Time limit to reporting damaged/faulty goods?

unholyangel

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

I believe the likely scenario to be the one the OP says happened. I believe they should pursue it. I just don't believe that the legislation gives them an automatic win unless the retailer proves it arrived undamaged, which is what you originally said. You don't seem to be saying that any more either, which is why you are constructing a plausible case the OP can put to the retailer. If what you claimed was true, he would not need such a case. Your initial contention was that a court would side with him immediately as long as the retailer couldn't prove it arrived undamaged. I don't believe this to be the case, and I don't think you do any more either. However I think the circumstances of this particular case mean that he should definitely try pushing further for a replacement.

So if you think its a likely scenario, why shouldn't the retailer?

Also, that isn't what I said (and nor did I say anything about a court - much less that they'd side with him automatically). Here's my original post again just to save any confusion:

Remind the retailer that any term limiting your statutory rights would be unfair and may even amount to a criminal offence.

Also remind them that any lack of conformity that becomes apparent within the first 6 months is assumed to be inherent unless they prove otherwise. You have 6 years in law to make a claim, therefore they cannot have a term that ends their liability after 3 days (but its considered particularly misleading to try disclaim liability within the first 6 months due to the above).

What I am (and have always been) saying is that the retailer should judge each case on its merits and cannot disclaim liability using a unfair (and therefore unenforceable) term.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

unholyangel wrote: »

So if you think its a likely scenario, why shouldn't the retailer?

The retailer might think it's a likely scenario. I never for a minute implied they wouldn't, or that the OP's case was weak, or anything of the sort. I really don't know what you are reading.

What I said was that citing that particular legislation at them wouldn't help. And I don't think it will. I don't think you do any more either, because you suggest they support it by making a plausible case, which they would not have to do if that legislation was relevant. If that legislation were relevant then the last thing the retailer would have to do is judge each case on its merits. Unless they had proof of delivery in intact state, they would have to refund.

unholyangel wrote: »

Also, that isn't what I said (and nor did I say anything about a court - much less that they'd side with him automatically). Here's my original post again just to save any confusion:

What I am (and have always been) saying is that the retailer should judge each case on its merits and cannot disclaim liability using a unfair (and therefore unenforceable) term.

No. That's what the first paragraph you quote says.

The second paragraph states that they should tell the retailer that if they can't prove the object wasn't broken on delivery the law states it will assumed to have so been. That's not right. That's all I ever took issue with. It's you that has clouded the issue by introducing other aspects of the case as though I have taken issue with them.

unholyangel

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

The retailer might think it's a likely scenario. I never for a minute implied they wouldn't, or that the OP's case was weak, or anything of the sort. I really don't know what you are reading.

What I said was that citing that particular legislation at them wouldn't help. And I don't think it will. I don't think you do any more either, because you suggest they support it by making a plausible case, which they would not have to do if that legislation was relevant. If that legislation were relevant then the last thing the retailer would have to do is judge each case on its merits. Unless they had proof of delivery in intact state, they would have to refund.



No. That's what the first paragraph you quote says.

The second paragraph states that they should tell the retailer that if they can't prove the object wasn't broken on delivery the law states it will assumed to have so been. That's not right. That's all I ever took issue with. It's you that has clouded the issue by introducing other aspects of the case as though I have taken issue with them.

No, I didn't suggest that. I said if it was called into question then they'd be able to back up their story with supporting evidence. Thats not the same thing as saying the OP needs to make a plausible case! You're taking what I say and reading far too much into it rather than just taking it at face value.

As for the rest, again all I said was that if the lack of conformity that becomes apparent in the first 6 months would be assumed to be inherent and its for them to prove otherwise (and therefore they can't disclaim liability after 3 days). Would you care to explain whats wrong about that?

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

unholyangel wrote: »

As for the rest, again all I said was that if the lack of conformity that becomes apparent in the first 6 months would be assumed to be inherent and its for them to prove otherwise (and therefore they can't disclaim liability after 3 days). Would you care to explain whats wrong about that?

Because, as I said from the start, the law which you are quoting will not be held to apply in the case of accidental damage. If it were, then nothing would stop anyone returning anything they broke within six months and simply saying "prove it wasn't broken when I got it".

As courts will not, in my opinion, uphold the idea that all accidental damage is inherent unless the retailer could prove otherwise, there is no point the OP quoting this at them as it is inapplicable.

3 days is probably too tight a term and is unsustainable. However, I never expressed an opinion on that either. I just said
"I very much doubt that can be applied to accidental damage. If it could than anyone could drop anything within six months and claim it was broken when they got it. No retailer could ever prove otherwise.",
nothing about the 3 day liability. I bolded the part of your post I replied to; and it didn't include that. You have constantly, and are still, desperately trying to stretch the parameters of the debate.

As I say, if I am wrong on this, I will happily be convinced, but I would have to see cases where courts have ruled as you say they will. (I know you said nothing about courts, but without courts, there is no law. If you quote a law at someone you are implicitly saying "a court will rule in my favour based on this law".)


I have made my position as clear as I can. The point of difference, if we still have one, can only be that you think the law you quoted applies to accidental damage and will be so ruled by a court. Unless either of us can prove that to be the case, or not the case, there is no point continuing as I have taken issue with nothing but this one narrow point.

I hope you understand now; I am not going to say anything else on the matter unless you have information relating to that one distinct point - I will not simply outline my position again or reply to unrelated digressions.