Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention if peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now- post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!  Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.  Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.  A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease. 
    • Hi Roberto, Read some of the other threads here about S Sixes - they all follow the same routine of threats, threats, then nothing. When you do this, you'll see how many have been in exactly the same situation as you are. Keep us updated as necessary .............
    • Nationwide's takeover of Virgin Money is hitting the headlines as thousands of customers protest that they will not get a vote on whether it should happen.View the full article
    • unrelated to the agreement then, could have come from Lowells filing cabinet (who lowells - they dont do that - oh yes they do!! just look at a few lowell paypal EU court claim threads) no name and address for time of take out either which they MUST contain. just like the rest of the agreement then..utter bogroll that proves nothing toward you ... slippery lowells as usual it's only a case management discussion on 26 April 2024 at 10:00am by WebEx. thats good simply refer to the responses you made on your 4a form response only. pleanty of SPC thread here to read before the 26th i suggest you read at least one a day. dx  
    • I think you have the supremacy of contract as it allows you to park in designated areas. I would argue that there being parking enforcement there clearly means its to be used as parking and as such you can use it under your lease. Only need to worry if they ever follow through with a letter of claim and a claimform though
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

I bought a Google Chromecast Ultra a week ago from Argos. Can I return this retail product?


King Mustard
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2533 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I bought a Google Chromecast Ultra a week ago from Argos.

 

It turns out it is incompatible with my AV receiver due to HDCP (copy write) restrictions.

 

Argos' receipt only mentions being able to return it (within 30 days of purchase) in its unused, original condition.

 

I wasn't aware due to the incompatibility without using it.

 

Can I still legally return this product?

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is not fit for purpose so yes.

Problem with software is that it is considered a work of art and therefore compatibility issues dont necessarily make it a defective product by not being fit for purpose.

 

 

More recent consumer law has made it harder for sellers to argue against refunding and undoubtedly Argos will have no way of testing so you may get a refund without any trouble or you may get a brick wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your main argument would probably be that Argos themselves don't appear to advertise that a HDCP compatible TV is required (At least there's no mention of HDCP on their website) so you had no way of knowing this requirement before purchase and could only find out once opening and testing the product.

 

Technically it is your responsibility to check if the product is compatible before purchasing, but you can only go by the information that they supply you with. All their website says you need is a HDMI connection and WiFi, no mention of the HDMI connection being HDCP compliant.

 

If I were you I'd go to the Argos website product listing for the Chromecast Ultra and grab some screenshots of the whole page. This way you've got proof incase you need to take things further and they update the page in the meantime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are within 14 days

 

 

you don't need any excuse to return it and get a full refund

 

 

CRA is your friend.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are within 14 days

 

you don't need any excuse to return it and get a full refund

 

CRA is your friend.

 

dx

 

Wouldn't that only apply if it was purchased via the website rather than in-store and the product isn't faulty?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't that only apply if it was purchased via the website rather than in-store and the product isn't faulty?

 

No. The CRA 2015 now allows this and as far as I can tell, you actually have 30 days to return and get a full refund

 

https://www.theretailombudsman.org.uk/new-legislation-comes-into-effect-under-the-consumer-rights-act-cra-2015/

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The CRA 2015 now allows this and as far as I can tell, you actually have 30 days to return and get a full refund

 

https://www.theretailombudsman.org.uk/new-legislation-comes-into-effect-under-the-consumer-rights-act-cra-2015/

 

I'm guessing this only applies in this case because Argos failed to provide the information that a HDCP compatible HDMI port is required.

If that info had been provided then I'm guessing there would be no case for a return/refund of a store bought product with no faults that had been opened? As the product itself would then meet all fit for purpose regulations and it would be on the purchaser for not checking any compatibility requirements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For online sales, the requirements have been improved from 14 days to 30 days but more importantly, in store sales now have the same rights of return. You can return for any reason or no reason within the first 30 days. That is my interpretation and I don't think I am wrong but of course, this is open to debate

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

For online sales, the requirements have been improved from 14 days to 30 days but more importantly, in store sales now have the same rights of return. You can return for any reason or no reason within the first 30 days. That is my interpretation and I don't think I am wrong but of course, this is open to debate

 

My reading of that link is that the 30 days only applies to in store sales where goods do not meet the purpose they were bought for, but I don't think a retailer could be held responsible for a customer not checking compatibility, provided all of the correct information was made available at the point of sale by the retailer themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...