Forced to take credit note

stugib

bod1467 wrote: »

Badoom TIsh

Badoom nothing, I absolutely stick to my interpretation. Picking up on the word "often" is meaningless when you ignore the main thrust of the advice. Government documentation rarely uses clear cut black & white terms.

Think of the impact of what you're claiming. You're seriously saying that before you leave the shop you have to open everything to inspect for faults, given inspection would mean testing out the various functions of it to make sure they work? Or if a retailer manages to mask a fault so it's not obvious then it's tough if you find it when you get home?

That wouldn't fit into many people's interpretation of "reasonable time" to inspect the goods.

unholyangel

stugib wrote: »

Badoom nothing, I absolutely stick to my interpretation. Picking up on the word "often" is meaningless when you ignore the main thrust of the advice. Government documentation rarely uses clear cut black & white terms.

Think of the impact of what you're claiming. You're seriously saying that before you leave the shop you have to open everything to inspect for faults, given inspection would mean testing out the various functions of it to make sure they work? Or if a retailer manages to mask a fault so it's not obvious then it's tough if you find it when you get home?

That wouldn't fit into many people's interpretation of "reasonable time" to inspect the goods.

The reason government documentation rarely uses black and white terms is because the legislation itself needs to cover everything from the purchase of a wooden die (as in dice) to the purchase of a super car.

And no, that's not what either of us are saying. We're saying if a fault would've been apparent, you can lose your right to reject it on the basis of that particular fault.

For example, if you buy a white shirt that has a huge blue stain on it and it would've been obvious (garment wasn't in packaging, was on a coathanger), you can lose your right to return it because of the stain. But then if it developed another fault, you would then be able to reject it on that basis.

From what you're trying to say...I could buy a black shirt and then take it back because its not the exact shade of black I want/thought it was - since I cannot ever lose my rights of rejection by inspecting it in a shop according to you.

If something would've been obvious or was made apparent to you at time of sale, it forms part of the contract.

bod1467

bod1467 wrote: »

Badoom TIsh

Echo ... echo ...

unholyangel

Stugib, I'm going to take pity here and let you in on a little secret.

(2)Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality.

...

(2C)The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory—
(a)which is specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made,
(b)where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or
(c)in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample.]

Or are you going to try and tell me that the Sale Of Goods Act itself is wrong?