Just been sold a used item!

Zandoni

unholyangel wrote: »

I disagree with you assuming that the goods have been worn (and I've already explained this previously). Saying that we don't have enough information/knowledge to be saying with any certainty that one scenario is more likely than the other.

Disagreeing with you making an assumption is not the same as saying another assumption is more likely than yours.

I think it is and I also think that my assumption is more correct than your assumption.

If I get bored later I might count all the assumptions and see who said it the most.

unholyangel

Zandoni wrote: »

I think it is and I also think that my assumption is more correct than your assumption.

If I get bored later I might count all the assumptions and see who said it the most.

Would that be the assumption I never made?

Perhaps you'd like to tell me whether I prefer tea or coffee also? I really would love to have it on the good authority of a random stranger who's never met me rather than me myself.

gollum007

unholyangel wrote: »

I'd quite believe that a trader could be guilty of an offence if the practice was likely to mislead the average consumer - nothing to do with having to describe items as new by law.

Else charity shops would have a string of prosecutions against them as I genuinely have never ever seen any shop advertising anything as new. Sometimes items are sold as rejects, soiled etc....but I have never seen anything described as "new".

And I imagine that would be on a sticky wicket when you buy a "new" tv that has actually been sitting on the shelf for 17 months.

Hadn't thought of misleading the consumer, but I'm not sure it's relevant here.
I suppose that if the product in question had been returned under SOGA with an inherant fault not visible on an external inspection, it could potentially be classified differently to a product that had been returned as a change of mind in pristine packaging.
If repaired, or the shop couldn't reproduce the fault I think that's probably stretching it a little, in that the purchaser would have had the chance to inspect the product in the shop prior to taking it away.

Something can IMHO definitely be described as 'new' no matter how long it's been on the shelf, some higher-end stuff can sit in shops for years before it's bought.

-Gollum

unholyangel

gollum007 wrote: »

Something can IMHO definitely be described as 'new' no matter how long it's been on the shelf, some higher-end stuff can sit in shops for years before it's bought.

-Gollum

This is a tongue in cheek comment: oxford dictionary defines new as not previously owned or used or (alternatively) recently acquired for the first time. Technically that means nothing we buy is new given that ownership passes in a contract of sale.

Just occurred to me when I was going through how it might be defined in law - if a term is not defined by statute then they are given their everyday meaning. But couldn't think of a definition that could be accurately applied so looked to see if the dictionary definition would help.

It does change in context - new job doesn't quite have the same meaning as a new car. And then some people buy a second-hand car and then say "I got a new car" despite the fact its clearly only new to them.

I think its one of those things (when buying clothes - the risk of someone else having worn them) that we probably know but its not something we're actively aware until something like this happens. I'm sure we've all (at some point) came across clothes not put back on the hanger correctly or seen tags that have fallen off. I think most people would reach past them and get a different pair (unless perhaps they were the last ones in your size), but we do know it happens, that other people might wear clothes before we buy them.

You have no idea what that persons hygiene is like - much less what bits of their body/bodily fluids came into contact with what bits of the clothes. Trying on has just as much potential to be gross as actually wearing imo. Remember the buttergate thread? Prime example of how gross people can be! Always wash before wearing - even if they don't have visible signs.

Sorry, was meant to be a short post. :rotfl:

Zandoni

unholyangel wrote: »

Would that be the assumption I never made?

Perhaps you'd like to tell me whether I prefer tea or coffee also? I really would love to have it on the good authority of a random stranger who's never met me rather than me myself.

When you disagree with someone so strongly it would be assumed you were taking the opposite opinion, perhaps in future you should declare that you have no opinion yourself.

It's obvious that you prefer coffee, you'd need plenty of caffeine.

DeltaWhiskyHotel

Just to add a comment, for what it's worth. I seem to remember a long, long, long time ago during some legal training, being informed that a reasonable definition of "new" is that an item had not been "subject to a previous retail sale"


I have some very vague memories that this, or something similar, was said as an 'obiter dictum' during a trial based on an old piece of consumer legislation (Trade Descriptions Act 1968?, Sale of Goods?)


Of course, this was some time before online sales and the concurrent right to return within the specified cancellation period. Never mind the demise of the Trade Descriptions Act and its replacement by the new Cons Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

Would it be be possible to extend the above definition if it can be argued that the purchase (sale)/full acceptance hasn't taken place until after the said period has expired? - just a thought.


Anyway, the whole point of this post was to point out that the above discussion was starting to remind me of the the old Emo Philips joke
"I got some new underwear the other day. Well, new to me."

unholyangel

Zandoni wrote: »

When you disagree with someone so strongly it would be assumed you were taking the opposite opinion, perhaps in future you should declare that you have no opinion yourself.

It's obvious that you prefer coffee, you'd need plenty of caffeine.

There you go with that word again.

The part you seem to have trouble grasping is that just because you assumed I was disagreeing so strongly/taking the opposite view, doesn't actually make it fact.

And for some reason, despite me letting you know that your assumptions were incorrect, you're still insisting that they were correct. Which - quite frankly - is lunacy on your part.

Zandoni

unholyangel wrote: »

There you go with that word again.

The part you seem to have trouble grasping is that just because you assumed I was disagreeing so strongly/taking the opposite view, doesn't actually make it fact.

And for some reason, despite me letting you know that your assumptions were incorrect, you're still insisting that they were correct. Which - quite frankly - is lunacy on your part.

Not at all, I now accept you had no opinion, I was merely suggesting that in future you make that more obvious.

I got the coffee right then.

unholyangel

Zandoni wrote: »

Not at all, I now accept you had no opinion, I was merely suggesting that in future you make that more obvious.

I got the coffee right then.

Nope, can't stand even the smell of the stuff.

And as evidenced in my post last night, I quite clearly do have an opinion - just not the one you thought I had

Zandoni

unholyangel wrote: »

Nope, can't stand even the smell of the stuff.

And as evidenced in my post last night, I quite clearly do have an opinion - just not the one you thought I had

Which post was that?