Do not buy the argos simple value suitcase

couriervanman

burtons wrote: »

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

So there is no point in your little rant........you bought another suitcase and got a refund from argos for the broken one

shaun_from_Africa

Moglex wrote: »

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.

My opinion is that an awful lot would depend on the state of the pavements in the area where the OP lives.
I'm in a part of the country (Surrey) where both the roads and footways have been allowed to fall into such a state of disrepair that I would have reservations about trying to take my main suitcase (A 20 year old Samsonite which was built when they favoured substance over style and it's almost bullet proof) and I wouldn't even think about trying to pull a very lightweight budget suitcase for a mile along the footpaths.

Yes, something sold must be able to do the minimum that it was designed for but imo, I wouldn't say that such a cheap case was designed to be used for 1 mile journeys along what may be very uneven areas.

burtons

couriervanman wrote: »

So there is no point in your little rant........you bought another suitcase and got a refund from argos for the broken one

I didn't get a refund from argos as I didn't take the suitcase back as I didn't have the receipt.

powerful_Rogue

preable wrote: »

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

If the award is for rudeness, then I fully agree

k3lvc

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

My Tumi bought in 1997 is still fine.

As is mine - despite the fact it's had new wheels, handles, zips and panels replaced :rotfl:

verityboo

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?

You do come across as a bit of a numpty stating it is a fact the case wheel should not have failed considering we have no idea how much weight the OP put into the case. The Argos site advises 20kg maximum. With such a big case it would be easy to put considerably more in

Sheldon_Cooper

To be brutally honest, if there are any numpties here, it's not those doing their best to explain how consumer protection works, it's people such as yourself who take what someone said and then start pointless speculation that the person must have done something stupid that he never said he did.

Obviously if you overload a case or drag it miles across building sites, it's not going to stand up to it. Neither will it if you set fire to it of jump up and down on it.

The phrase that you quoted as qualifying its author as a numpty "it must do at least the minimum that it is intended for for a reasonable amount of time" is exactly correct.

The case isn't intended by its designers and makers, or sold to be used overloaded.

verityboo

Sheldon_Cooper wrote: »

To be brutally honest, if there are any numpties here, it's not those doing their best to explain how consumer protection works, it's people such as yourself who take what someone said and then start pointless speculation that the person must have done something stupid that he never said he did.

Obviously if you overload a case or drag it miles across building sites, it's not going to stand up to it. Neither will it if you set fire to it of jump up and down on it.

The phrase that you quoted as qualifying its author as a numpty "it must do at least the minimum that it is intended for for a reasonable amount of time" is exactly correct.

The case isn't intended by its designers and makers, or sold to be used overloaded.

You might want to call the OP stupid, I certainly didn’t. Overloading a very large case is simply an easy thing to do

Those like I quoted previously, stomping their feet and stropily stating that what they have written is fact - end of story - look a bit dumb when they have not considering the most likely explanation the the failure of the case

onwards&upwards

DoaM wrote: »

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

I was chatting to a friend about this at an airport the other day, wondering why it took as long as it did for someone to think to put wheels on!

Having read the rest of the thread, some of you need to expand your travel horizons a bit if you think suitcases are only to be used for a few hundred yards at an airport!

Sheldon_Cooper

verityboo wrote: »

You might want to call the OP stupid, I certainly didn’t. Overloading a very large case is simply an easy thing to do

I didn't even suggest that the OP was stupid. Again, you are treating your own supposition as if it were fact. The OP didn't state that he'd overloaded his case so in no way could I have been calling him stupid. YOU are the one suggesting he did something which could be categorised as stupid, not me.

Those like I quoted previously, stomping their feet and stropily stating that what they have written is fact - end of story - look a bit dumb when they have not considering the most likely explanation the the failure of the case

All I can see is that the consumer protection legislation was paraphrased. Correctly as far as I can see.

Again, what really looks dumb and numptie (your words) is people taking a complaint, suggesting things such as overloading and dragging over unsuitable surfaces. and then subsequently assuming these things as being most likely - or fact, on no basis whatsoever.