Help! Comet won't refund faulty satnav

Anihilator

adouglasmhor wrote: »

What about it? Is one fault making it not fit for the purpose for which it was sold not enough? Where did I suggest he lies? I presented a scenario where the 2nd fault had not become apparent until recently, I used the word "maybe". If you can't understand a simple commonly used word like that no wonder you are !!!! poor at interpreting other written information.

!!!!!! off and learn some social skills sad person.

LOL - do you teach superior social skills perchance?

adouglasmhor

Anihilator wrote: »

LOL - do you teach superior social skills perchance?

They are certainly superior to yours, not that that is saying much.

Have you nothing else to say?

Anihilator

Helen_J wrote: »

No, you need to read more carefully.
I'm suggesting arguments the OP could use. If statutory Acts were read like people on here are suggesting then there would be absolutely no need for any courts or tribunals at all, people would just follow the strict wording of the Act without any question.

No I did read it clearly
Your arguments have no legal basis.

And there is need for courts because the acts are not firmly worded and use phrases such as reasonable, there is also need for courts to enforce when there is non compliance and also dispute at to whose case is correct/stronger.

You really did talk utter tripe which is not remotely correct legally.You actually managed a clean sweep with not one point correct or even debatable under the SOGA.

Anihilator

adouglasmhor wrote: »

They are certainly superior to yours, not that that is saying much.

Have you nothing else to say?

Um yes. If you think you have demonstrated superior social skills on here you need to go and have a long sleep.:D

adouglasmhor

Anihilator wrote: »

Um yes. If you think you have demonstrated superior social skills on here you need to go and have a long sleep.:D

Well I haven't falsely accused someone of inciting a criminal act. You set yourself a low standard and failed to achieve it.

gordikin

Helen_J wrote: »

No, you need to read more carefully.
I'm suggesting arguments the OP could use. If statutory Acts were read like people on here are suggesting then there would be absolutely no need for any courts or tribunals at all, people would just follow the strict wording of the Act without any question.

I don't need to read your more post carefully at all. Your suggested arguments are wrong and have been shown to be by various people since. You post is a waste of time and should be treated with the disdain it deserves

gordikin

adouglasmhor wrote: »

...
!!!!!! off and learn some social skills sad person.

Oh dear, pot and kettle?

adouglasmhor

gordikin wrote: »

Oh dear, pot and kettle?

Giving someone an idea how you really feel is a social skill too, the !!!!!! was not an extreme swear word it rhymed with bug her.

baza52

Has the op updated the software on the satnav?

gordikin

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Giving someone an idea how you really feel is a social skill too, the !!!!!! was not an extreme swear word it rhymed with bug her.

Ah so you have poor social skills....that makes it okay...carry on swearing then. I find the word you claim you used offensive given what the word means. This is a family friendly site remember.