Curry's insiting engineer visit chargeable to confirm fault on new cooker

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

The question remains if the OP is liable for the cost of the test, should it show there is no fault, why are Curry's insisting the OP agrees in advance to pay in that circumstance?

And while the OP is strongly of the view the fault was inherent they might not be 100% certain.


No. It just shows the OP does not want to take on any liability they don't need to.

If I was the OP I would be happy to concede I was not 100% certain that Curry's tester would conclude there was an inherent fault. That is miles away from showing on the balance of probability I considered it was user damage.

What do you think under the current contract makes OP liable?

sheramber

It could that they want her to agree in advance to the paymeny to prevent her saying afterwards that she did not know there was a charge.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

What do you think under the current contract makes OP liable?

Who says I think they are liable?

I said "if the OP is liable for the cost of the test, should it show there is no fault, why are Curry's insisting the OP agrees in advance to pay in that circumstance?"

Do you think they are liable in that circumstance? If not, why are you saying they should agree to Curry's demand?

And if you think they are liable my question remains unanswered.

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

Who says I think they are liable?

I said "if the OP is liable for the cost of the test, should it show there is no fault, why are Curry's insisting the OP agrees in advance to pay in that circumstance?"

Do you think they are liable in that circumstance? If not, why are you saying they should agree to Curry's demand?

And if you think they are liable my question remains unanswered.

Which is exactly why currys is making them aware of the charges beforehand, because it is not covered by the existing contract between them and you can't bind consumers to hidden terms.

All currys are basically saying is "if its not covered by pre-existing contractual obligations, its a chargeable service".

In contrast, when a consumer needs to get a report and it finds in their favour, its a loss they have incurred due to the retailers breach of contract. Plus a business should be aware of consumer legislation so should not need to be told what their potential liability is.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

Which is exactly why currys is making them aware of the charges beforehand, because it is not covered by the existing contract between them and you can't bind consumers to hidden terms.

All currys are basically saying is "if its not covered by pre-existing contractual obligations, its a chargeable service".

So if this is not a contractual requirement that Currys can bind the OP to, then why should the OP agree to this condition now?

What is the advantage to the OP to agree to this term? (The disadvantage is clear from what you have said.)

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

So if this is not a contractual requirement that Currys can bind the OP to, then why should the OP agree to this condition now?

What is the advantage to the OP to agree to this term? (The disadvantage is clear from what you have said.)

Why not? Its a reasonable request.

The advantage is that it will show the OP has been reasonable in all dealings with the company. As refusing a perfectly reasonable request could go against them in court (who tend to not take kindly when people take the legal route on nothing more than a point of principle) and end up with costs not being awarded or even worse, having costs awarded against them.

Plus court action will take months.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

Why not? Its a reasonable request.

Because, according to you, it means they are agreeing to an obligation that they could not otherwise be bound by. ("it is not covered by the existing contract between them and you can't bind consumers to hidden terms.")

The advantage is that it will show the OP has been reasonable in all dealings with the company. As refusing a perfectly reasonable request could go against them in court (who tend to not take kindly when people take the legal route on nothing more than a point of principle) and end up with costs not being awarded or even worse, having costs awarded against them.

In the unlikely event this point is made in court, the OP can say that although they were very strongly of the view the item was inherently faulty, they were not 100% certain that Curry's tester would reach this conclusion. Therefore they were unwilling to agree to Curry's demand.

There is nothing unreasonable about refusing to take on a potential liability that, according to you, they would not otherwise be bound by.

Plus court action will take months.

Well that may be a trade off the OP could consider. They have used the courts before so will know the process and timescales.

daytona0

naedanger wrote: »

So if this is not a contractual requirement that Currys can bind the OP to, then why should the OP agree to this condition now?

What is the advantage to the OP to agree to this term? (The disadvantage is clear from what you have said.)

Well I would argue that a new 'contract' is being discussed. Namely that Currys are offering a chargeable engineer visit which will be reimbursed if it is covered under consumer rights.

I think it is unreasonable to expect a free engineer visit IF it turns out to be a problem caused by OP. Why should Currys incur a cost?

hollydays

Which part of the cooker has flaking enamel?
Just the top?
What exactly have you been cleaning it.

naedanger

daytona0 wrote: »

Well I would argue that a new 'contract' is being discussed. Namely that Currys are offering a chargeable engineer visit which will be reimbursed if it is covered under consumer rights.

I think it is unreasonable to expect a free engineer visit IF it turns out to be a problem caused by OP. Why should Currys incur a cost?

Currys should incur the cost because it is only them that want the test done.

(The OP is, I believe, content for the matter to go to court without any engineer's test.

Unless Currys can prove on the balance of probability that the item was not inherently faulty when it was bought, all the customer has to prove on the balance of probability is that it is currently not of satisfactory quality.

The OP is happy to make their case without an engineer's test. If Currys are happy to do the same then there is no problem.