Up to 6 years Warranty on electrical goods!

dmg24

Helen_J wrote: »

Lol no. I spent 4 months studying EU law and sat an exam in it 2 weeks ago. That is why I know it off by heart

Four months ... wowzers, you must be an expert! :rotfl:

Esqui

They're both pretty much the same. I know EU legislation takes precedence where there's a conflict with UK law, but we amended our SoGA to avoid a conflict when the EU directive came into force, didn't we?

Tozer

Esqui wrote: »

They're both pretty much the same. I know EU legislation takes precedence where there's a conflict with UK law, but we amended our SoGA to avoid a conflict when the EU directive came into force, didn't we?

Yep, that's how I see it. For example the previous test of "merchantable quality" changed to "satisfactory quality" as, I believe, a result of the Directive.

roger196

dmg24 wrote: »

The Judge did not rely on the Directive, he used it as a means of interpretation in determining the true intention of the domestic legislation.

Should procurers, pimps, panders, call them what you will, pay VAT?

Well it is a turnover tax

With respect I think this should be the other way around. The question is "does uk VAT legislation correctly bring into being the objectives of the 6th Directive". If the Uk legislation fails to do so, the taxpayer may rely on the Directive to over-rule the VAT acts. There are numerous cases whcih follow this. Google on "VAT cases and 6th Directive" to bring them up.

Article 288 of the Treaty of the European Union
A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) case Andrea Francovich v Italian Republic , Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, established that where an individual could not obtain compensation because of the failure of the member state to implement a directive, then that individual was entitled to compensation from the member state itself [1991] ECR I-5357, I-5415, para37.

Helen_J_3

gordikin wrote: »

Calm down you're confusing yourself!

Nope, don't see any confusion just you choosing parts of my posts to quote to make me look stupid. How mature :T

Tozer wrote: »

That's a bit simplistic. As DMG rightly points out, directives can be and are used to interpret domestic legislation.

Whilst Directives have "indirect" effect, there are some circumstances in which they can be directly applicable.

In the event of conflict between EU and domestic legislation, then (unfortunately!) EU law prevails. To that extent, if a Judge thought that the particular directive was not fully implemented in the SOGA, then it is likely he would interpret SOGA so as to give effect to the directive - even if this meant bending the legislation considerably.

All of that said, I don't think SOGA is deficient.

What I said

dmg24 wrote: »

Four months ... wowzers, you must be an expert! :rotfl:

Still haven't got anyone showing me where I'm wrong??

Equaliser123

Helen_J wrote: »

Nope, don't see any confusion just you choosing parts of my posts to quote to make me look stupid. How mature :T

What I said

Still haven't got anyone showing me where I'm wrong??

Crikey. people post an objective comment and instead of entering into the spirit of debate, you get ratty.

Not sure if you are on LLB or something but if you have aspirations for a career in law, my advice would be to calm yourself down a bit and actually try and engage in reasoned debate without making yourself look a touch silly.

Helen_J_3

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Crikey. people post an objective comment and instead of entering into the spirit of debate, you get ratty.

Not sure if you are on LLB or something but if you have aspirations for a career in law, my advice would be to calm yourself down a bit and actually try and engage in reasoned debate without making yourself look a touch silly.

How can you have a reasoned debate with someone who says 'stop providing false and inaccurate information' when it quite clearly isn't false or inaccurate? And then can't even support such accusations?

I am perfectly calm, I was just wanting to know exactly what I said which was wrong/false/inaccurate but since no-one can point that out I'll take it that what I said was right in the first place!

Equaliser123

Helen_J wrote: »

How can you have a reasoned debate with someone who says 'stop providing false and inaccurate information' when it quite clearly isn't false or inaccurate? And then can't even support such accusations?

I am perfectly calm, I was just wanting to know exactly what I said which was wrong/false/inaccurate but since no-one can point that out I'll take it that what I said was right in the first place!

Personally, I think you could present your facts in a little more reasoned way.