New Computer has fault, i lose £20-Please help?

[ForestChav]

Surely you get a lot less opportunity to try a boat or a car than a computer though. It's simply a matter of getting it out the box and turning it on by which time you would quickly realise the drive had failed.

In that case, yes, a longer "reasonable time" would be correct. Is there any case law more relevant to the ease of inspecting the item?

[Conniff]

I think we are still getting a bit mixed up with the DSR and SOGA here.

The first 7 days are to decide if you like the colour or if the badge is in the right place or even if it matches your shoes, is the keyboard comfortable to use, will it fit on my bedside table or do I need a smaller one.

You have soga to decide if the machine works or not which, as you know, gives you six months (dealer prove not inherant fault) to see if everything works ok.

[gyzmo]

Originally Posted by ForestChav

Surely you get a lot less opportunity to try a boat or a car than a computer though. It's simply a matter of getting it out the box and turning it on by which time you would quickly realise the drive had failed.

In that case, yes, a longer "reasonable time" would be correct. Is there any case law more relevant to the ease of inspecting the item?

the boat case is important becasue it contains the ratio - the principle of law that will apply to other cases. Yes, what is reasonable is a matter of fact but the prinicples set out are applicable to any sale.

As for the bike, the time from which acceptance comes is when the first opportunity comes for the item to be tested. In that case, it was when the thing was opened by the birthday boy and used. It was not from when it was first bought, as it would be unreasonable to test something like this when it is intended as a present. It is subject to reasonableness. So, for example, if you buy an airfix model as a present, one could not be expected before the present is given to test that the glue works or that the parts come off without breaking. One would expect that time to run from when the present is given and subsequently opened.

There isnt much else in the way of case law on this - most of it is in the lower courts. the case I referred to is probably the best one.

[ForestChav]

Originally Posted by gyzmo

the boat case is important becasue it contains the ratio - the principle of law that will apply to other cases. Yes, what is reasonable is a matter of fact but the prinicples set out are applicable to any sale.

As for the bike, the time from which acceptance comes is when the first opportunity comes for the item to be tested. In that case, it was when the thing was opened by the birthday boy and used. It was not from when it was first bought, as it would be unreasonable to test something like this when it is intended as a present. It is subject to reasonableness. So, for example, if you buy an airfix model as a present, one could not be expected before the present is given to test that the glue works or that the parts come off without breaking. One would expect that time to run from when the present is given and subsequently opened.

There isnt much else in the way of case law on this - most of it is in the lower courts. the case I referred to is probably the best one.

All of which is perfectly reasonable and the right thing to do. But what about if I bought a PC, left it in the box for six months, then opened it and it was faulty. Would I be entitled to a refund if I said that was the first opportunity I had to test it?

Things bought as a gift are fair enough, you don't open it before giving it to the recipient etc. No court would rule against that being reasonable. But leaving something for ages without testing it without a reason (which is why I was asking why it was left a week) would be a different matter, I guess.

[gyzmo]

As said by both of us - it comes down to reasonableness. Its exactly the reason why delivery / satisfaction notes are totally ineffective for anything other than stating the goods have been received. If you have had the opportunity to examine somethng but decided not to then that's not reasonable. so simply not bothering to open the box for 6 months will not wash.

If however you ordered the thing and it arrived on the first day of your holiday of 4 weeks, then the time will run from when after the holiday and not from when it was delivered (this is in relation to acceptance and nothing to do with DSR).

[ForestChav]

Originally Posted by gyzmo

As said by both of us - it comes down to reasonableness. Its exactly the reason why delivery / satisfaction notes are totally ineffective for anything other than stating the goods have been received. If you have had the opportunity to examine somethng but decided not to then that's not reasonable. so simply not bothering to open the box for 6 months will not wash.

If however you ordered the thing and it arrived on the first day of your holiday of 4 weeks, then the time will run from when after the holiday and not from when it was delivered (this is in relation to acceptance and nothing to do with DSR).

Yeah, so going back to what I said here:

Originally Posted by ForestChav

Do we know why it wasn't tested? I would say it runs from the date of receipt, if you don't open something (unless it was bought as a gift) and don't realise it doesn't work quickly then that shouldn't come down to the retailer.

Otherwise I could leave something in the box for 6 months, open it, it doesn't work and claim reversed burden of proof / DSRs because I "hadn't had the opportunity to test it"... Yeah...

Unless theres a reason why it can't be tested immediately, then it should be reasonable to test it straight away. As we said...

So I'd say unless the OP had a good reason to leave it in the box for a week he's only got himself to blame.

[bankhater10]

Many thanks ForestChav for your slightly insensitive reply, unfortunately i did have good reason to delay opening and using the pc: My brother had been taken to hospital for a serious illness. Anyway, iv had an email from Arbico and i will probably take their offer of only losing £20 but i would like anyone to tell me if they are actually correct legally when they state:
"[FONT='Century Gothic', 'sans-serif']Many thanks for your email.[/font]
[FONT='Century Gothic', 'sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Century Gothic', 'sans-serif']If you actually look at the website, according to our terms and conditions, we only need to offer to replace or repair your PC after the first 7 days.[/font]
[FONT='Century Gothic', 'sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Century Gothic', 'sans-serif']The terms and conditions actually state that we will make a 25% deduction in case of returns after 7 days but we are not charging you anything at all.[/font]
[FONT='Century Gothic', 'sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Century Gothic', 'sans-serif']You can send the PC back to us yourself or we can get it collected it for the £20 charge, whichever one you prefer."[/font]
[FONT='Century Gothic', 'sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Century Gothic', 'sans-serif']Are they correct regarding the 25% deduction?[/font]
[FONT='Century Gothic', 'sans-serif']Thankyou-Bankhater.[/font]

[ForestChav]

TBH, I'd accept the replacement machine. Obviously that is a reasonable cause not to open the machine for that length of time - if it was a case of simply not being bothered then that's different.

If the T+Cs say that then they have made clear that they are going to charge you for the item before you order, and ordering is acceptance of the T+Cs. Whether that T+C in itself is legal is another matter. SOGA does give a reasonable time to accept the goods but as we've been saying, that isn't defined, because it depends on the nature of the goods. If three weeks is reasonable (and I don't know, and also, effectively it's two) is open to debate - it probably is, and if it is, you are entitled to rescind the contract. They are entitled to deduct some from the purchase price to account for the use of the goods - you have had next to none, so they shouldn't deduct much for that.

It looks as if the 25% has been waived in favour of you paying courier to send it back or them arranging it for £20, which will probably work out about the same. You could always return it for the £20 and then haggle with them for it when you've got the bulk of your money back.

Technically, speaking in terms of the actual fault, I don't really see the deal with them replacing the drive, it's not likely to cause any other problems being faulty nor caused by an underlying problem. The way mass-produced PCs are made does not involve the drive and so it might not have been tested. What make/model/spec is it?