Currys & Sharp

superscaper

IvanOpinion wrote: »

Under the sales of goods act the problem is Currys (the retailers) .. not Sharps (tha manufacturer). I would say that Currys are therefore in breach of contract. Having said that I am sure all they will do is stall until it suits them to sort it out.

Ivan

If it's within six months then I presume that it is within Sharp's manufacturer warranty so Sharp are just as legally liable (in fact I think I read somewhere that manufacturer warranties actually superscede the SOGA).

aussiesbird

Dave_Brooker wrote: »

Have a nice cup of tea, dear, and calm down.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Oh I am calm, you obviously think you are getting to me but your not. I've come across a lot of childish men in my time and you're no different. I've had men like you for breakfast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

aussiesbird

Dave_Brooker wrote: »

I can see why Currys and Sharp argued over which one of them was going round your house to fix your telly....

Oh you are soooooooooooooo funny!!!!!!! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Dave_Brooker

aussiesbird wrote: »

Oh I am calm, you obviously think you are getting to me but your not. I've come across a lot of childish men in my time and you're no different. I've had men like you for breakfast

You've cooked breakfast for a lot of men???

aussiesbird

Dave_Brooker wrote: »

You've cooked breakfast for a lot of men???

I'm not that type of girl!!

aussiesbird

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Customer Service at Currys!!![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Good morning! Thanks for calling us!
We're pleased to hear from you!
Your call's important to us
So we've placed you in a queue.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Please find your account number and
Be sure it is correct..
It's twenty digits long and if you
Mis-type, I'll reject.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I'll lead you through the whole routine
Please use your touch type phone.
Press eight and follow with the hash
After you hear the tone.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you are a new client here..
Press two, ..if old, press three.
Press four in case we've done something
With which you disagree![/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You have pressed four, please wait a moment
While I transfer you..
And please enjoy, while we play you
A symphony or two![/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Our staff are all too busy now
To talk to such as you
Your call is so important that
We've placed you in a queue."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Time passes and the music lingers
On, and bye and bye..
My cheek and ear go fast asleep,
My wrist gets R.S.I.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But wait! It may be there is hope!
I hear a ringing sound,
At last a human voice is heard
After the runaround![/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Good morning, this is Currys
And may we help somehow?
Complaints?.. Oh! Just hang on a tick
I'll transfer you right now!..."

"Good morning! Thanks for calling us!
We're pleased to hear from you!
Your call's important to us
So we've placed you in a queue."[/FONT]

IvanOpinion

superscaper wrote: »

If it's within six months then I presume that it is within Sharp's manufacturer warranty so Sharp are just as legally liable (in fact I think I read somewhere that manufacturer warranties actually superscede the SOGA).

What the Sale of Goods act says is that 'it is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.'.

The idea is that the customer is not expected to have to chase up some arbitrary faceless manufacturer who tries to fob them off .. ultimately the repsonsibility lies with the merchant. If however all three parties agree to delegate the responsibility to the manufacturer then that should not be an issue. There is also reference to the seller acting as an agent for the manufacturer which actually means that the seller is ultimately the manufacturer .. if you follow that.

Ivan

superscaper

IvanOpinion wrote: »

What the Sale of Goods act says is that 'it is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.'.

The idea is that the customer is not expected to have to chase up some arbitrary faceless manufacturer who tries to fob them off .. ultimately the repsonsibility lies with the merchant. If however all three parties agree to delegate the responsibility to the manufacturer then that should not be an issue.

Ivan

I know that the SOGA only covers retailers but a manufacturer's warranty is in addition to normal consumer rights and is just as legally binding. From a practical point of view from my own experience I've found, when within manufacturer's warranty, it is much quicker and easier dealing with a manfuacturer than with a retailer. When there has been a manufacturer warranty in place I have never once been fobbed off by the manufacturer, the same can't be said for retailers though. The whole point of manufacturers' warranties is that they are easier to deal with than your statuatory rights through the retailer and I've found that to be the case in my experience.

Dave_Brooker

aussiesbird wrote: »

Thanks for that. What is BAT line?? Sharp are saying they cannot be held responsible for the time limit Currys state in their policy and Currys have no right to promise a 2 day slot if they are going to pass the job onto them.

Presumably for the first year the TV is covered by it's manufacturers warrenty (sharp) and the extended warrenty is with currys who promise the engineer out in 2 days thing.

IvanOpinion

superscaper wrote: »

I know that the SOGA only covers retailers but a manufacturer's warranty is in addition to normal consumer rights and is just as legally binding. From a practical point of view from my own experience I've found, when within manufacturer's warranty, it is much quicker and easier dealing with a manfuacturer than with a retailer. When there has been a manufacturer warranty in place I have never once been fobbed off by the manufacturer, the same can't be said for retailers though. The whole point of manufacturers' warranties is that they are easier to deal with than your statuatory rights through the retailer and I've found that to be the case in my experience.

I can see your point and agree that sometimes you can get better results by dealing directly with the manufacturer. However I thnk that it is correct that the seller can not simply pass the buck onto the manufacturer without both the manufacturer and the purchaser agreeing to this. In general it is up to the seller to liasise with the manufacturer (not the buyer) however, as you rightly say, sometimes too many middlemen simply get in the way of a resolution.

ivan