Help - QVC will not co-operate!

shaun_from_Africa

I would have thought that the limitations act and the question of the authenticity of the signatures are no longer important.

The OP was offered a full refund upon return of the goods, and they have been sent (and received) by QVC, so the only thing now causing problems is QVC not refunding as promised.

Looksguywalker

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I would have thought that the limitations act and the question of the authenticity of the signatures are no longer important.

The OP was offered a full refund upon return of the goods, and they have been sent (and received) by QVC, so the only thing now causing problems is QVC not refunding as promised.

Exactly! I suggest the OP now has to carry out his threat to take it to Court.

data1704

DCFC79 wrote: »

Surely you should be getting a second opinion, you wouldn't get 1 quote to carry out a job say a gardening job would you, you would get 2 or 3 different quotes.

Hi DCFC79,
Getting another 'specialised' opinion is a lot more difficult than getting a quote for a gardening job or building work.
And the point I and others have made is where I find myself now. QVC offered to refund me if I returned everything, which I did. Now 10 weeks later, they've gone quiet and I have nothing.
Thanks for reading.

data1704

wealdroam wrote: »

Post #17 may help you understand why some people do not consider your valuer to be as independent as he might be.

Hi wealdroam,
I do not understand why you and some others are talking about the 'expert' I used to prepare a report saying they were fake.
What has giving an opinion on whether the signatures are genuine or not got to do with value?
If they're fake, he and any other individuals would not be interested in buying them, no matter if I offered them to him at £0.01! They're fake. He's not about to get a bargain is he and just to point out the obvious. At no time at all in nearly a year has he made me an offer for them, which also (aside from his credentials) proves to me that he's genuine and not some cowboy.
Thanks for reading through though.

wealdroam

data1704 wrote: »

Hi wealdroam,
I do not understand why you and some others are talking about the 'expert' I used to prepare a report saying they were fake.
What has giving an opinion on whether the signatures are genuine or not got to do with value?
If they're fake, he and any other individuals would not be interested in buying them, no matter if I offered them to him at £0.01! They're fake. He's not about to get a bargain is he and just to point out the obvious. At no time at all in nearly a year has he made me an offer for them, which also (aside from his credentials) proves to me that he's genuine and not some cowboy.
Thanks for reading through though.

Lets use an analogy...

If I go into a used cars sales outlet and negotiate to buy a car and part exchange my existing car.
I may have an idea that my existing car is worth £500 (say).
The salesman will look round my old car and give me all the reasons under the sun why he should only pay (say) £350.

To me, this is the same as you offering your items to the expert you have sought out.
When invited to buy your items, he naturally wants to pay as little as possible, and as part of the negotiation process is it not possible that he could suggest to you that the signatures are fakes?

I don't think you mentioned before that your expert has failed to offer a price.
That of course does show that perhaps he genuinely does have little interest in them.

data1704

data1704 wrote: »

Hi esuhl,
Cheers for that. I was trying to find something along those lines, but there is an actual bit of case law to do with the Sale of Goods Act about discovery and another period from the date of discovery.
If I put my hands on it again, or get another copy from my local Trading Standards, I'll post it.
Thanks

Hi,
Just to update, here is the case law I was referring to;

Vincent Cunningham v Friends Provident heard at Redhill County Court on 9 March 2006

And in particular;

"13. It seems to me, to summarise that, he has in effect three years from the date upon which it first became known to him that there had been negligence and that he was going to suffer a loss. It is from that point."

Just google Vincent Cunningham v Friends Provident and you'll find it in full on 'Thisismoney' which will probably be the first hit.

Thanks

mynameistallulah

data1704 wrote: »

Hi,
Just to update, here is the case law I was referring to;

Vincent Cunningham v Friends Provident heard at Redhill County Court on 9 March 2006

And in particular;

"13. It seems to me, to summarise that, he has in effect three years from the date upon which it first became known to him that there had been negligence and that he was going to suffer a loss. It is from that point."

Just google Vincent Cunningham v Friends Provident and you'll find it in full on 'Thisismoney' which will probably be the first hit.

Thanks

Cunningham is not binding on other courts - it may be persuasive authority, but the court can choose to ignore/ differentiate from it.

data1704

mynameistallulah wrote: »

Cunningham is not binding on other courts - it may be persuasive authority, but the court can choose to ignore/ differentiate from it.

Hi mynameistallulah,
Possibly so, but the solicitor acting on my behalf said that they agreed and on that basis took my case on, and remember, Trading Standards sent me the case in the first place as they said it applied to me.
But I acknowledge what've you said.
Thanks for reading my post

mynameistallulah

data1704 wrote: »

Hi mynameistallulah,
Possibly so, but the solicitor acting on my behalf said that they agreed and on that basis took my case on, and remember, Trading Standards sent me the case in the first place as they said it applied to me.
But I acknowledge what've you said.
Thanks for reading my post

No problem - I would keep things in context though, remember that TS are not always legally trained (out of interest was it TS or Consumer Direct?), and not all solicitors are equal - I would be tempted to get opinions from two others, just to have a balanced viewpoint.

I don't think your case is clear cut, there have been some excellent points made for each side on this thread. I would be interested to hear the outcome.

Looksguywalker

mynameistallulah wrote: »

No problem - I would keep things in context though, remember that TS are not always legally trained (out of interest was it TS or Consumer Direct?), and not all solicitors are equal - I would be tempted to get opinions from two others, just to have a balanced viewpoint.

I don't think your case is clear cut, there have been some excellent points made for each side on this thread. I would be interested to hear the outcome.

Does the fact that the OP has returned the items to QVC for a refund that QVC agreed to and hasn't done so count for nothing here?