MSE in court,,,

Bamber19

mdbarber wrote: »

As for my actual claim will you please give your opinion on this excerpt from the UCA

5“Guarantee” of consumer goods

(1)In the case of goods of a type ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption, where loss or damage—
(a)arises from the goods proving defective while in consumer use; and
(b)results from the negligence of a person concerned in the manufacture or distribution of the goods,
liability for the loss or damage cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to any contract term or notice contained in or operating by reference to a guarantee of the goods.
(2)For these purposes—
(a)goods are to be regarded as “in consumer use” when a person is using them, or has them in his possession for use, otherwise than exclusively for the purposes of a business; and
(b)anything in writing is a guarantee if it contains or purports to contain some promise or assurance (however worded or presented) that defects will be made good by complete or partial replacement, or by repair, monetary compensation or otherwise.
(3)This section does not apply as between the parties to a contract under or in pursuance of which possession or ownership of the goods passed.

It doesn't appear to be relevant to your situation, seriously, go with meester's suggestion of the DSR.

meester

mdbarber wrote: »

for the simple reason i don't want a surge of people claiming they will turn up and scaring off the defendant, i want my day in court!

@meester can't find any reference (and have spoke to an old friend who retired from teaching law 15yrs ago)

DSR is here

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002334.htm

Recovery of sums paid by or on behalf of the consumer on cancellation, and return of security
(1) On the cancellation of a contract under regulation 10, the supplier shall reimburse any sum paid by or on behalf of the consumer under or in relation to the contract to the person by whom it was made free of any charge

(5) the supplier may make a charge, not exceeding the direct costs of recovering any goods supplied under the contract, where a term of the contract provides that the consumer must return any goods supplied if he cancels the contract under regulation 10 but the consumer does not comply with this provision or returns the goods at the expense of the supplier.



In other words, if the contract

(a) informs you of your right to cancel
(b) says that you must return the goods yourself

then you have to pay the return postage cost. Otherwise not.

See also s17:

(3) On cancellation, the consumer shall be under a duty to restore the goods to the supplier in accordance with this regulation, and in the meanwhile to retain possession of the goods and take reasonable care of them.

(4) The consumer shall not be under any duty to deliver the goods except at his own premises and in pursuance of a request in writing, or in another durable medium available and accessible to the consumer, from the supplier and given to the consumer either before, or at the time when, the goods are collected from those premises.

Tozer

mdbarber wrote: »

for the simple reason i don't want a surge of people claiming they will turn up and scaring off the defendant, i want my day in court!

@meester can't find any reference (and have spoke to an old friend who retired from teaching law 15yrs ago) the dsr seems to be very vague about liability for cost of return in cases where the dsr notification has been breeched?? can u point me to anything usefull
As for my actual claim will you please give your opinion on this excerpt from the UCA

5“Guarantee” of consumer goods

(1)In the case of goods of a type ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption, where loss or damage—
(a)arises from the goods proving defective while in consumer use; and
(b)results from the negligence of a person concerned in the manufacture or distribution of the goods,
liability for the loss or damage cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to any contract term or notice contained in or operating by reference to a guarantee of the goods.
(2)For these purposes—
(a)goods are to be regarded as “in consumer use” when a person is using them, or has them in his possession for use, otherwise than exclusively for the purposes of a business; and
(b)anything in writing is a guarantee if it contains or purports to contain some promise or assurance (however worded or presented) that defects will be made good by complete or partial replacement, or by repair, monetary compensation or otherwise.
(3)This section does not apply as between the parties to a contract under or in pursuance of which possession or ownership of the goods passed.

What does UCTA have to do with the DSR?

oscardog

The fact that you have a hearing means that the judge thinks there is something to this case. If he feels there is no substance at all, he can dismiss it before any actual hearing takes place.

mdbarber

Tozer wrote: »

What does UCTA have to do with the DSR?

keep up dude, they are both laws giving protection to consumers lol

mdbarber

oscardog wrote: »

The fact that you have a hearing means that the judge thinks there is something to this case. If he feels there is no substance at all, he can dismiss it before any actual hearing takes place.

What baffles me is he did not find in my favour? without a hearing, maybe he wants to personally slap the defendants (or me)

Freddie_Snowbits

mdbarber wrote: »

What baffles me is he did not find in my favour? without a hearing

Seems this one is going to the wire! Cnnot wait for the court reports!

jeannieblue

:rotfl: I'm bored now.....

You all could do some research into T3 Direct & Co - and give my thread a boost if bored too!! :rotfl:

I've run dry on trying to get more info on who's who and what's what :eek:

grayme-m

In a completely unrelated case, I'm working with friends on the defending side against what we consider a greedy *&%@ pursuing money he's not entitled to.

He's given all his hand to us in an attempt to baffle the court with detail and he'll find out that we've got the defence for the relevant bits; he won't win.

Have you considered that as ICE are reading your threads...?

mdbarber

grayme-m wrote: »

In a completely unrelated case, I'm working with friends on the defending side against what we consider a greedy *&%@ pursuing money he's not entitled to.

He's given all his hand to us in an attempt to baffle the court with detail and he'll find out that we've got the defence for the relevant bits; he won't win.

Have you considered that as ICE are reading your threads...?

This thread is entirely about that so how can i not have considered it?


Sorry grayme-m, think i just got it and the answer is oh yes