What ever happened to the ICE Fitter?

grayme-m

stugib wrote: »

My prediction would be that the court will be none too pleased that he's not made the effort to resolve it sensibly and is using the court to prove a point rather than sort it out the quickest way.

I'd imagine, if the SCC can make this sort of judgement, he'll get awarded his refund and postage costs but have to pay both parties legal expenses.

Ah, but he's covered that, the court can't make moral decisions apparently, that's in the SOGA too.

marleyboy

grayme-m wrote: »

Ah, but he's covered that, the court can't make moral decisions apparently, that's in the SOGA too.

I never got to see the 1st thread (astonishd that theres 2 threads about it), forgive my ignorance but what is SOGA????

grayme-m

marleyboy wrote: »

I never got to see the 1st thread (astonishd that theres 2 threads about it), forgive my ignorance but what is SOGA????

The Sale of Goods Act. It's the answer to everything in this thread... :rotfl:

I say thread, this is the third.

marleyboy

third???? my god how many pages does it take

grayme-m

marleyboy wrote: »

third???? my god how many pages does it take

More than make up the SOGA itself!

mdbarber

marleyboy wrote: »

I see by your reply what the problem is here, put simply, its your attitude, its no wonder the company has decided to let a court handle it and basically told you where to go.

Your arrogance will (or has) already proved your downfall. Should you win your case , you are free to gloat about the "expert advice", should you lose, all you have left is the egg on your face.

Should you not want advice on MSE, its probably best not to ask for it. Everyone seems to have held patience quite gracefully on here for you, and all you seem to be doing is spitting at them for it.

No company in their right mind is going to just give you the money, and let you keep the items on trust that YOU will send it off when you get paid, its not good for any business to rely on a customers "trust" and postage costs are refundable if proved the item was faulty on purchase.

Companies rely on reputation, ive seen many rip off merciants crumble on MSE, because they didnt anticipate that Joe Public speak louder than words. A case of Goliath v Jason with MSE. However, having not seen many people on this forum with similar stories about this company, your opinion on the company remains just that.

Still out of politeness "note the word", I wish you good luck in your case. I look forward to hearing the final outcome of the case. Which I suspect should you lose, we all probably wont hear.

So after reading only a tiny proportion of my posts and not even the original thread you are telling me i have a bad attitude and am arrogant?, no offence but that sounds a tad arrogant to me! and not very polite either, try starting HERE
Reality is i am neither, as stated i just don't like to take any chances and whilst we are on the subject are you implying or stating that just because someone is arrogant or has a bad attitude they can be denied the protection of the law?.
As you can see its very easy to misunderstand peoples writing.
As for bad business relying on trusting people, well surely we have to trust these companies when we hand them out money?, surely what is good for the goose etc or is your definition of trust a one sided thing.

ps Tozer i remember you complaining after i used the expression "keep up dude" it was meant light hearted not as a "shout down" and I thought that was obvious but again a testament on how easy it is to misunderstand some posts

Tozer

mdbarber wrote: »

ps Tozer i remember you complaining after i used the expression "keep up dude" it was meant light hearted not as a "shout down" and I thought that was obvious but again a testament on how easy it is to misunderstand some posts

Actually, I think it was you saying that I was contradicting myself when I pointed out the rationale, interpretation and application of Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules...

mdbarber

Tozer wrote: »

Actually, I think it was you saying that I was contradicting myself when I pointed out the rationale, interpretation and application of Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules...

Can't remember that bit at mo, please post a link! and I will attempt to answer properly.

mdbarber

grayme-m wrote: »

Ah, but he's covered that, the court can't make moral decisions apparently, that's in the SOGA too.

Just noticed this and am amazed at another misquote from you, that is not what i said at all!
I said I find it hard to believe a judge "ignored" statute on the basis he found it morally wrong. you later confirmed this was not the case and the case result was because of a technicality..
Twice now!,makes it sound like someone has a little difficulty with honesty here!

Freddie_Snowbits

No, I am afraid I am just going to ask the ICE Fitter a straight forward question.

Have you got your money back yet?


(One suspects that silence is Golden!)