Trading Standards vs incarexpress.co.uk

cavycrazy_2

mpython wrote: »

but when he bought it, he agreed to pay for its return which will be refunded to him if ICE find its faulty.

That's exactly what I've been saying all along but apparently I'm a moron and an idiot for thinking that. I'm so glad someone else has understood this point.

mdbarber

mpython wrote: »

Altarf, thanks for your post. That's exactly why I think OP will lose. It was very difficult to penetrate his case in the early posts on this & his other thread but we're now down to the nub of the case.

OP buys something and rejects it under SOGA because its not of merchantable quality (and here I have some sympathy with OP as how can you know whether it works until you fit it) but when he bought it, he agreed to pay for its return which will be refunded to him if ICE find its faulty.

An arguement occurs to me about whether ICE will agree with OP's assessment as to whether radio is faulty or was damaged during installation and given OP's expertise, he may be reluctant to send it to ICE to do their 1 sided assessment (not that I'm suggesting they would be 1 sided, just what the OP might be wary of). That said, it doesn't alter the facts or likely determination.

The point about agreeing to pay for return only specifies in the T&C's to a claim under warranty, this does not apply to rejection, as it would be illegal to write such exemption, "Your Statutory Rights Remain Unaffected" etc. so again I am under no obligation to take such action. I state this not because its my option but because it is clearly written in law.
TS have stated that the likely outcome of continued dispute over wether the goods are faulty and the cause is likely to result in an order by the judge for both parties to contribute to "independent" testing" with the final cost of such being bourne by the losing party, so this is not a problem for me and would actually be welcomed.

cavycrazy_2

mdbarber wrote: »

The point about agreeing to pay for return only specifies in the T&C's to a claim under warranty, this does not apply to rejection, as it would be illegal to write such exemption, "Your Statutory Rights Remain Unaffected" etc. so again I am under no obligation to take such action. I state this not because its my option but because it is clearly written in law.
TS have stated that the likely outcome of continued dispute over wether the goods are faulty and the cause is likely to result in an order by the judge for both parties to contribute to "independent" testing" with the final cost of such being bourne by the losing party, so this is not a problem for me and would actually be welcomed.

But by your own admission, the stereo worked and then ceased to work. That should surely put it into the category of warranty and not rejection. And you're putting too much store by what Trading Standards says - they aren't infallible and also, some of the time work off opinion.

We know ICE is reading this thread thanks to you telling them about it - I wish they'd chime in!

grayme-m

cavycrazy wrote: »

But by your own admission, the stereo worked and then ceased to work. That should surely put it into the category of warranty and not rejection. And you're putting too much store by what Trading Standards says - they aren't infallible and also, some of the time work off opinion.

We know ICE is reading this thread thanks to you telling them about it - I wish they'd chime in!

This inept moron agrees with you... :rotfl:

Freddie_Snowbits

grayme-m wrote: »

This inept moron agrees with you... :rotfl:

Ditto
:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

mdbarber

cavycrazy wrote: »

But by your own admission, the stereo worked and then ceased to work. That should surely put it into the category of warranty and not rejection. And you're putting too much store by what Trading Standards says - they aren't infallible and also, some of the time work off opinion.

We know ICE is reading this thread thanks to you telling them about it - I wish they'd chime in!

As i've said alll along i'm quite willing to listen to reasonable argument, but because of they nature of this I need more than just "this is the way I think it is"
With that in mind can you please point out any reference at all that is legitimate to back up what you are saying.
so please tell me why you think the fact that the unit works for 10mins and dies places this in the realms of a "warranty" claim? maybe a precedent already set or a law that could be interpreted as proving this?
In fact after 6 months of trying their best D.A.P Cambridge have not managed to come up with one so i'm sure you will help them if you can

grayme-m

People keep quoting Acts, T&Cs and experiences to you as back up to their thoughts; despite numerous requests, I don't recall you providing any backing up yours?

mdbarber

grayme-m wrote: »

People keep quoting Acts, T&Cs and experiences to you as back up to their thoughts; despite numerous requests, I don't recall you providing any backing up yours?

oh come on so far i've brought in SOGA, UCTA1977, UCCTR1999
what have you brought to the table?
sorry m8 but you lost all credibility when you implied a judge had rejected statute on moral grounds.

Freddie_Snowbits

OK here is a reasoned argument.

OP was happy his new car radio was delivered and fitted the same to his car. It worked when it was switched on, but then stopped working. OP rang supplier to say it did not work, supplier said something like, 'Oh, return the goods to us, and we will sought it out for you'

OP asks for up front postage.

Supplier says no.

OP runs to trading standards and starts one of two threads.

Now here is what you do if something is faulty! "Hello supplier, my wixbox A22 has stopped working" Supplier "Oh, we are sorry to hear that, return it to us, under return number 666 please" No problem. Days later, new wixbox A22, and freebies postage arrive.

In this case, OP still has car radio, supplier still has his money or refund or replaced item. Now months later, we see all the expended energy in a thread, rather than dialogue or other to sought this trivial matter out. Perhaps OP has listened to too many posters who agree with his thread, the barrack room lawyer types, instead of going to see someone in a professional capacity, such as a free 30 minutes with a solictor.

Perhaps then, the OP may then make a reasoned judgement. Or as I posted earlier, the second post on this thread did say they though Trading Standards were wrong, but OP went onto the offensive.

cavycrazy_2

mdbarber wrote: »

so please tell me why you think the fact that the unit works for 10mins and dies places this in the realms of a "warranty" claim? maybe a precedent already set

Case of Common sense vs The Obvious, June 2008.