I sucessfully sued Comet today for Breach of SoG Act

DrScotsman

toffe wrote: »

But all i know is this, government backed consumer help/advice services pay legally trained profesionals to provide their information for their website and helplines

Hehe, yet they're too cheap to pay to keep their website maintained. 404s by clicking links on the front page.

But you do have a point, so instead I will point out that Debt Hater is actually completely wrong. Consumer Direct's page on SOGA doesn't seem to coincide with DebtHater's comments at all. The only two instances of six months on the page are here:

If you make a claim for a repair or replacement of faulty goods within six months of purchase its up to the seller to prove that the goods were not faulty when sold to you. After six months you may be asked to prove that the fault has not been caused by accidental damage or wear and tear and you may want to obtain an independent expert’s report to back up your claim.

None of that sounds like "you can reject goods upto 6 MONTHS from purchase" or "goods SHOULD last longer than 6 months" to me.

DrScotsman

By the way Toffe, I'd just like to post this quote of Hudson's...

4743hudsonj wrote: »

Toffe, i really cant understand you, you dont read things properly, you selectively pick out words and phrases and constuct your own little world in you head and immediately see red and start posting (mostly) correct law. Yet you fail to see that your 'slamming' me for saying the exact same thing!

...to say I completely agree with it. A lot of your posts do seem to be rewording what hudson's saying slightly and then declaring his version wrong. I'm really having trouble figuring out how 4 pages have been filled.

"A consumer has a reasonable length of time to reject goods he's bought for a full refund. After that he's deemed to have accepted them, and if the goods are inherently faulty he only has right to a remedy that is not too great an inconvenience - he can demand a repair or replacement unless it is too costly for the retailer compared to a partial refund. For the first 6 months it is upon the retailer to prove the goods were not inherently faulty, after that it is up to the consumer to prove they were inherently faulty"

Seems to me that both of you agree on that. Am I wrong?

woody01

This thread is attention seeking rubbish.

The OP couldnt even get their case straight, so there is NO WAY this went to any court.

Aginoth

woody01 wrote: »

This thread is attention seeking rubbish.

The OP couldnt even get their case straight, so there is NO WAY this went to any court.

and thank you for your incisive and constructive remarks...did you catch the hint of sarcasm?

your opinion is both worthless and wrong.

dfh

Where has the OP Disappeared to?

Esqui

Busy suing more people

dfh

lol. looks like suing is his hobby !

4743hudsonj

Grrrr its threads like these that infuriate me. I had an almost identical argument with toffe 2 months ago ish. About if the consumer can insist on what remedy I believe. Just like this thread they didnt once quote law and changed their tune lots.

I secrettly love these little conflicts though:D, it always amuses me when the argumentative poster witht he massive bravado cannot provide legal reasoning.

Thanks to all those with the brain to read at a junior school level :T

Aginoth

dfh wrote: »

Where has the OP Disappeared to?

ahem...mine was the post before yours dfh :rotfl:

Aginoth

dfh wrote: »

lol. looks like suing is his hobby !

now why would you say that?

this was my first ever use of the Small claims court, although I have had need to use it again since. I'd hardly call twice, 6 months apart a hobby.