MSE in court,,,

Tozer

mdbarber wrote: »

well peeps in very simple language so you can understand, if you find the answer to the above question you will answer every other question you have raised and realise just how foolish all your "anti" statements are.

Eh? Not sure I understand the rant. Answer to the question is that it is unlawful to take away certain embodied consumer rights (e.g. implied warranties under Sale of Goods Act 1979). Its all in the Unfair Contract Terms Act. You mentioned it before when you said "Keep up dude..." to a perfectly reasonable post.

You are an odd chap.

grayme-m

So to cut through all the past few days, did we decide that the T&Cs that mdb accepted, without reading, were fair and binding or not?

And was their offer of settlement fair?

jeannieblue

I'm going to be weird now (nothing new as I'm sure my family will confirm) - I'm just wondering... You get people that are illiterate for various reasons, be it dyslexia or some other difficulty. Now these people do their very best to get thru life in difficult circumstances and I know that they have mastered the art of signing their name and various other basics and often in some cases, become very successful - Richard Branson for one. Dyslexia does not mean stupid...

Do they have rights if they fail to read the T & C's and not fully comprehend them if the do? Alot of dyslexics are embarrassed and don't ask nor advertise for help because of their problem. Does that mean that they do not have any rights? Is there a way that the law can protect them?

mdbarber

grayme-m wrote: »

So to cut through all the past few days, did we decide that the T&Cs that mdb accepted, without reading, were fair and binding or not?

And was their offer of settlement fair?

Soz grayme-m, will reply to that on other post as this one is for thread/court usage as i promised rex!

and yes jeannie there is sufficient protection its caled the Sale of Goods act, it comes entirely separate above and beyond any T&C's/warrenty

Tozer

jeannieblue wrote: »

I'm going to be weird now (nothing new as I'm sure my family will confirm) - I'm just wondering... You get people that are illiterate for various reasons, be it dyslexia or some other difficulty. Now these people do their very best to get thru life in difficult circumstances and I know that they have mastered the art of signing their name and various other basics and often in some cases, become very successful - Richard Branson for one. Dyslexia does not mean stupid...

Do they have rights if they fail to read the T & C's and not fully comprehend them if the do? Alot of dyslexics are embarrassed and don't ask nor advertise for help because of their problem. Does that mean that they do not have any rights? Is there a way that the law can protect them?

Its a good point. The principle in law is that if you sign then, generally, you have signed to say that you understand and agree what you sign.

From the supplier's perpsective, it would be so difficult to ask people all of the time "Do you speak perfect English; are you blind; are you illiterate; are you dyslexic; have you actually read the terms.....".

Tozer

mdbarber wrote: »

Soz grayme-m, will reply to that on other post as this one is for thread/court usage as i promised rex!

and yes jeannie there is sufficient protection its caled the Sale of Goods act, it comes entirely separate above and beyond any T&C's/warrenty

That is not particularly true. Whilst the Sale of Goods Act when dealing business to consumer creates certain rights whcih cannot be excluded due to the Unfair Contract Terms Act, SOGA does not necessarily create better rights.

Consider, for example, extended warranties, rights to return, maintenance, etc., etc.

Rex_Mundi

Tozer wrote: »

That is not particularly true. Whilst the Sale of Goods Act when dealing business to consumer creates certain rights whcih cannot be excluded due to the Unfair Contract Terms Act, SOGA does not necessarily create better rights.

Consider, for example, extended warranties, rights to return, maintenance, etc., etc.

Thank you for pointing out a simple fact in a very simple post (if someone can't understand the above, then I don't know how they could possibly understand even simple Ts&cS.)

Terms can offer better rights than a consumer has by law. The only thing the consumer has a fallback on is if the terms fall short of offering the protection offered by law. This is why most terms mention at the end that they do not take away a consumers statutory rights.

mdbarber

Might be worth mentioning here we now have a whole new set of consumer protecton regulations to try and understand

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/530162/oft931int.pdf

grayme-m

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...?

He didn't win, the judge sent him home with his tail between his legs.

If he'd taken legal advice he'd have saved himself all those court costs (and me so much time). :rotfl:

Bamber19

grayme-m wrote: »

He didn't win, the judge sent him home with his tail between his legs.

Your friend or the other party?