Aaaaaargh! Comet!!!!

danio_2

I'm totally lost now...Are some people saying that "A Companies Policy" over rides "The Sale Of Goods Act" If so...then why do we have a SOGA?

mikemoate

I love threads like this. It's almost like watching a boxing or tennis match. I've got the scores about even at the moment folks. :j

glowy69

stugib wrote:

Sorry, my fault for asking too many questions in one post - not sure to which question you were replying 'it depends on what the situation is?' ?

If you were responding to 'which takes precedence?' then <urggh urrrrgh> - wrong answer. Statuatory rights always take precedence, regardless of what any manufacturers leaflet or t&cs on the back of a receipt say. Would you agree?

If you were responding to 'should we just talk to a manager' the point I was making was, seeing as floor staff are in the position of being forced to ignore the law or risk getting sacked for not following company policy, do managers have any more power, or knowledge of the law, or do these instructions come from head office? The fact you say a manager would just repeat what you say suggests it's company policy to consider Comet's rules above statuatory rights? Is that correct?

Thanks for taking the time to keep responding by the way - it's an enlightening thread. Maybe you could clarify these points on your managers course and give us an official position of Comet's take on the law? (joke)

It was the managers question, he has no more power over the companies policy than I do, thats why we have a head office, he/she is there to keep the store runing and staff in line to make sure they are doinfg their jobs correctly, I feel I have a very good knowledge of the law, it has come trough dealing with troublesome customers that as made me curious to find out the law, the course i am on isnt to teach me stuff like that its to train me to become a better manager as I am not actually one just yet. Oh and no problem as long as I feel I have a genuine case I will keep my posts going,we are not all spotty oiks you know! :rotfl:

glowy69

danio wrote:

I'm totally lost now...Are some people saying that "A Companies Policy" over rides "The Sale Of Goods Act" If so...then why do we have a SOGA?

Im not sayng that but the sales of goods act is so misleading it might as well not exist, apparently customers feeel differently and I quote

Customer:''The sales of goods act states that all products are guaranteed for 5 years, if it breaks in that time I'll be back to get a replacement I know the law''

Me: If you dont mind me saying your product has a ONE year guarantee and the sales of goods states that the unit should be fit for purpose for a least five years, if it isnt then it is up to you mrs/mr smith to prove otherwise, which will require a solicitor,legal fees, a time machine.... its like banging your head against a brick walll. :T

zorber

marks87 wrote:

In the first 6 months of purchase, the onus is on the retailer to prove that the goods were not faulty at the time of purchase - this cannot be done. So, by refusing to give an IMMEDIATE refund or replacement, Comet are breaking the law.

No they allowed time to prove the fault, and they dont have to give an immediate refund or replacement, after a resonable amount of time they can resort to repairing the products
"If acceptance has taken place, then only the following remedies are available"
"Repair or replacement

The trader can refuse to agree to either of these remedies if it is disproportionate in comparison to the other remedies. For example, if you ask a trader to replace a washing machine then he would be entitled to turn down your request and offer a repair instead."

glowy69

zorber wrote:

No they allowed time to prove the fault, and they dont have to give an immediate refund or replacement, after a resonable amount of time they can resort to repairing the products
"If acceptance has taken place, then only the following remedies are available"
"Repair or replacement

The trader can refuse to agree to either of these remedies if it is disproportionate in comparison to the other remedies. For example, if you ask a trader to replace a washing machine then he would be entitled to turn down your request and offer a repair instead."

Correct, and the reasonabe amount of time? Anybody?

zorber

marks87 wrote:

Funny that - it tends to be the shop assistants who end up shouting at me...

I am not really surprised. You seem to think you know it all !! but this thread is proving you know very little!! it must be very frustrating for CS assistants who try to set you right but you dont seem interested as you already know it all.. :money:

marks87

zorber wrote:

Marks87 you obviously dont know thw law well enough to start quoting it, so dont. The law does not state you have 6 months to return faulty goods at all.
The law states that the retailer has to prove in the first 6 months that the goods were not fault.

Yes, which means I have six months in which to return them. If the retailer cannot prove that the fault was not present at point of sale, I am entitled to a repair or replacement. If either of these would cause me significant disruption, I am entitled to a refund.

I think it's you who doesn't know the law well enough.

marks87

zorber wrote:

The trader can refuse to agree to either of these remedies if it is disproportionate in comparison to the other remedies. For example, if you ask a trader to replace a washing machine then he would be entitled to turn down your request and offer a repair instead."

Not if a repair would cause me significant disruption he can't.

glowy69

marks87 wrote:

Yes, which means I have six months in which to return them. If the retailer cannot prove that the fault was not present at point of sale, I am entitled to a repair or replacement. If either of these would cause me significant disruption, I am entitled to a refund.

I think it's you who doesn't know the law well enough.

But you quoted IMEDIATE REUND OR REPLACEMENT a few threads back, where o where has the repair suddenly appeared from?