Missleading Pictures

Wig

uktim29 wrote: »

How come you think cheap Argos furniture should last 10 years then? I know you'll tell me you didn't actually write that, but your calculations of £25 per year equate to that.

It looks like some people really do want to milk the legal system!

Here's a suggestion, start by quoting what I did say and we'll go from there. Ok?

Wig

uktim29 wrote: »

My point Phil is the attempt.

What attempt (we'll ignore that you have now changed your objection) to profit is the OP making?

uktim29

Wig wrote: »

What attempt (we'll ignore that you have now changed your objection) to profit is the OP making?

You can ignore what you want. Funny though, the post I'll refer you to is post number 29. That was written at 12:10, are you sure I've changed my objection, it looks the same to me in that post.

I don't care if it's the op's or others advice but you'll know what that post refers to Wig. You certainly attempted there!

Wig

uktim29 wrote: »

You can ignore what you want. Funny though, the post I'll refer you to is post number 29. That was written at 12:10, are you sure I've changed my objection, it looks the same to me in that post.

I don't care if it's the op's or others advice but you'll know what that post refers to Wig. You certainly attempted there!

You're not making any sense (as usual). You've changed from post #25 to post #31 you now claim to be talking of attempted profiteering.

You have AFAICS said (#25 & #31) that OP in this thread is trying to profit from this, I have asked you in what way is that the case?

Regarding your post #29, I already told you, I suggest you go back and start again and quote what I did say, not what you think I said. We all know you find it difficult to think logically.

taxiphil

uktim29 wrote: »

My point Phil is the attempt.

I'm also confused about your stance on this, but if you're trying to say that consumers should never attempt to seek redress when a company is in breach of contract, then the problem really seems to lie with the laws that afford these rights to people.

Obviously we shouldn't have these laws as companies never do anything wrong, so if they're scrapped it will bring an end to the misery heaped on these poor companies by compensation-seeking consumers.

Wouldn't that be the perfect solution?

Instead of wasting your time on here you should be campaigning and writing to your MP to get the government to repeal the Sale of Goods Act and various other pieces of legislation. Maybe write to the Law Commission too - they're particularly interested in reform where it's needed.

Let us know how you get on.

hollydays

Strange how there are FIVE threads currently running on the vent and rip off boards about supposedly poor beds/memory foam mattresses companies-coincides with the fact a certain internet retailer of mses aquaintance has been stopped from promoting his own company (but is now using another "member" name to bypass mse rules and pming his company name to so- called genuine parties.Keeps google busy I s'pose.Not at all subtle though.

uktim29

Wig wrote: »

You have AFAICS said (#25 & #31) that OP in this thread is trying to profit from this

Actually I quoted you Wig, not the op. I was refering to your activities on this forum.

Wig wrote: »

I suggest you go back and start again and quote what I did say, not what you think I said.

No because it's not what about you did say here, it's about what I've seen you do in the past.

Wig wrote: »

We all know you find it difficult to think logically.

Making a remark like that because you disagree shows more about you than anything else. Oddly enough I don't think I've seen you have a thought of your own. You just seen to get all your opinions from law books.

taxiphil wrote: »

I'm also confused about your stance on this, but if you're trying to say that consumers should never attempt to seek redress when a company is in breach of contract

Yes I know why you're confused Phil, it's because I didn't write that. So it kind of makes the rest of your post a bit irrelevant.

Wig

Well now you've explained how part of your obscure logic is working, in that you were talking about me in post #25 -it's not the first time your replies are so off the walll that no-one knows what you are talking about- perhaps you can explain the other part of your post #25 and tell me how you think post #24 can be related to profiteering?

uktim29 wrote: »

Actually I quoted you Wig, not the op. I was refering to your activities on this forum.
No because it's not what about you did say here, it's about what I've seen you do in the past.

Then you will have no problem in quoting me from the appropriate place. I can't be expected to answer your inane ramblings until you ask a coherent question. In any event (if you do finally sort out what you want to say) I could still just ignore you, so don't get your hopes up that I will consider you to be worth any effort. I'm sure anything you come up with will be laughable and not worth bothering with. Not to mention off topic.

Oh look, there's some dirt on the sole of my shoes, I must go and clean them.

Making a remark like that because you disagree shows more about you than anything else.

It does show how much I value your contribution to this board. Nothing new there.

Oddly enough I don't think I've seen you have a thought of your own. You just seen to get all your opinions from law books.

I'm happy for you. Keep reading my posts, one day it might sink in.

uktim29

Wig wrote: »

Then you will have no problem in quoting me from the appropriate place.

No, I think this is a better quote, sums up what I was saying.

stugib wrote: »

Wig, I'm as much for consumer rights and using the law as almost anyone on here, but I think you're setting her expectations too high.

Wig wrote: »

it's not the first time your replies are so off the walll that no-one knows what you are talking about.

You can try and turn things round on me as much as you like, you'll even get a thankyou from Taxiphil. But it was simple what I was saying.

Wig wrote: »

I'm happy for you. Keep reading my posts, one day it might sink in.

Typical example of your attitude. There is nothing I'd ever wish to learn from you so don't give yourself false hopes.

Wig

Stugib was entitled to his opinion, as was I, at the end of the day a court will decide what is appropriate. Still nothing on any profiteering or was it attempted? Oh well that's what we have come to expect from you.