Table ordered is rickety - can I get a refund as my dad has binned the packaging?

wealdroam

Flyboy152 wrote: »

wealdroam wrote: »

With respect, you are assuming the item is faulty.

Could it be that the item simply isn't of the quality expected?

We don't know how much was paid, but maybe the OP was just expecting something better.

Just the situation the DSRs were designed for.

It doesn't matter, the item must still be of merchantable quality and fit for purpose.

The Sale of Goods Act says this about quality...

For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.

It seems that price, amongst other things, does matter.

Good to see you back Flyboy.
How have we managed without you? :rotfl:

Flyboy152

wealdroam wrote: »

The Sale of Goods Act says this about quality...
It seems that price, amongst other things, does matter.

Then you need to read about other related legislation. The SOGA is not solely one single act.

Good to see you back Flyboy.
How have we managed without you? :rotfl:

I shudder to think. :rotfl:

George_Michael

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Then you need to read about other related legislation. The SOGA is not solely one single act.

Go on then, enlighten us. (and without stating that the information can be found on Google).
Which other legislation states that the goods "must still be of merchantable quality and fit for purpose" irrespective of the price paid.

Flyboy152

George_Michael wrote: »

Go on then, enlighten us. (and without stating that the information can be found on Google).
Which other legislation states that the goods "must still be of merchantable quality and fit for purpose" irrespective of the price paid.

I really do not see the point, because you all seem to be gunning for an argument today. If I were to say that white was white, you would all argue about it being whiter shade of pale. * But, suffice to say, it is an implied term.



* Apologies to Procul Harum.

George_Michael

Not back long and you're already starting to post "facts" but refusing to show any proof that these "facts" actually exist.

Didn't take long did it?

Flyboy152

George_Michael wrote: »

Not back long and you're already starting to post "facts" but refusing to show any proof that these "facts" actually exist.

Didn't take long did it?

If you want to "challenge" my posts, I think you ought at least provide some sort of basis for your objection. You could start by having a look around to see if you can find something to "hang your hat on."

Are so absolutely sure I am incorrect?

George_Michael

Are so absolutely sure I am incorrect?

Not totally convinced, but judging from your previous history of stating unverifiable facts, pretty convinced.
This is why I asked what legislation you were referring to.

Flyboy152

George_Michael wrote: »

Not totally convinced, but judging from your previous history of stating unverifiable facts, pretty convinced.
This is why I asked what legislation you were referring to.

But, surely it would have been prudent to have checked first?

George_Michael

"Checked first"
How? like asking you perhaps? (from my first post responding to your comment.

Go on then, enlighten us. (and without stating that the information can be found on Google).
Which other legislation states that the goods "must still be of merchantable quality and fit for purpose" irrespective of the price paid.

Flyboy152

George_Michael wrote: »

"Checked first"
How? like asking you perhaps? (from my first post responding to your comment.

That is not quite what I wrote though, was it.