I sucessfully sued Comet today for Breach of SoG Act

somethingcorporate

Aginoth wrote: »

At court the judge agreed I did not need to allow a further inspection or repair due to the added inconveinience it would cause me and so Comet should have offered me a replacement when I correctly under the SOGA rejected the goods in their store in person. He confirmed I had the right to reject under SOGA due to the fault inherrent at manufacture and purchase.

As pointed out Comet were required by the judge to refund at court because of their inability to communicate with me and therefore leaving me 10 months without a laptop. Totally unacceptable inconveinience.

Are you 100% positive you are not confusing the word reject with remedy?

My understanding is you lose the right to reject once you have deemed to have "accepted" the goods which by keeping for a certain period of time is classed as. Whilst this time period is not defined in the SOGA 6 months is more than enough (usually less than a month but really is context specific). After this if a fault occurs you have the right to a remedy, not outright rejection.

Equaliser123

Peggy40 wrote: »

Interesting that you sued someone in the small claims court. I have been tempted to do something similar, but actually chicked out because I wasnt sure what was involved, and what liability I would have if I didnt win. Basically someone failed to deliver against a contract, and they said they would pay compensation, and never did ? Can you tell me whats involved and the process ? Do I have to attend court ?

Totally depends on the circumstances.

4743hudsonj

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Are you 100% positive you are not confusing the word reject with remedy?

My understanding is you lose the right to reject once you have deemed to have "accepted" the goods which by keeping for a certain period of time is classed as. Whilst this time period is not defined in the SOGA 6 months is more than enough (usually less than a month but really is context specific). After this if a fault occurs you have the right to a remedy, not outright rejection.

This is correct they are confusing remedy with rejection something i made a very long post about.

Aginoth

4743hudsonj wrote: »

This is correct they are confusing remedy with rejection something i made a very long post about.

acceptance period in this case was irrelevant as the goods were proven to be not fit for sale in the first place by nature of the then undisclosed manufacturing fault. Therefore rejection is the correct terminology, as confirmed by the judge confirming I had the right to reject for this very reason.

4743hudsonj

Aginoth wrote: »

acceptance period in this case was irrelevant as the goods were proven to be not fit for sale in the first place by nature of the then undisclosed manufacturing fault. Therefore rejection is the correct terminology, as confirmed by the judge confirming I had the right to reject for this very reason.

ITs difficult to explain, you have rejected ted goods, to receive a remedy. You have not used your right of rejection.

I know, difficult to understand, the latter, which we are referring to as rejecting, is only a right, for a reasonable time, and is NOT applicable in this case. instead you applied for a remedy which is different.

Not sure how else i can explain it but trust us, they are most definitely different as the right to rejection does not apply, only the right to a remedy.

When the judge talked about rejecting the goods, i suspect he meant in the non legal sense. Ie you wernt using the right, but in effect were rejecting them (by receiving a remedy)

toffe

For all the protesting from a select few that the op had no right to reject the goods and simply "got lucky" lets remember he won his case in court, where decisions are made on the basis of legal rights and entitlement, he did not win his case on the flip of a coin or by drawing straws with the opposition.

Why nit pick on what would consitute unreasonable inconvenience or try to guess as to exactly how many repair attempts the seller/manufacturer should get or is entitled to under the SOGA?

the fact is what may be an inconvenience to me may not me such an inconvenience to you, so there can be no set figure or example as to what is and is not unreasonable, thats where a court comes in, when the two sides can't agree and one of the two parties takes it to court then the court will weigh up the facts and make a decision, that's what happened here and the court decided one failed repair was enough grounds, in case, to reject the goods, this doesn't mean that this is the rule for all but thats what the court found in this case.

Pointless arguing the rights and wrongs and the what's and why for's you either agree with the courts decision or you don't, personally i do, if you don't thats fine, what a dull world it would be if we all thought the same way.

At the end of the day i'm all for consumers making a stand against the big corporates when things go wrong, so hat's off to the op, well done and congratulations...:T:beer:

4743hudsonj

Were not argueing over the result or the significant inconvenience. Its a great (and correct) result.

We were just pointing out that the Eu directive is not law as people thing and that the op had confused the right to rejection and the right to remedy. You are the one who turned this into an argument toffe, besides you still havnt replied to my question about how my explanation of the directive was only "partially" correct.

somethingcorporate

No one has disputed whether it be the right decision or not, I agree it has been the right call. It has just been the explanation has been inconsistent with the SOGA.

I understand that neither you Toffe, nor the OP, have a grasp of the 'legal' terminology that you are using. Hudson's suggestion that when the Judge mentioned "rejection" (if he did) he likely meant it not in the terms of the SOGA right to rejection as this wouldn't make sense, but in laymans terms.

And again the assumuption that just because a court makes a decision it is the right one - this is a really naive given that there is a whole structure of courts that can, and do, regularly overturn decisions of prior (and lesser) courts.

One decision is the decision of one judge's interpretation of the law on a given day. Different day, different judge applying the same law could come to the exact opposite conclusion. It's all quite subjective!

Anyway, just for clarity on my position - WELL DONE OP! :T

toffe

somethingcorporate wrote: »

I understand that neither you Toffe, nor the OP, have a grasp of the 'legal' terminology that you are using

Oh stop it, you'll hurt my feelings,......... well you might have done if i was still 3 years old.

somethingcorporate wrote: »

. Hudson's suggestion that when the Judge mentioned "rejection" (if he did) he likely meant it not in the terms of the SOGA right to rejection as this wouldn't make sense, but in laymans terms.

Or perhaps the judge meant that it was reasonable for the op to expect, and be granted, the right to reject the goods (i.e obtain a refund) since not only had the retailer sold an item that was not fit for purpose but they had also failed, despite the op allowing them the opertunity, to provide a remedy (i.e. a sound and lasting repair).

the SOGA does not make it clear how many times a retailer/manufacturer should be allowed to attempt a repair/remedy as it would depend on the individual circumstances of the case, thats where the court comes in, when the two parties can't agree the court decides, quite clearly in this case the court decided enough was enough and the op should be given his money back.

It was a legally sound decision because the retailer sold the faulty goods and failed to provide a suitable remedy in line with the terms of the SOGA.

4743hudsonj

Oh dear, you really are too ignorant to understand any of this arnt you.

The right to rejectiong, as in the SOGA is a right to outright reject goods withing a reasonable time. This tie is the time it would seem reasonable for an average person to inspect all functions and aspects of any item. This takes a week with a laptop, maybe a month, maybe 2 at a stretch for a really light user. But 6? not a chance, this is not reasonable to act upon the right of rejection.

It is however reasonable to rely upon the right to a remedy.

Yes SOGA does not state a number of attempts of a remedy, however this means that it become an indefinite number, that is repeatable providing it remains not of significant inconvenience and not of disproportional cost (as outlined in the act). It does not mean you can make up your own interpretations and assume its a finite number, if it was finite, it would mention it for clarification.

Stop going on about the decision, can you not read? Or do words escape your tiny self centred mind? Were not slamming the judgement, we agree with it, were slamming your terrible and totally inconsistent interpretation of the law, another poster already spotted how you had completly changed your interpretation in the same thread! it just shows your lack of understanding.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1979/cukpga_19790054_en_1

See S35 SOGA
94) The buyer is also deemed to have accepted the goods when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them.

If you then go on to read S48B you will see a completely separate section (because its a separate right like we've been saying) outlining rights to remedy and the requirements of remedy which you will find you have interpreted incorrectly (in regards to number of attempts).

wow look at that, actual legislation, otherwise known as proof, something you seem to lack. (On a separate note - I've just noticed they refer to sellers as "he" i wonder why?)