Taking Amazon to court

CardinalWolsey

I have a feeling that this would be thrown out as de minimis anyway.

At that age, the OPs Airpods would have to be Gen 1 - which are selling on eBay as second-hand units (which is what the OPs technically would be, i.e. "used") between £20 and £25. That's effectively the value of the claim.

A new pair of Gen 2s on eBay go for £50.

OP - invest your time wisely. Recycle your faulty pair and replace. Three years is a good time for these types of electronics to last (especially the batteries). Don't sour your experience of the product trying to argue a case you will never win to your satisfaction.

HillStreetBlues

CardinalWolsey said:

I have a feeling that this would be thrown out as de minimis anyway.

On what legal basis?

PHK

HillStreetBlues said:

CardinalWolsey said:

I have a feeling that this would be thrown out as de minimis anyway.

On what legal basis?

De minimis - the legal doctrine 

HillStreetBlues

PHK said:

HillStreetBlues said:

CardinalWolsey said:

I have a feeling that this would be thrown out as de minimis anyway.

On what legal basis?

De minimis - the legal doctrine 

But how would that apply in regards to a case under CRA in the small claims court?
As holding a retailer to account under that law I can't see it being treated as a trifling matter.

BoGoF

HillStreetBlues said:

PHK said:

HillStreetBlues said:

CardinalWolsey said:

I have a feeling that this would be thrown out as de minimis anyway.

On what legal basis?

De minimis - the legal doctrine 

But how would that apply in regards to a case under CRA in the small claims court?
As holding a retailer to account under that law I can't see it being treated as a trifling matter.

Small claims or not a court will not be impressed with a £50 claim, which this is at most

HillStreetBlues

BoGoF said:

HillStreetBlues said:

PHK said:

HillStreetBlues said:

CardinalWolsey said:

I have a feeling that this would be thrown out as de minimis anyway.

On what legal basis?

De minimis - the legal doctrine 

But how would that apply in regards to a case under CRA in the small claims court?
As holding a retailer to account under that law I can't see it being treated as a trifling matter.

Small claims or not a court will not be impressed with a £50 claim, which this is at most

And yet there is no minimum claim amount. If low claims were automatically struck out when I feel there would be a min threshold or at least there would be reports on this.
I've never heard of a case in the SCC being dismissed due to the amount, but I've very open to someone linking to a case study, otherwise it's all guesswork.

ArbitraryRandom

I would agree that given the court gets the same filing/hearing fee for a £1 claim as a £300 claim I can't see it being thrown out as being too low... but I wouldn't be surprised if it was dismissed as frivolous or if found in the OPs favour costs aren't awarded. 

powerful_Rogue

Interesting as i've always pondered this. Some members seem to think that anything less then £100 will be thrown out.

HillStreetBlues

ArbitraryRandom said:

I would agree that given the court gets the same filing/hearing fee for a £1 claim as a £300 claim I can't see it being thrown out as being too low... but I wouldn't be surprised if it was dismissed as frivolous or if found in the OPs favour costs aren't awarded. 

That is only looking at it from one side.
Say the OP claimed £25 as that is due under CRA.
The judge could well ask Amazon why they didn't pay when they were given the LBA. They were liable so the reason it did end up in court is Amazon's fault, not the OP.

HillStreetBlues

powerful_Rogue said:

Interesting as i've always pondered this. Some members seem to think that anything less then £100 will be thrown out.

I just don't see how there could be a minimum
I go to a shop and buy a £5 item, item doesn't work. does that mean I have no legal redress at all? or I would be the one punished for taking action? That doesn't ring true.