Advice with Court Claim received please?

gazfocus

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

2 The court has two separate issues to decide - liability and compensation.
Liability concerns the simple question - did the item you sent him comply with the advertised description. The answer is no, therefore you are liable. The fact that the reason it did not comply is that you were send a defective model does not concern the court, that is a matter for you to take up with your supplier.

I really appreciate the advice on this forum but why is everyone saying the cable is defective? It is NOT a defective cable. It is the cable supplied by the manufacturer and is the CORRECT cable for the sat nav.

The supplier/manufacturer/whoever have not supplied a defective model or a defective part.

gazfocus

Ok, so my question is... If I have offered the buyer a full refund on two seperate occasions, how can a judge then award a claim against me when it is the buyer that refused to send the sat nav back?

campdave

gazfocus wrote: »

I really appreciate the advice on this forum but why is everyone saying the cable is defective? It is NOT a defective cable. It is the cable supplied by the manufacturer and is the CORRECT cable for the sat nav.

The supplier/manufacturer/whoever have not supplied a defective model or a defective part.

From your original post, you advertised a digital model, but the model sent to the buyer was an analogue model. Is this correct?

RFW

gazfocus wrote: »

I really appreciate the advice on this forum but why is everyone saying the cable is defective? It is NOT a defective cable. It is the cable supplied by the manufacturer and is the CORRECT cable for the sat nav.

You have never made that clear and would not be doing so to a court based on what you have written on here.

RFW

gazfocus wrote: »

Ok, so my question is... If I have offered the buyer a full refund on two seperate occasions, how can a judge then award a claim against me when it is the buyer that refused to send the sat nav back?

You seem to keep saying different things. It all needs to be a lot simpler and clearer for a court.

gazfocus

RFW wrote: »

You seem to keep saying different things. It all needs to be a lot simpler and clearer for a court.

Show me where I keep saying different things?

All I have asked is if I have previously offered a full refund twice, and the buyer has refused, does that give him the right to file a claim for the cable?

campdave

campdave wrote: »

From your original post, you advertised a digital model, but the model sent to the buyer was an analogue model. Is this correct?

Still seeking clarification on this point.

RFW

gazfocus wrote: »

Show me where I keep saying different things?

All I have asked is if I have previously offered a full refund twice, and the buyer has refused, does that give him the right to file a claim for the cable?

Anyone can claim for anything, winning a case is another matter. I didn't say you kept saying different things, I said you seem to. There needs to be a clear linear detailing of what happened.

As I said at the start, if this were me (and I was in the right) I would not be offering to pay anything at all. I would be defending that I offered to pay towards a cable as a matter of goodwill that was rejected. The main defence would be that the buyer had the item for two months with a cable that they were presumably using. Only after two months did he decide it was not the right item/cable. Your goodwill also extended to offering a refund on return. Both goodwill gestures were rejected.
Admitting any kind of liability to replace the cable would, in my opinion, lose the case.

gazfocus

RFW wrote: »

Anyone can claim for anything, winning a case is another matter. I didn't say you kept saying different things, I said you seem to. There needs to be a clear linear detailing of what happened.

As I said at the start, if this were me (and I was in the right) I would not be offering to pay anything at all. I would be defending that I offered to pay towards a cable as a matter of goodwill that was rejected. The main defence would be that the buyer had the item for two months with a cable that they were presumably using. Only after two months did he decide it was not the right item/cable. Your goodwill also extended to offering a refund on return. Both goodwill gestures were rejected.
Admitting any kind of liability to replace the cable would, in my opinion, lose the case.

Thanks for your input, I really do appreciate it.

I have had a response from the buyer saying that if I pay the money into his bank (the £99.99 plus court costs) he will return the original cable. When I said I would prefer to arrange the replacement cable myself and send it on to him, he has refused to accept that and has said he has already purchased the replacement cable.

Now I'm really cheesed off. As said before, I have offered twice to refund in full on safe return of the sat Nav. The buyer has taken it upon himself to source a new cable which is presumably why he is refusing to return it.

cootuk

tbh i would offer the buyer a full refund on return of the satnav in working order - that way they are put back to the same financial situation they were in before. Forget about cables and partial refunds.