dfs sofa larger than stated

smcaul

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

I'll make this easy for you and await the appology in return



So part 3 there basically gives the retailer the right to do whatever they want - they're not going to chose the more expensive option are they? So if the buyer insists on an option and the retailer refuses this will almost always be because it puts them out of pocket and thus falls foul of this.

I await your comments...

It does nothing of the sort, going back to your car analogy it may then give the retailer the right to repair a car stereo in a new car rather then replace the whole car, but it certainly does not give the retailer the over riding right to choose whether to repair or replace.

Blacksheep1979

If the product conforms to contract after the repairs then it gives them the right to repair (if this is the cheaper option) - if they deem the repair to be too expensive they can choose to replace the item. That is exactly what the law states, if you don't have the good grace to admit it then that's fine but at least people on here will have seen in public rather than behind closed doors that your grasp of these things is flawed and should be taken with a liberal pinch of sodium chloride (unless you're going to try and argue that's not a salt?).

Oh and the car stereo is an accessory and not an integral part of the car (similar to your boiler not being a part of the house)

smcaul

Again it would be down to a judge to decide, and would depend on specific circumstances. Just like you saying in another thread that "after 2 months you would deem to have accepted the goods", this is also a mis-leading comment, as it would depend on the goods. So if you purchased a set of snow ski's in the summer and did not notice a defect until you used for the first time in the winter then it can be argued that acceptance had not taken place.

Fortunately these laws are written with an amount of leeway in place, but you seem to ignore that fact and want to make things rigid which they are not, hence why it would be for a judge to decide.

Now I have nothing to apologise for, you are the one who have been telling me I was totally wrong, and I have proved beyond doubt that I was correct in what I was writing.

smcaul

And this is how lawyers make their money, one will be on one side and one on the other.

I actually asked you to point out the posts in the past where I have been wrong, so don't try and twist things to make yourself look clever, I am more then happy to post about legislation, but did not want a thread filled with my old posts, which is why I said if you were going to do that take it to PM. Why do you insist on only ever reading half of what is said? Are you related to d.edna by any chance? he suffers from the same problem.

smcaul

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

Oh and the car stereo is an accessory and not an integral part of the car (similar to your boiler not being a part of the house)

Piffle, it is still part of the contract, and in many modern cars the stereo makes up far more then just a radio of the car it is an information center, so hardly an accessory. In fact, please define an accessory as I did not see any mention of them in the SOGA? In fact the word "accessory" is not written once in the whole document!!

Blacksheep1979

smcaul wrote: »

Just like you saying in another thread that "after 2 months you would deem to have accepted the goods", this is also a mis-leading comment, as it would depend on the goods. So if you purchased a set of snow ski's in the summer and did not notice a defect until you used for the first time in the winter then it can be argued that acceptance had not taken place.

The product in question was a laptop which would have had plenty of use within 2 months - more than enough time to be accepted. Stop trying to blur the issue between acceptance and dealing with faulty goods.

smcaul wrote: »

Fortunately these laws are written with an amount of leeway in place, but you seem to ignore that fact and want to make things rigid which they are not, hence why it would be for a judge to decide.

Now I have nothing to apologise for, you are the one who have been telling me I was totally wrong, and I have proved beyond doubt that I was correct in what I was writing.

But by you saying you are correct, you are calling me wrong aren't you? There is very little leeway in 'disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies'

disproportionate Show phonetics
adjective
too large or too small in comparison to something else, or not deserving its importance or influence:

smcaul wrote: »

Again it would be down to a judge to decide, and would depend on specific circumstances.

This is one of the most comedy arguements I've ever seen on here - that's obviously what going to court is about, but the judge has to abide by the law.

Judge: Why are we here today?
MSE Random who listen to smcaul: I wanted a brand new XXX and they only offered to repair it
Judge: Is that the case Mr. Dixons?
Dixons: Yes your honour, but it would have cost us more to replace it than repair it and repairing it would have given the customer a fully functioning product
Judge: Ah so you're saying the cost of replacement was disproportionately more than repair? Hmmm.
Judge: I find for the defendant and award costs to them due to the Plaintiff being a mupet.

