Aaaaaargh! Comet!!!!

glowy69

smcaul wrote:

I suppose it could be shown by a comparison. If I knew someone who had a similar item that was still working correctly after the same amount of time (ok maybe more then one person would be needed), then that would show premature failure - it is also down to how much the item cost, I would expect a £400 DVD palyer to out last a £29.99 Player -as any reasonable person would.

I not denying that fact but at the end of the day like ive said how do we know that Mr smith didnt drop his dvd player by accident and not tell anybody, then claims its faulty, this 5/6year thing will never work because of that.

dazco

smcaul wrote:

I suppose it could be shown by a comparison. If I knew someone who had a similar item that was still working correctly after the same amount of time (ok maybe more then one person would be needed), then that would show premature failure - it is also down to how much the item cost, I would expect a £400 DVD palyer to out last a £29.99 Player -as any reasonable person would.

Exactly how the judge would work it out.

smcaul

glowy69 wrote:

I not denying that fact but at the end of the day like ive said how do we know that Mr smith didnt drop his dvd player by accident and not tell anybody, then claims its faulty, this 5/6year thing will never work because of that.

We dont, but then we dont know how they were handled at the wharehouse and how often they were dropped their either!!!

dazco

glowy69 wrote:

I not denying that fact but at the end of the day like ive said how do we know that Mr smith didnt drop his dvd player by accident and not tell anybody, then claims its faulty, this 5/6year thing will never work because of that.

Because an engineers report would reveal that.

By the way, a 5 year claim is unlikely because most items are only meant to last about 5 years anyway.

smcaul

Oh, and I have seen 1st hand how the containers carrying these goods are unloaded at the wharehouses.

marks87

glowy69 wrote:

How can you read a receipt before you buy something?

That's my point...

Im done arguing now anyway, this is getting nowhere and you dont want to listen as you obviously 'know the law' as you keep telling, funny though at the end of the day if comet are breaking the law then why are they still in business.

I won't bother repeating what smcaul has said.

You really dont know as much as you think marks.

OK then.

mishkanorman

sorry guys but Ive read the DTI website throughly and It still says that what comet did with the original poster was correct. ie they had the item 5 months returned to the store and comet started with the repair option. I agree she received p**s poor service after that and if it ran on for weeks its reasonable to request a refund (partial?)

If you sold me a t.v. with a 12 month warranty and it broke down after 18 months or even 30 months, then I would drag comet into SCC and win.

Dazco presumeably what you meant was that when your tv broke down after 18 months you would first return to the store allowing them an appropriate amount of time to repair the item, then you would consider the possibilty of a partial refund ( as you enjoyed your item for 18 months prior to it breaking ) then you would have the option of going to a trade body who act as intermediates in such circumstances, then several months down the line after persuing the correct avenues of redress you would take them kicking and screaming to court.??? whose time would you be wasting ?



mishka

Wig

marks87 wrote:

Sorry, I wasn't clear!!

I meant, if you cancel the goods before you receive notification of their despatch, you can claim them as unsolicited.

I know what you meant, I was just making a few points.

1. You said unsolicited goods need to be made available for the company to collect, this is no longer true (as of 2001 I think) If goods can be classed as "unsolicited" as you suggested they can be, then the goods can be retained (by the householder) without charge. No need to make them available.

2. I imagine if you tried this with Amazon they would say "see you incourt" in otherwords I don't think Amazon would classify them as "unsolicited". So if you'd like to say why you *know* they can be classed as "unsolicited" - I'm listening.........

3. Different subject but linked: If goods are sent to your address by being ordered by persons unknown, can they be classed as "unsolicited"? This is just a question I have yet to hear the definative legal answer for.

glowy69

mishkanorman wrote:

sorry guys but Ive read the DTI website throughly and It still says that what comet did with the original poster was correct. ie they had the item 5 months returned to the store and comet started with the repair option. I agree she received p**s poor service after that and if it ran on for weeks its reasonable to request a refund (partial?)

If you sold me a t.v. with a 12 month warranty and it broke down after 18 months or even 30 months, then I would drag comet into SCC and win.




Dazco presumeably what you meant was that when your tv broke down after 18 months you would first return to the store allowing them an appropriate amount of time to repair the item, then you would consider the possibilty of a partial refund ( as you enjoyed your item for 18 months prior to it breaking ) then you would have the option of going to a trade body who act as intermediates in such circumstances, then several months down the line after persuing the correct avenues of redress you would take them kicking and screaming to court.??? whose time would you be wasting ?



mishka

That is correct methinks. Oh and im not sure who posted it but our receipts clearly state now that our gurantee does not 'break the consumer law' exact words from the receipt and that 'your statutory rights are not affected' is also contained within said receipt.

marks87

glowy69 wrote:

That is correct methinks. Oh and im not sure who posted it but our receipts clearly state now that our gurantee does not 'break the consumer law' exact words from the receipt and that 'your statutory rights are not affected' is also contained within said receipt.

Oh well that settles it then - Comet aren't breaking the law because they say they aren't...