Do not buy the argos simple value suitcase

Stephenmac

DoaM wrote: »

I remember when wheeled cases first came about - what a revelation! No more having to carry suitcases all the way!

I saw what you done there.....

George_Michael

Moglex wrote: »

You really do talk some utter piffle.

Someone has the temerity to have a different opinion to you and you consider it "piffle".
I like your debating style.

Moglex wrote: »

Firstly, it isn't the lowest price. You can get a large wheeled case for ~ £20. Thus this one was 50% more than the cheapest. That's a not insignificant increase.

Why quote the price for a large case?
This isn't what the OP purchased but if you had taken your own advice:

Moglex wrote: »

And, as usual, you don't read earlier posts in the thread properly

then you would have seen that they bought an extra large one so comparing this to a different sized item is not comparing like for like.

You might be able to get an XL case for a few £'s cheaper but this doesn't detract from the fact that less than £30 for a wheeled case of this size is definitely in very low budget territory.

Moglex

George_Michael wrote: »

Someone has the temerity to have a different opinion to you and you consider it "piffle".

You seem to be under the illusion that your making an absurd suggestion and my debunking it is a difference of opinion. It isn't.

I like your debating style.

You also seem to be deluding yourself into thinking we are debating something.

We are not.

I'm calling you out for posting nonsense.

Why quote the price for a large case?
This isn't what the OP purchased but if you had taken your own advice:

then you would have seen that they bought an extra large one so comparing this to a different sized item is not comparing like for like.

Stop trying to wiggle out of things by silly quibbling.

There is no defined set of standards to determine what XL means when it comes to luggage. I specified 'Large' to indicate that it was well out of the 'cabin baggage' territory (which starts at around ~ £12.)

You might be able to get an XL case for a few £'s cheaper but this doesn't detract from the fact that less than £30 for a wheeled case of this size is definitely in very low budget territory.

A 50% difference between this item and the bottom end of the market is significant. That's roughly the difference between a Mini and a Mondeo.

All of that is, anyway, beside the point.

Said point being that anyone who thinks that it is unreasonable to expect a case - even if it is the cheapest of the cheap - not to be able to make a return trip with 200 metres use at each end, has a seriously faulty understanding of consumer protection legislation.

George_Michael

Moglex wrote: »

You also seem to be deluding yourself into thinking we are debating something.

Finally. Something we both agree on.
You think that your opinion is correct (and despite your not agreeing, what you are posting is simply one opinion) and anyone who has a different view is wrong.

Moglex wrote: »

There is no defined set of standards to determine what XL means when it comes to luggage. I specified 'Large' to indicate that it was well out of the 'cabin baggage' territory (which starts at around ~ £12.)

So why didn't you provide a link to a branded XL suitcase that can be bought from a recognised high street or online dealer for around the £20 mark and thus show that what the OP purchased wasn't at the very low end of the price range for a case of that size?

I could have provide dozens of links for L or XL cases costing many times what the OP paid but unlike you, I didn't want to cloud the debate (even though you didn't think that there was a debate) by posting something that was of no use.

Moglex wrote: »

A 50% difference between this item and the bottom end of the market is significant. That's roughly the difference between a Mini and a Mondeo.

So where are the links showing a 100+ litre capacity 2 wheeled suitcase that can be purchased for £20 from a recognised online or high street store?

Moglex

George_Michael wrote: »

Finally. Something we both agree on.
You think that your opinion is correct (and despite your not agreeing, what you are posting is simply one opinion) and anyone who has a different view is wrong.

So why didn't you provide a link to a branded XL suitcase that can be bought from a recognised high street or online dealer for around the £20 mark and thus show that what the OP purchased wasn't at the very low end of the price range for a case of that size?

I could have provide dozens of links for L or XL cases costing many times what the OP paid but unlike you, I didn't want to cloud the debate (even though you didn't think that there was a debate) by posting something that was of no use.

So where are the links showing a 100+ litre capacity 2 wheeled suitcase that can be purchased for £20 from a recognised online or high street store?

Quoting and linking is, as you say yourself, clouding the issue - something that you are very happy doing above.

I notice that you never address the actual point in question, which is that your assertion that it is unreasonable to expect a case to last for even the shortest of journeys.

So, let's cut to the chase.

My 'opinion' is that consumer protection legislation states that an item must be of satisfactory quality, and this means that it must do at least the minimum that it is intended for for a reasonable amount of time.

Your opinion appears to be that if it is sold for a sufficiently low price it is unreasonable to expect even this.

Instead of wittering on about where you can buy what and for how much, how about defending the fundamental assertion (marked in red) to which I was disagreeing.

George_Michael

Moglex wrote: »

Instead of wittering on about where you can buy what and for how much, how about defending the fundamental assertion (marked in red) to which I was disagreeing.

It wasn't "wittering on" when you brought up the subject of being able to buy a similar case for 50% less was it?
Now I've asked you to prove this (something that yo can't or won't do), it suddenly becomes wittering.

Now I understand how your mind works, I don't think I'll waste my time responding to your comments any further.

Moglex

George_Michael wrote: »

It wasn't "wittering on" when you brought up the subject of being able to buy a similar case for 50% less was it?
Now I've asked you to prove this (something that yo can't or won't do), it suddenly becomes wittering.

Oh yes you are wittering. It has nothing whatever to do with the fundamental point I was making.

That your assertion that if something is cheap consumer protection legislation does not protect the consumer if the item in question does not even do what it is purported to do to the most basic extent.

Now I understand how your mind works, I don't think I'll waste my time responding to your comments any further.

Outstanding!

I asked you very plainly to stop weaselling and answer the fundamental question and the best you can do is run away. :rotfl:

I'll give you one last chance to defend or explain your ludicrous assertion:

Once more.

My 'opinion' is that consumer protection legislation states that an item must be of satisfactory quality, and this means that it must do at least the minimum that it is intended for for a reasonable amount of time.

Your opinion appears to be that if it is sold for a sufficiently low price it is unreasonable to expect even this.

Can you defend your nonsense?

preable

Moglex wrote: »

Oh yes you are wittering. It has nothing whatever to do with the fundamental point I was making.

That your assertion that if something is cheap consumer protection legislation does not protect the consumer if the item in question does not even do what it is purported to do to the most basic extent.



Outstanding!

I asked you very plainly to stop weaselling and answer the fundamental question and the best you can do is run away. :rotfl:

I'll give you one last chance to defend or explain your ludicrous assertion:

Once more.

My 'opinion' is that consumer protection legislation states that an item must be of satisfactory quality, and this means that it must do at least the minimum that it is intended for for a reasonable amount of time.

Your opinion appears to be that if it is sold for a sufficiently low price it is unreasonable to expect even this.

Can you defend your nonsense?

After reading all of this I can confirm you won the “debate”

roddydogs

So why didnt the op just take it back to argos?

burtons

roddydogs wrote: »

So why didnt the op just take it back to argos?

I didn't have the receipt with me in blackpool.