Deleted Thread?

Evilm

If you really want the old thread Google Cache might still have it and with a small amount of strategic searching on Google you might be able to access it.

Mista_C

Evilm wrote: »

If you really want the old thread Google Cache might still have it and with a small amount of strategic searching on Google you might be able to access it.

The original text can be found in RTF format here http://www.sendspace.com/file/mgvcn1

The only amendment I've made is to replace identifiable information with [CUSTOMER].

Hopefully if there's an issue with this then MSE can simply remove the link instead of having to remove the whole thread.

ljonski

Members of the Jury, My learned friends have brought before you a stunning example of British Cut and thrust in this ground breaking legal battle. You have heard all the evidence and now it is up to you to convict or acquit according to the evidence. Please retire to the Moneysaving Arms to announce your decision....:)

System

Mista_C wrote: »

The original text can be found in RTF format here http://www.sendspace.com/file/mgvcn1

The only amendment I've made is to replace identifiable information with [CUSTOMER].

Hopefully if there's an issue with this then MSE can simply remove the link instead of having to remove the whole thread.

You've replaced "mr *****" with customer? Seems a sensible decision

unholyangel

Lip_Stick wrote: »

The seller seemed to be able to give a clear indication of how the phone call went, whereas the OP was a vague about various things. I know it wasn't her who made the call, but she can certainly ask her husband what exactly was said.

From a psychological point, a liar will go into detail. Someone who is telling the truth wont. The reason? The liar wants to make his/her story more believable and subconsciously they think providing details achieves this.

But as goater said, we're probably never going to agree.

The way I've looked at it is this, certain things we can't be sure of as they are he said/she said and we werent present to witness it for ourselves. However, we have personally witnessed a) a change to the T&C's which may or may not have been intended for use against the OP but thats irrelevant as they are unfair terms in that they attempt to pass the risk for something which the retailer can avoid by using reasonable care and amount to an unfair penalty under english law as it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss resulting from the consumers breach of contract.

b) the owner breaching the DPA

c) the owner has skewed priorities given they were willing to hire a solicitor to chase OP for defamation but were not willing to hire a solicitor to draft/check their T&C's to make sure they werent screwing their customers/breaking the law.

d) following on from above, many of their T&Cs are illegal.


So from my viewpoint, we have plenty of indicators as to the owners character but have nothing definitive in regards to the OPs other than they both agree (OP and owner) that they contacted the retailer with regards to an excess being delivered - which is on the "good character" scale.


I am not basing my opinion on factors we do not know. I am basing them on factors we do.

System

unholyangel wrote: »

From a psychological point, a liar will go into detail. Someone who is telling the truth wont. The reason? The liar wants to make his/her story more believable and subconsciously they think providing details achieves this.

But as goater said, we're probably never going to agree.

The way I've looked at it is this, certain things we can't be sure of as they are he said/she said and we werent present to witness it for ourselves. However, we have personally witnessed a) a change to the T&C's which may or may not have been intended for use against the OP but thats irrelevant as they are unfair terms in that they attempt to pass the risk for something which the retailer can avoid by using reasonable care and amount to an unfair penalty under english law as it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss resulting from the consumers breach of contract.

b) the owner breaching the DPA

c) the owner has skewed priorities given they were willing to hire a solicitor to chase OP for defamation but were not willing to hire a solicitor to draft/check their T&C's to make sure they werent screwing their customers/breaking the law.

d) following on from above, many of their T&Cs are illegal.


So from my viewpoint, we have plenty of indicators as to the owners character but have nothing definitive in regards to the OPs other than they both agree (OP and owner) that they contacted the retailer with regards to an excess being delivered - which is on the "good character" scale.


I am not basing my opinion on factors we do not know. I am basing them on factors we do.

Remember the OP was reporting back from what her husband told her while the seller was reporting on what she said actually happened.

The lack of detail is not down to honesty but because she wasn't there for the phone call.

unholyangel

goater78 wrote: »

Remember the OP was reporting back from what her husband told her while the seller was reporting on what she said actually happened.

The lack of detail is not down to honesty but because she wasn't there for the phone call.

So the OP made a claim that it was herself that spoke to the company then? Or did she state her husband spoke to them? I seem to remember the latter and nothing being mentioned to the former.

The only thing the OP and owner dont agree on is whether the husband said/agreed to the excess being only 6". And unless you have some knowledge that the OPs husband is lying to her, then its an almost certainty that the OPs husband would make a statement that contains the same circumstances the OP detailed.

We already know (first hand) the owner has a habit of assuming things and presenting questionable "facts" (such as her claim she's been in business for years and only received 2 complaints - inclusive of this one). Either she doesnt get very many orders or its a blatant lie. And even if its the former, its a misrepresentation.

Interestingly, they company/owner arent registered as a data controller. Although perhaps I should stop referring to it as a company since she seems to be a sole trader.

Sorry but I think you've got a better chance of becoming the next prime minister than you do of convincing me the "owner" is trustworthy or respectable.

System

unholyangel wrote: »

So the OP made a claim that it was herself that spoke to the company then? Or did she state her husband spoke to them? I seem to remember the latter and nothing being mentioned to the former.

The only thing the OP and owner dont agree on is whether the husband said/agreed to the excess being only 6". And unless you have some knowledge that the OPs husband is lying to her, then its an almost certainty that the OPs husband would make a statement that contains the same circumstances the OP detailed.

We already know (first hand) the owner has a habit of assuming things and presenting questionable "facts" (such as her claim she's been in business for years and only received 2 complaints - inclusive of this one). Either she doesnt get very many orders or its a blatant lie. And even if its the former, its a misrepresentation.

Interestingly, they company/owner arent registered as a data controller. Although perhaps I should stop referring to it as a company since she seems to be a sole trader.

Sorry but I think you've got a better chance of becoming the next prime minister than you do of convincing me the "owner" is trustworthy or respectable.

No I'm just saying that your psychological theory on liars providing more detail than people telling the truth does not apply in this scenario. As the lack of detail in the ops post was down to the fact she was not there for the phone call so was relying on information provided by a third party.

unholyangel

goater78 wrote: »

No I'm just saying that your psychological theory on liars providing more detail than people telling the truth does not apply in this scenario. As the lack of detail in the ops post was down to the fact she was not there for the phone call so was relying on information provided by a third party.

Who said she wasnt there for the phone call btw? The OP didnt and nor did the trader. The only thing mentioned along those lines was by the trader stating the conversation was with OP's husband, not that the OP wasn't actually there when the conversation took place.

The way the story seemed was OP's husband had started cutting, OP got home and realised it was more than she had ordered so THEN they called the company.

If so, its entirely possible that none of what the OP said was heresay.

OlliesDad

unholyangel wrote: »

The way the story seemed was OP's husband had started cutting, OP got home and realised it was more than she had ordered so THEN they called the company.

The way i read it was that the OP's husband called them first, he advised he received some extra, but didn't confirm how much despite being asked. The business asked if it was a little (6 inches) and he said yes. Once the supplier got the invoice they called the OP's husband who then advised he had already chopped it up.

Its going to be a case of he said/she said if it went to court, so I wouldn't be confident if I was on either side. Although I don't this the business has shown themselves in the best light on here, i don't think that changes the situation from a legal standpoint.