carriage costs up front when you are returning an item that you believe to be faulty.

    Can you not see that if acts were set up to state rights you do not have (which is what you're asking us to provide for you) they would be never ending pieces of legislation. What the act does is lists rights you DO have and the right that you claim to have is not included in it.

    omg omg omg i would cry if it weren't so funny.
    will you please read your own posts
    I asked for postage costs upfront??, again making things up you are

    I have repeatedly pointed to the law which says I have the right to reject the goods as faulty and am under no obligation to return them.
    All I asked was if any single person could point to a law/precedent or anything which actually contradicts that.
    We can't just write contracts that state it is ok to do something against the law, fool people into signing them and get away with it, if you know of any instance where this is possible please let us know don't just say it is so
    click here to achieve nothing!
  • mdbarber
    mdbarber Posts: 1,116 Forumite
    dmg24 wrote: »
    I'm completely lost - am I correct in assuming that mdbarber is no further forward than he was weeks ago?

    incarexpress must be having such a laugh following this thread.

    Can anyone tell me when/ if the case is going to be heard?

    (Sorry for the questions, but you can understand why I don't want to read the reems of people giving good advice, only for mdbarber to spout the same old stuff back?!) x

    and will you please shut up and stay away you have already proved you know nothing on the subject
    click here to achieve nothing!
  • Bamber19
    Bamber19 Posts: 2,264 Forumite
    mdbarber wrote: »
    omg omg omg i would cry if it weren't so funny.
    will you please read your own posts
    I asked for postage costs upfront??, again making things up you are

    I have repeatedly pointed to the law which says I have the right to reject the goods as faulty and am under no obligation to return them.
    All I asked was if any single person could point to a law/precedent or anything which actually contradicts that.
    We can't just write contracts that state it is ok to do something against the law, fool people into signing them and get away with it, if you know of any instance where this is possible please let us know don't just say it is so

    You've repeatedly pointed to nothing, you've repeatedly suggested you have a right which you offer no evidence for.
    Bought, not Brought
  • grayme-m
    grayme-m Posts: 1,484 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    mdbarber wrote: »
    I have repeatedly pointed to the law which says I have the right to reject the goods as faulty and am under no obligation to return them.
    All I asked was if any single person could point to a law/precedent or anything which actually contradicts that.

    I can order a very expensive item from someone online, say it's faulty and get a full refund without returning it...? :think: :idea: :dance:
    Toyota - 'Always a better way', avoid buying Toyota.
  • dmg24
    dmg24 Posts: 33,920 Forumite
    10,000 Posts
    mdbarber wrote: »
    and will you please shut up and stay away you have already proved you know nothing on the subject

    Let me think about this ... no!

    I'm bored tonight, you are my entertainment! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

    I have to say that Bamber19, gayme-m and mute_posting deserve medals for their perseverance on this discussion.

    Whereas you clearly need some sort of reality check!
    Gone ... or have I?
  • Bamber19
    Bamber19 Posts: 2,264 Forumite
    dmg24 wrote: »
    Can anyone tell me when/ if the case is going to be heard?
    I suspect we'll never find out, either they'll win the case based on DSR but come here and tell us it was all down to the SOGA (whilst still not being able to provide the actual provisions of the act, you have to question the mentality of someone who goes with the "iffy" argument rather than the practically guaranteed win on a matter of principle) or lose the case and tell us he/she won it.
    Bought, not Brought
  • Bamber19
    Bamber19 Posts: 2,264 Forumite
    grayme-m wrote: »
    I can order a very expensive item from someone online, say it's faulty and get a full refund without returning it...? :think: :idea: :dance:

    apparently so, the concept of unjustified enrichment, a legal concept that has existed for many years suddenly doesn't exist.
    Bought, not Brought
  • grayme-m
    grayme-m Posts: 1,484 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Back to the case I was on, I think the judge threw out the claimants case because he was morally wrong and wasting everyone's time, but technically did not apply the law.

    TBH, I wonder if this will happen here too?
    Toyota - 'Always a better way', avoid buying Toyota.
  • grayme-m
    grayme-m Posts: 1,484 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Bamber19 wrote: »
    apparently so, the concept of unjustified enrichment, a legal concept that has existed for many years suddenly doesn't exist.

    Where does it state I could reject a faulty item, get a refund and not send it back in the SOGA...?

    ETA: Question really to mdbarber. :)
    Toyota - 'Always a better way', avoid buying Toyota.
  • grayme-m
    grayme-m Posts: 1,484 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    grayme-m wrote: »
    Where does it state I could reject a faulty item, get a refund and not send it back in the SOGA...?

    ETA: Question really to mdbarber. :)

    Is it this?:

    Buyer not bound to return rejected goods

    Unless otherwise agreed, where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he refuses to accept them, having the right to do so, he is not bound to return them to the seller, but it is sufficient if he intimates to the seller that he refuses to accept them.
    But that's not what happened, it was accepted....
    Toyota - 'Always a better way', avoid buying Toyota.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture