MSE in court,,,

meester

Oggyoi wrote: »

<sniff, sniff >

I can smell it and I am wide awake

I think this is going to be a hiding to nothing. If you do win I think a legal precedent will be set here, where by people can just not bother reading and signing to agree to T&Cs, so instead of buyer beware, it will be seller beware.

Arrrgh.

There are no precedents set in the small claims court, as it is not a court of record.

And caveat emptor has not really been the model in the UK for a long time, not for consumer contracts.

meester

dmg24 wrote: »

It certainly won't do you any favours, especially posts such as this:

TBH i didnt even read the terms and conditions so i cant have agreed to anything but i did check to see if they had the statutory notice, thats all
Its all far too late for this dude and no offence but when you confused some companies terms for the soga i really think i can't trust you handing out advice on this let alone telling me who is right or wrong

Well that's not necessarily wrong. Firstly, for the terms to be binding on the consumer they have to be effectively communicated. I had a go at a retailer in the past who had the terms on their site hidden away, but at no point during sale were they communicated (e.g., 'please read these conditions and tick here'). (Although in this case they probably were.)

So the idea that just because the retailer HAS the terms, they are binding on the OP, is wrong.

And of course not all terms are even binding anyway, due to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations protecting people against unfair terms.

The OP comes across really really badly, but it sounds like the company is frankly full of attitude.

Their statement that "95% of items are not faulty" is probably true, but that's just the nature of doing business. Retailers should have proper returns policies, and build the fact that people will return things due to stupidity into their business model.

I don't think anybody who had purchased something that they deem faulty wants to be told that there is going to be some kind of massive investigation into them. I don't see that that's reasonable, as it's designed to scare people off exercising their rights of return.

The OP was of course entitled to try and reject the goods anyway, regardless of whether they were faulty or not, under the Distance Selling Regulations, and it's usually the case that the retailer would pay the return postage cost. Of course, looking at the site's terms:

http://www.incarexpress.co.uk/page.php?content=terms

the company is in flagrant disregard of the Distance Selling Regulations because their returns policy is total arrogant bullsh1t, saying that they accept returns if the item is faulty, and if they they find that it is not (at their sole discretion and judgement, which again is total b0llocks), they will send the goods back and NOT ISSUE ANY REFUND.

They are in fact legally REQUIRED to inform the customer of their right to a return for ANY REASON (faulty or not) prior to sale. As they have not done so, the customer's 7 day cooling off period is actually extend to three months.

There are far too many bottom dollar companies charging £2.50 less than decent ones by engaging in shoddy business practices like those of this company, which effectively prevents people from exercising their legal right to return goods. They should follow the rules like everybody else.

I have no idea why there are so many people taking the company's side (not what I think this site is about), and acting as if the OP is some kind of criminal for not consulting a lawyer before purchase (the people in this thread implying that they read the last set of terms and conditions they agreed to on buying something are beyond a joke, because I don't believe anybody does - who has read amazon's terms and conditions?).

The consumer in law is the weak party, and is supposed to be given special protection, so let us please not act as if the consumer and retailer are on the same level.

I might well have purchased something from this compnay, and if things had gone wrong, I'm sure I would have ended up suing them too (the only difference being my case would probably be more coherent than the OP's here is, he has presented himself so badly that he doesn't seem to have even found sympathy here), as I have very limited patience for endless emails and phone calls to unhelpful companies - this one clearly seems to operate a business whereby there profit = sale price - cost price, and don't want to accept the reality of people returning them to.

The last company I sued eventually paid up before going to court as it was cheaper than sending someone along. I of course had no intention of attending either, but that's not something I share with the other side.

dmg24

meester wrote: »

Arrrgh.

There are no precedents set in the small claims court, as it is not a court of record.

And caveat emptor has not really been the model in the UK for a long time, not for consumer contracts.

I don't think Oggyoi was being serious, more just being ironic in light of the OP's 'know it all' attitude?

TBH I haven't read the terms and conditions (something that I am a stickler for when I enter into any transaction), but the OP's terrible attitude appears to have overriden people's usual willing to offer any constructive help!

uktim29

meester wrote: »

The last company I sued eventually paid up before going to court as it was cheaper than sending someone along. I of course had no intention of attending either, but that's not something I share with the other side.

You make it sound like you do this all the time?

meester

uktim29 wrote: »

You make it sound like you do this all the time?

hmm, two or three times I guess? Not for a year or so.

Sssssss

meester wrote: »

The last company I sued eventually paid up before going to court as it was cheaper than sending someone along. I of course had no intention of attending either, but that's not something I share with the other side.

tell us about it.

mdbarber

This truly is the funniest thread EVER
oh a couple of you are so close!!!, i am laughing so hard here especially at thesmartestmanalive arguing with another poster agreeing with him.
Also a special mention to crazycavy who copied and pasted another companies terms and conditions into my op claiming it to be an excerpt from the SOGA lmao
But prize for top troll goes to dmg24 who in another thread claimed to have "legal experience or training" rofl, yet has consistently failed to bring up a single legal argument in any of his posts lol "knowitnowt"
Please guys if you do get "IT" save it for the 30th i'll hand out the Emmys then bigtime

grayme-m

grayme-m wrote: »

As the claimant, can you point to the relevant passage of law that says you will win?

Have you thought about this one? It'll prove useful for the 30th.

The longer you push this, the less I believe there is even a court case...

jeannieblue

This is definitely a wind up........ but compulsive viewing :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

mdbarber

grayme-m wrote: »

Have you thought about this one? It'll prove useful for the 30th.

The longer you push this, the less I believe there is even a court case...

Thank you for a civil reply and i even liked the funny pic, yes i have thought about that one, trust me there will be a court hearing and my claim will be based on the SOGA (As Amended), with references to other acts if necess.
Sorry to be vague but some of the point of the OP was to ascertain if there were things I hadn't thought of, sort of throw it to the lions approach.
As you are one of the posters who actually appear to have a bit of sense about you i'm sorry but i can't tell you too much, not until the 30th anyway