Honestly - how do you think it would go in court if the defendant comes in with costs to repair vs costs to them new and there is a noticable difference - do you think they choose the least customer friendly option on purpose or because it's more economically viable? The judge has to go by what the law says which is if one remedy is dispoportionate (and that doesn't even mean it has to cost more, could just mean more effort) then the buyer can't insist on it.

I think it's time you gave up, apologised and had a nice little nap.

Blacksheep1979

smcaul wrote: »

And this is how lawyers make their money, one will be on one side and one on the other.

I actually asked you to point out the posts in the past where I have been wrong, so don't try and twist things to make yourself look clever, I am more then happy to post about legislation, but did not want a thread filled with my old posts, which is why I said if you were going to do that take it to PM. Why do you insist on only ever reading half of what is said? Are you related to d.edna by any chance? he suffers from the same problem.

here - (and I want to do it in public as I know you won't have the good grace to say you're wrong and for the good of people on here they should know not to follow your advice)

smcaul wrote: »

Oh believe me I have learnt a lot. And it is not up to the retailer to solely decide, it is down to the two sides to decide together. Acceptance really only means you can not have a refund, which in this case the OP is not asking for, they are asking for a replacement, which on a 2 month old computer is quite acceptable.

smcaul wrote: »

Piffle, it is still part of the contract, and in many modern cars the stereo makes up far more then just a radio of the car it is an information center, so hardly an accessory. In fact, please define an accessory as I did not see any mention of them in the SOGA? In fact the word "accessory" is not written once in the whole document!!

It would probably be anything that didn't come within the major functionality of the main item you've bought. You buy a car predominantly to drive not to listen to music in, unless you're some chav I guess.

This would be standard contract law, strangely enough (as it may be to you) not everything falls under the sale of goods act.

smcaul

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

The product in question was a laptop which would have had plenty of use within 2 months - more than enough time to be accepted. Stop trying to blur the issue between acceptance and dealing with faulty goods.

Not me trying to blur anything, I have stated my case clearly throughout, you linked the two, not me.

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

But by you saying you are correct, you are calling me wrong aren't you?

See, now this is where us grown ups differ from you, I never said you were wrong, I only said I was right, you actually stated I was wrong. I have proved this to incorrect. me being right does not mean you were wrong.

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

This is one of the most comedy arguements I've ever seen on here - that's obviously what going to court is about, but the judge has to abide by the law.

The Judge interprets the law and applies it to the case he is hearing, it is us who have to abide by the law.

smcaul

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

here - (and I want to do it in public as I know you won't have the good grace to say you're wrong and for the good of people on here they should know not to follow your advice)

It would probably be anything that didn't come within the major functionality of the main item you've bought. You buy a car predominantly to drive not to listen to music in, unless you're some chav I guess.

This would be standard contract law, strangely enough (as it may be to you) not everything falls under the sale of goods act.

Nothing in those posts was incorrect though was it? I have just proved that by posting the legislation I was referring to.

And standard contract law does not over ride the SOGA does it. stop digging yourself a hole, you clearly stated I was wrong, I proved beyond doubt what I was posting was correct, yet you still try and find more and more, just give up, at least I can accept people have different views and as long as they can back that up then thats fine, but don't go around calling people a liar ar telling them they are wrong when clearly they are not.

Blacksheep1979

I think you're confusing contract law with a contract, where a contract itself can't over ride uk legislation. Another small mistake that I'm sure you'll try twist and turn like Mr. Brown and deny ever happened/meant something different.

You were wrong, you stated that the customer can choose or have a part in the decission over whether they can have a repair or replacement - they can't, end of the day it comes down to ecomomics and if it's cheaper for a store to do one rather than the other and they choose to do that they are within their legal rights to do so.