MSE in court,,,

grayme-m

Bamber19 wrote: »

Your friend or the other party?

The other party, the defendant was a limited company.

Tozer

Can anyone summarise this thread? Too darned difficult for me!

Freddie_Snowbits

Tozer wrote: »

Can anyone summarise this thread? Too darned difficult for me!

This is not a story one can come in late on, sorry, where have you been?

ICE Fitter cannot read Terms and Condition, nor appropriate fitting instruction for car radio

2 days later, car radio blows up

Rings company and says 'Me car radio no work'

Company says fine, return to us, we will look into it.

ICE fitter say, 'No way man, I no pay postage'

ICE Fitter starts to blurt off on this bored and seeks professional advice at the back of class.

Note, I have the Media rights to this story, tune in again next week when the ICE Fitter really gets into them and the Company are made bust ... la de la de la de la:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

mdbarber

It's a story of ICE, moronic flamers like freddie( who obviously don't or can't read threads probably) and whether or not the law actually means anything anymore.

Bamber19

Tozer wrote: »

Can anyone summarise this thread? Too darned difficult for me!

A better summary would be this:

Customer buys product without reading T's and C's

Fits Item

Item stops working

Customer calls and asks for refund

Company says they want to test the item and to send it back

Customer demands postage costs up front

Company says No

Customer starts court proceedings.

---

Now at this point the Company is completely in the right, there are no provisions under UK or English Law that state any postage should be paid up front in this situation, where their terms and conditions state this, merely that postage must be paid if the item actually is faulty, misinterpretation of this part of the Act (on fact a part of 2 Acts has been mentioned) in question has caused problems.

---

However, unbeknownst to the OP, the company in question, or everyone on this thread other than one helpful poster(Can't recall who it was but looking through it will be obvious, might be on the other thread though) the company had failed to comply with one of the terms of an unrelated (to what the OP was claiming for) piece of legislation. Whether or not this affects the contract between the OP or would have to be brought up in a case brought by Trading Standards against the Company will be revealed in due course. My feeling is that it may be the OP's lucky day though and that he/she has went from having no case at all to being able to get the full refund they were after (and would have got anyway had they sent the item back for testing, but what are the courts there for, if not to have meaningless cases that could easily be solved outwith their walls dealt with?

Freddie_Snowbits

mdbarber wrote: »

moronic flamers like freddie

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

mdbarber wrote: »

who obviously don't or can't read threads probably

The same one that cannot read Terms and Conditions, or spell!

mdbarber wrote: »

In all sets of terns and conditions

Alas, has the date been set for the Court Case of the Century?

mdbarber

lmfaoroflpuked,,, freddy criticising my spelling!! he who "nose" best???

still not heard from courts and if u did actually read the thread freddie, i said many times it didn't matter whether or not i read the terms and conditions.
If you had any knowledge of the subject at all you would understand the terms etc don't matter to my case, we are talking about statutory rights these come above T&C's,

Tozer

mdbarber wrote: »

lmfaoroflpuked,,, freddy criticising my spelling!! he who "nose" best???

still not heard from courts and if u did actually read the thread freddie, i said many times it didn't matter whether or not i read the terms and conditions.
If you had any knowledge of the subject at all you would understand the terms etc don't matter to my case, we are talking about statutory rights these come above T&C's,

OK. So what's the issue? Presumably the company would have refunded postage costs if they tested the item and it proved faulty?

Starting proceedings when it appears there was still dialogue completely flies in the face of the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules which is to avoid litigation.

Freddie_Snowbits

mdbarber wrote: »

lmfaoroflpuked,,, freddy criticising my spelling!! he who "nose" best???

still not heard from courts and if u did actually read the thread freddie, i said many times it didn't matter whether or not i read the terms and conditions.
If you had any knowledge of the subject at all you would understand the terms etc don't matter to my case, we are talking about statutory rights these come above T&C's,

It is not whether you can read or what, you accepted the them when you paid! I hope you do not buy anything from my website!

mdbarber

Tozer wrote: »

OK. So what's the issue? Presumably the company would have refunded postage costs if they tested the item and it proved faulty?

Starting proceedings when it appears there was still dialogue completely flies in the face of the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules which is to avoid litigation.

Still dialogue??, at what point? sorry you are mistaken there, they had all my emails redirected to the spam box according to their submissions to the court.

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

It is not whether you can read or what, you accepted the them when you paid! I hope you do not buy anything from my website!

What is even scarier is the fact that you run a website selling items and are as dammed ignorant of the law as they are!