help please pc repaired 4 times now out of warranty and broke again

stebiz

isplumm wrote: »

The warranty is irrelevant - you bought the computer from ebuyer, so you need to claim under the SOGA from them - suggest you get the independent report - also did you send via post (recorded) .... see what the report says - if it doesn't say inherent fault - then forgot it .... but if it does, suggest you send copy to ebuyer with something like "letter before action" in the title -

But before doing anything - how much was the pc - if £400-£500 might not be worth doing anything .... see what other people here think?

Mark

Mark, of course it is relevant. The seller (ebuyer) need to abide by SOGA but the PC has been repaired previously.

If you sold somebody a car and they took it to somebody to get the engine replaced, would you be held responsible for the engine???

OlliesDad

stebiz wrote: »

Mark, of course it is relevant. The seller (ebuyer) need to abide by SOGA but the PC has been repaired previously.

If you sold somebody a car and they took it to somebody to get the engine replaced, would you be held responsible for the engine???

Following your example, if i bought a Renault with a Renault warranty, and Renault replaced the engine with a OEM part under the warranty, then yes the SOGA would still apply.

The only way the SOGA would not apply would be if the fault was not inherent and caused by the manufacturer, but the independent report will show either way. The retailer cannot sell a unit with a manufacturers warranty, and then deny all legal obligations based on the fact the consumer used that warranty.

stebiz

OlliesDad wrote: »

Following your example, if i bought a Renault with a Renault warranty, and Renault replaced the engine with a OEM part under the warranty, then yes the SOGA would still apply.

The only way the SOGA would not apply would be if the fault was not inherent and caused by the manufacturer, but the independent report will show either way. The retailer cannot sell a unit with a manufacturers warranty, and then deny all legal obligations based on the fact the consumer used that warranty.

The warranty should have been pursued through the retailer. The retailer cannot be held responsible for a piece of hardware that he did not sell. If the independent report shows it is the motherboard, this has already been replaced by the manufacturer. The retailer cannot be held responsible.
I may be wrong. But this is the way I read it.

Renault replaced the engine with a OEM part under the warranty, then yes the SOGA would still apply.

Yes because the retailer would have asked Renault to fix it under the warranty??

Zanzibar

Yes he would.

Are you in panto? Again no - hes claiming against a company. Read it again - you dont understand it. He is the CLAIMANT and the DEFENDANT is a COMPANY..

The court will then transfer the case automatically to the defendant’s nearest county court if
.
.
the defendant is an individual, not a company.

The defendant (i.e. ebuyer) is a company therefore it is not automatically transferred. What happens is a mutual court location if the defendant requests.

This is deliberate wording so claims against corporate entities aren't held to be in their favour by making the claimant go any further than a mid-way court. Further the calimant doesnt even have to appear and can rely on adjudication in absence. Its all in the docs about this.

stebiz

Zanzibar wrote: »

Are you in panto? Again no - hes claiming against a company. Read it again - you dont understand it. He is the CLAIMANT and the DEFENDANT is a COMPANY..

The defendant (i.e. ebuyer) is a company therefore it is not automatically transferred. What happens is a mutual court location if the defendant requests.

This is deliberate wording so claims against corporate entities aren't held to be in their favour by making the claimant go any further than a mid-way court. Further the calimant doesnt even have to appear and can rely on adjudication in absence. Its all in the docs about this.

I understand entirely what you are saying. I've spent enough time in County Courts:rolleyes:

Let me explain it to you. If this Guy lived in Newcastle and the company was based in London, it is highly unlikely that the court would insist on a hearing in Newcastle. The best he could expect would be some ground in between!! As for the 'calimant' not appearing - I take it you are new to the legal world. There are very few exceptions when claimants/defendants should not appear in person (or send counsel) to a court hearing. I have won 19 out of my last appearences - and the other on appeal. This would not have happened sending my argument to the court!!

Stebiz

Zanzibar

I understand entirely what you are saying.

Well, you didn't. You thought the para was quoted in relation to the bod here, the claimant. It was infact to show the mistake in your statement re. the defendant (ebuyer) "They can insist on the small claim hearing being on their 'door step' " which they can't as they are a company.

The option of not appearing is that - an option. Not appearing is essentially used where the claim is for less than it would cost to travel to the court (as allowable costs do not include travel expenses for the claimant.)

stebiz

Zanzibar wrote: »

Well, you didn't. You thought the para was quoted in relation to the bod here, the claimant. It was infact to show the mistake in your statement re. the defendant (ebuyer) "They can insist on the small claim hearing being on their 'door step' " which they can't as they are a company.

The option of not appearing is that - an option. Not appearing is essentially used where the claim is for less than it would cost to travel to the court (as allowable costs do not include travel expenses for the claimant.)

Well I've never seen 'not appearing' as an option - unless you want to give the O/S a head start!!