Curry's/Knowhow- who to sue?

Cookie_Girl

Just to clarify, I was told on the phone that a fourth mechanical failure did entitle me to a replacement. That's how I understood the plan to work and it was confirmed by the bloke I spoke to. The only point of disagreement here is that I 'accepted' a repair. As far as they're concerned that's the end of that. I say I was conned into accepting it, because I was told I'd be getting it as well as the vouchers. Had I been told 'you can have another repair if you choose, and only if you decline it you'll get vouchers to the value of a new cooker' I would have said fine, I'll do the latter. I'm not stupid and I do understand the difference. My point is that I was lied to and now I'm without the thing (cooker/voucher) I wanted at that point. And given that the engineer also misled me, it really feels like it's a company policy to push the repairs rather than cough up for the value of a new item. So we have a situation like mine, with the customer saying I want a replacement (voucher) and the engineer saying let me just repair it and we'll take it from there, in the full knowledge that they're stopping me from getting what I'm entitled to. And, let's not forget, what I paid for. The plan isn't free.

DoaM

lincroft1710 wrote: »

It is possible the terms may have been drafted purposely so that they can be open to interpretation.

I think you may need to look up the meaning of Contra proferentem.

esuhl

lincroft1710 wrote: »

It's hardly an "unfair term"! Possibly misleading as it is not clear in that it does not state that it is an entitlement, if that is what is intended. It is possible the terms may have been drafted purposely so that they can be open to interpretation.

I don't think you understand contract law. If a term is misleading, it is, by definition "unfair"! If terms are "open to interpretation" then they will be interpreted in the most favourable way for the claimant.

Cookie_Girl wrote: »

Just to clarify, I was told on the phone that a fourth mechanical failure did entitle me to a replacement. That's how I understood the plan to work and it was confirmed by the bloke I spoke to. The only point of disagreement here is that I 'accepted' a repair. As far as they're concerned that's the end of that. I say I was conned into accepting it, because I was told I'd be getting it as well as the vouchers. Had I been told 'you can have another repair if you choose, and only if you decline it you'll get vouchers to the value of a new cooker' I would have said fine, I'll do the latter. I'm not stupid and I do understand the difference. My point is that I was lied to and now I'm without the thing (cooker/voucher) I wanted at that point. And given that the engineer also misled me, it really feels like it's a company policy to push the repairs rather than cough up for the value of a new item. So we have a situation like mine, with the customer saying I want a replacement (voucher) and the engineer saying let me just repair it and we'll take it from there, in the full knowledge that they're stopping me from getting what I'm entitled to. And, let's not forget, what I paid for. The plan isn't free.

I totally understand, and you're being perfectly reasonable. However, I disagree that Curry's "conned you into accepting a repair instead of a replacement". You are entitled to a replacement, you requested one, and Curry's are now obliged to provide it.

The fact that Curry's wasted their own time and money by sending an engineer to repair a cooker that you're returning doesn't affect you.

(Of course, I haven't read the T&Cs myself -- I'm going on what you're saying.)

Cookie_Girl wrote: »

The plan isn't free.

Exactly. You've paid for a service that now entitles you to a replacement cooker. Curry's now need to provide it or leave themselves open to legal action.

Good luck!

Cookie_Girl

Thank you!

(nothing back from them yet... )