Please help MSE test the Celebrity Consumer Rights Quiz

tomjonesrules

unholyangel wrote: »

Not quite sure i would agree with your first point about Q1. Says in the question they're too small (ergo not faulty) and then says in the answer "You only have rights if it's faulty" and then goes on to explain that if the stores policy allows the return (and its not excluded) then you can also enforce this as it would have formed part of the contract.

If for Q6 you mean that it doesnt state why it has stopped working, it does then say the shop agree its faulty (thus giving the impression - to me anyway - that it was inherent and not misuse.

Not sure what your issue is with Q9, unless its just the irony/facepalm factor.

Q4 is spot on though They'd be entitled to £36 if they weren't provided with the necessary information.

For Q1, a notice such as the one in the question is unlawful if it seeks to exclude all returns, which is the case if it said no more than it appears to. Hence it would not be valid. Semantics I know, but there is already far too much misleading information on this site!

Q6 is grammatically incorrect.

Q9 is also grammatically incorrect.

unholyangel

tomjonesrules wrote: »

For Q1, a notice such as the one in the question is unlawful if it seeks to exclude all returns, which is the case if it said no more than it appears to. Hence it would not be valid. Semantics I know, but there is already far too much misleading information on this site!

Q6 is grammatically incorrect.

Q9 is also grammatically incorrect.

They must've changed it. Q6 doesn't read "now it's now stopped working" as you said earlier. And neither does Q9 read "Lady Gaga bought a karaoke machine"

juno

I object to question 6 saying Peter is "lucky" getting a repair. No he isn't, as he's getting what he's entitled to. Lucky would imply he's getting more than that.

unholyangel

juno wrote: »

I object to question 6 saying Peter is "lucky" getting a repair. No he isn't, as he's getting what he's entitled to. Lucky would imply he's getting more than that.

It doesn't say lucky :S It says he is doing well getting a repair - and that is doing well imo as they are doing what they are supposed to be doing by law. Not doing well would be the retailer refusing to do anything.

mo786uk

juno wrote: »

I object to question 6 saying Peter is "lucky" getting a repair. No he isn't, as he's getting what he's entitled to. Lucky would imply he's getting more than that.

that bit confused me as well - because as you say it is his right, not somethign they are doing out of goodwill.

bod1467

I admit I was a little bemused by that wording, but I knew what was meant. It could be better-phrased though.

cosmic-dust

8/10
Failed on Madge's question. Didn't know you could get a refund on postage. Thanks for that!
Failed on Holly and fearne question, didn't know the only person who could return a faulty gift is the person who bought it.

merlot123

I agree Peter wasn't lucky, its his entitlement, poorly worded imo.

I did get 9/10 though, failed on Holly question. My OH says I must read this website too much to have scored so highly, he did the test and got 3/10!

Errata

Prepare to be sued by every sleb mentioned, and thrown into the Tower by the Royals for:

theft of intellectual property - their names
bringing them into disrepute by identifying them without their express permission
treason
making them appear stupid
invasion of privacy

Lots of super injunctions heading your way - happy New Year :rotfl:

unholyangel

Errata wrote: »

Prepare to be sued by every sleb mentioned, and thrown into the Tower by the Royals for:

theft of intellectual property - their names
bringing them into disrepute by identifying them without their express permission
treason
making them appear stupid
invasion of privacy

Lots of super injunctions heading your way - happy New Year :rotfl:

I really hope that whole post is in jest and not being serious :huh::huh: