Wrong laptop sent in November from Very

shaun_from_Africa

Rainbowgirl84 wrote: »

It's good you admit that you don't have a clue on how to reply. How you can guess what a judge will decide is beyond my comprehension unless you have that experience. You clearly think you have this acquired knowledge. I'm not certain you have to be honest.

Why do you think that anyone needs to guess at what a judge will decide?
When it comes down to consumer law, there are many previous legal cases to go by and even if a judge ignores these, they have to base a decision on the applicable legislation. (In this case, the Consumer rights act).
One section of this clearly states that in the event of a consumer stating that goods do not conform to contract within the first 6 months from sale, it is up to the retailer to prove that this claim is wrong.

So providing that the OP can show that the laptop that was supplied differed from that advertised and ordered, the claim will go in the OP's favour.

Add to this the fact that Very have attempted to deny the OP their statutory rights and also changed the details of the laptop on their website won't exactly paint them in a good light if legal action is taken.

unholyangel

Rainbowgirl84 wrote: »

It's good you admit that you don't have a clue on how to reply. How you can guess what a judge will decide is beyond my comprehension unless you have that experience. You clearly think you have this acquired knowledge. I'm not certain you have to be honest.

Because judges cannot overrule statute. Judges interpret statute as it is written.

It can amount to a criminal offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations to try to remove or restrict a consumers statutory rights or to mislead consumers about their statutory rights.

Under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations state that terms are unfair if they try to exclude or limit the legal rights against the trader or other party in the event of inadequate performance of any contractual obligations. They are also relevant in other areas (ie binding on the consumer but not the supplier, unilateral variations to contract etc) but I'm trying to keep it short :rotfl:

The Consumer Rights Act makes it a contractual obligation that goods must be as described. If the goods fail to conform to contract, then the OP is entitled to a remedy. The limitation period for bringing a claim is set by the Limitation Act and Prescription and Limitation Act - which respectively give 6 years from purchase in E&W to bring a claim based on breach of simple contract and 5 years from discovery in Scotland.

They're in breach of contract, the fact that the OP has only found out now does not make OP liable for their breach. They remain liable to provide a remedy to bring the goods within conformity of the contract. The party who are not in breach are entitled to be put in the same position they would have been in had it been performed correctly.

If a small claims judge didn't know that much, he wouldn't be a judge.