Comet Help Refund

poet123

You miss the point that the fault does not have to be present at point of sale to be eligible for a refund. Therefore as in my case the fault did not show within the first operations but was intermittant and hence we kept trying it for a week or so. We would still have been entitled to a refund rather than a repair under the SOG "reasonable time" caveat.

I also beg to differ with your evaluation of what a judge does.....we have actually been told in a SCC that if on balance no clear cut decision is obvious it is usual to give the consumer the benefit of the doubt,on the basis that customer satisfaction should be the aim of any retailer.

You, along with Blacksheep 1979 make sweeping generalisations without citing any real personal experience with which to support your comments. I have (unfortunately)had to test the system of the SCC on several occasions and my comments stem directly from these experiences. I would have no cause to state anything other than what actually happened to me.

Blacksheep1979

sorry but the ski example is an extreme and even then unlikely to be found in favour case. For skis not to be fit for purpose (which is what the acceptance period is about) they would have to be down right dangerous which would be of far more concern to the shop/manufacturer and something easily spotted at the time of putting the bindings on.

poet123 wrote: »

You miss the point that the fault does not have to be present at point of sale to be eligible for a refund. Therefore as in my case the fault did not show within the first operations but was intermittant and hence we kept trying it for a week or so. We would still have been entitled to a refund rather than a repair under the SOG "reasonable time" caveat.

and you miss the point that it does, that's why up to six months the retailer (if they want to defend) have to try prove the fault wasn't present at the time of purchase and after six months the purchaser has to give sufficient evidence that the fault was present at the time of purchase. Go ask your legal proffessor/son/cat who is a QC or anyone else you care and they'll tell you the same.

And again I itterate that the initial time period is not to find faults but to find if the product is fit for purpose/as described. Now a computer is generally fit for purpose if it will boot up an OS and access the internet... Sorry but no matter how slow you are that doesn't take 28 days nor 7.

Again I question your 'experiences'

poet123

Lol you can question my experience all you like, I know it to be true.:D

Also you scathingly refer to my legal connections,as I stated clearly when YOU brought up the issue of of gaining legal knowledge (presumably by osmosis)from others ,knowing someone with a legal qualification does not mean you have one yourself!!!!!

Similarly, you make light of the ski example, an example which was obviously considered suitably pertinent to be included in the act by legally qualified people. Again you know more......:rolleyes:

If there is a fault which prevents a computer from performing the full RANGE of functions of a PC,then it is clearly not fit for purpose.

The issue with my PC was that the screen developed intermittant vertical lines which obscured the text. Dell admitted they knew this fault was present on some batches of PC's but not all, and that the new batch of PC's under construction had screens sourced from a different supplier and did not have the fault.

Therefore many people could have these issues which could develop well after your "plucked from the air,no basis in fact, deadline". The law should, and will protect them if used correctly.

Perhaps you have had a legal problem which you have not been able to resolve? it is all in the way you approach the research,presentation of the case etc. if you need any pointers let me know,perhaps with deposit retention etc:rotfl: I have never had a problem with that though,all my kids deposits have been repaid in a timely fashion. !!oops forgot, with your legal connections you will have had all the help you need.

Blacksheep1979

the computer itself as it is designed though is FIT FOR PURPOSE what you're describing is a FAULT - something that is covered for up to six years, the fit for purpose part (don't know how many times I need to repeat this) is what is due in the acceptance period.

If there is a fault it is exactly that - a fault not a design flaw per say a design flaw may render the item not fit for purpose.

Obviously I don't think sitting next to someone is going to grant me their knowledge (or I'd be worried about my posts being next to yours) - but strange one this I talk to my friends, maybe you should go try this it's quite nice actually.

poet123 wrote: »

Therefore many people could have these issues which could develop well after your "plucked from the air,no basis in fact, deadline". The law should, and will protect them if used correctly.

erm the only one making up ficticious deadlines based on no fact seems to be you...

poet123

I have never given a deadline.....it is you who have mentioned 2 days and 7 days as being sufficient time..without any basis in fact to support that timescale. "Reasonable" is open to interpretation,that is why there is no defined time,to allow dialogue not dogmatic statements which you are prone to.

