Should I Sue

arcon5

geo555 wrote: »

de minimis non curat lex

Oh dear.... he's casting a spell....... ruuuuuuunnnnnnn.........


I've just learnt something new though (thanks Google also). Anybody else not to have heard of this term until now:

The law does not concern itself with trifles; - a principle of law, that even if a technical violation of a law appears to exist according to the letter of the law, if the effect is too small to be of consequence, the violation of the law will not be considered as a sufficient cause of action, whether in civil or criminal proceedings.

arcon5

Op... you forgetting one important thing..... after you have your judgement against the company, what will you do then if they do not pay?

Maybe perform your own credit referencing check on them first, if so don't be surprised if they have a bunch of CCJs against them then pheonix the company after a while leaving all these debts behind. Happens all the time.

And even if they did pay up including the court fee -- will you be happy? Having wasted so much of your time dealing with this, perhaps a day off work to attend the defendants local court, sending letters, ect ect....

And all this for a tenner.

You need to pick and choose your battles a little more carefully and know when to fold a loosing hand before you loose out on much more than you need to. What a huge waste of time, money and energy!!!

bris

Why didn't you just send them back for a refund, paypal would have refunded you. You are coming on here for a second time with this trivial matter asking if you should sue when all you needed to do was put in a paypal claim for your £6.

meer53

The_Deep wrote: »

If you buy £10 speakers from Ebay, exactly what did you expect ? B & O or Bose, maybe ?

No, I expect speakers which I can connect to my PC to enable me to listen to Question Time. I do not expect speakers which will short circuit and fill the room with an acrid smell. Has this point gone completely over your head!

There is indeed a Plugs and sockets Act, I am surprised that you need to ask, the whole thrust of the previous post was that these speakers did not comply with it. There is even a link to it somewhere.

BTW, what makes you think that I read the Daily Misery? Did you put two and two together and come up with five?

Think i'll give the "Plugs and Sockets Act" a miss for now if you don't mind. I'm obviously not as intelligent as you are, i'm sorry if my lack of knowledge about such important legal matters disappoints you, I won't bother with the link thanks, might be far too complicated for me to understand. Don't want to offend you, but have you any idea of how pompous you sound ?

FGS ! It was £10 !

The_Deep

Op... you forgetting one important thing..... after you have your judgement against the company, what will you do then if they do not pay?

Did you not read my last post, I shall enforce it. There are several ways of doing this, for more information read the information on the website.

And even if they did pay up including the court fee -- will you be happy?

My cup will run over.

Having wasted so much of your time dealing with this,

You need to pick and choose your battles a little more carefully ...



Your presumption is breathtaking, who are you to tell me what I should and should not do, how I should spend my time.


perhaps a day off work to attend the defendants local court, sending letters, ect ect...

I am retired.

and know when to fold a loosing hand

I hold a royal flush.

What a huge waste of time, money and energy!!!

All of which I have in abundance.

The_Deep

bris wrote: »

Why didn't you just send them back for a refund, paypal would have refunded you. You are coming on here for a second time with this trivial matter asking if you should sue when all you needed to do was put in a paypal claim for your £6.

Bris, did you actually bother to read the posts before posting your ill-considered advice?.

You will have seen that the seller refused a refund. He accused me of trying to cheat him. Paypal would require that I keep the item, or return it to the seller, not possible when I gave it to TS.

Tell me, why do you think that selling potentially lethal electrical appliances is trivial, why do you think that attempting to deny his customers' their statutory rights is trivial.

The_Deep

Think i'll give the "Plugs and Sockets Act" a miss for now if you don't mind. I'm obviously not as intelligent as you are, i'm sorry if my lack of knowledge about such important legal matters disappoints you, I won't bother with the link thanks, might be far too complicated for me to understand.



Pompous? Moi?

I am glad that you have conceded Meer, I have enjoyed our battle of wits, even though half your troops deserted.

I have given you a thank you for making me look good!

arcon5

The_Deep wrote: »

Did you not read my last post, I shall enforce it. There are several ways of doing this, for more information read the information on the website.

How exactly?

I'm aware of the various ways of enforcing CCJs, just wondering what route you will choose for a debt of less than £45.

The_Deep

Well, the last time I enforced a CCJ, (against a tenant), I issued an attachment of earnings order, but given that this is at the moment a hypothetical situation, I shall make a decision if the need arises.

Remember that once one has obtained a CCJ, one can register it and it goes the debtor's credit record. A businessman with a CCJ might have trouble raising capital.

arcon5

The_Deep wrote: »

Well, the last time I enforced a CCJ, (against a tenant), I issued an attachment of earnings order, but given that this is at the moment a hypothetical situation, I shall make a decision if the need arises.

Remember that once one has obtained a CCJ, one can register it and it goes the debtor's credit record. A businessman with a CCJ might have trouble raising capital.

You would be suing a business, not somebody likely on the PAYE system so this wouldn't be an option.