You simply do not know what you are talking about...and I do not hold out much hope for the quality of your friends legal advice either, I suspect they(like you) may be recent graduates with little or no real life experience. There is a difference between fact and what you would like to believe is fact.

Blacksheep1979

no I said you should be able to check a computer in far less than 7 days - as all a computer does is add no.s you just have to check wether or not it boots the os, the gfx card works, the cd drive works, the memory is ok and well you're there...

This isn't a deadline?

poet123 wrote: »

and rule that anything up to 3/6 months even longer for some items, is reasonable

Also your advice of not accepting a repair makes no sense, considering the fact that computers are effectively modular cpu/mobo/gfx card/ram/psu/case/hd/dvd drive then there is just as much chance of their being an issue with a replaced part as a whole new computer and you're causing yourself lots of extra grief pushing for that. But I suppose your father in law works for IBM and told you it's better that way.

poet123

So a screen with vertical lines on it is not an issue obviously? well it was to me.

The difference between my quote above and yours is that if you had bothered to include all the relevant parts of it you would have included the reference to the fact that a judge... may... reach this decision. I did not give a timescale myself,unlike you who are ce rtain that 2 days or 7 days would be the period deemed reasonable. How can you define a timescale when the Act itself does not do so????

When you have a little more life experience you will not be so dogmatic, and come to see that some things even in consumer law are open to interpretation, which is why a definitive period is not stated in the act.

If it was 2 or 7 days do not not think it would state that clearly? Listen carefully...the term REASONABLE not a specific term it is non specific for a reason,and that is so that each case can be considered on its merits.

Considering your obvious encyclopaedic knowledge of computers I assume that you work for IBM? and to be honest I find it quite amusing that you would assume my info on computers comes from yet another relationship.

Although, wait a minute you seem only to be able to absorb info via a 3rd party, so I suppose your contention that I would do so too, stems from your preferences. Easier than studying and achieving for yourself !!!!!!!!!! gives you a tendency to spout claptrap though, as you have not quite got the gist of the info, just an overview.

uktim29

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

7 days is more than reasonable to check wether something is working

7 days seems to be common

http://www.br0wn.co.uk/lawofshopping/

"One week is probably reasonable, two weeks is probably stretching the limit,"

http://www.hants.gov.uk/regulatory/tradingstandards/buygoods.html

"it might not be very long and can be as little as a week or so."

http://www.howtocomplain.com/info/kyr/TSAdviceonBuyingGoodsScotland.shtml

"What is a reasonable time depends on individual circumstances - you would probably have less time to check a toaster than a car, say - but it might not be long, and recent case law suggests that it might be as little as a week or so."


I really think we're pushing it with 28 days now! Do remember that previous experiences might just have been sheer luck and can not be classed as general knowledge!

uktim29

poet123 wrote: »

You miss the point that the fault does not have to be present at point of sale to be eligible for a refund.

Are you sure?

http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/Images/ca04_tcm2-35739.pdf

"What are you entitled to ask for?
If the goods are faulty at the time of sale, you are legally entitled to
request one of the following remedies:"

"Proving the fault

•
If you have not accepted the goods and are rejecting and claiming a

full refund or damages, it is YOU, the consumer, who needs to prove
that there has been a breach of contract in that the goods are not of
satisfactory quality, fit for purpose or as described at the time of
purchase."

poet123 wrote: »

You, along with Blacksheep 1979 make sweeping generalisations without citing any real personal experience with which to support your comments.

Apart from looking the actual law up on Google!

poet123

A fault found in the first 6 months is deemed to have been present at the time of purchase under the reverse burden of proof theory. That is different from having to be present. After 6 months the seller gets the benefit of the doubt.

Google is a useful tool but you can find articles to support most viewpoints if you search hard enough,rather like statistics, results can be manipulated.

I never said that my experiences were the norm,merely that they were my experiences(despite blacksheeps scepticism!!).

Obviously every case will be ruled on by a judge with his own view of what constitutes reasonable..... so timescales will vary.

My point has always been that the timescale is undefined so it is worth pursuing via the courts if it is a relatively short period of time,research will allow each indivual to decide that for themselves, rather than someone on a forum stating a specific period which is not defined by actual law.