3rd go. No world conquering required!

I'm still confused though. Metro stated it was the coins with the Thistle. BBC said it was ones with the new design (depicting part of the Royal Crest) Someone else said it doesn't matter. I'm just going to give mine over the bar. 7 of them are definitely worth a pint!

Read these in the Times today (letters page, court circular, law reports and the crossword generally being the only things worth reading in a paper) and think it sums up the situation adequately: Jackson hysteria -Times Online

Therein lies the discrepancy with DSRs and part 5a. It's a rather incompatible piece of legislation with previous provisions. With the example given, I would certainly, being the seller, told him to bugger off. But part 5A does not consider whether an item has been worn or used - only whether it conforms to the contract. It avoids the acceptance required traditionally. And because of that, the DSRs allow for return. I would say, where this a lessaiz fair ( Bookie!) economy, that I would agree with you, Buz, and would also do so before the 2003 amendments to SoGA. But we ain't in one. Methinks we will disagree, and so I would say the OP should have a word with TS to see what they say. Would be interesting. And lets see how many grammatical and syntax errors Bookie will pull up with those sentences now I have got two French words in properly!

Just on HSBCs point, acting as a business does not require the person to be a business in the normal sense. The courts will look at the level of trading, profit and purpose. If it is more than merely getting rid of your stuff, then it will likely be counted as a business (for example, if he's selling loads of hairdryers, it cannot be said to be a consumer transaction). But that's a tricky one to pass.

I may not, but the law is on the consumer's side, and it is the law that I stand by. I agree that washing makes it more difficult to prove a case, but imagine this was, for example, poor quality and the things fell apart, rather than a colour mismatch. There would be no issue.

Wellll, I'd say so. It's not as if they said "Bike" and that's it. They attached a description to it. "Mint" suggests to me that the bike is nearly as new, and I do not expect to get a bike that is "mint" that has damage you describe. Although they did not specify any faults, I think the word "Mint" descries it as fault free.

Hmm, well there is selling food not of the nature substance or quality demanded. TS advise to notify them anyway if it was not drawn to the customers attention that the date has passed. And I'd still complain to Asda myself, but that's me and the desire to type a letter that does not start off "I am applying for...."

Are you sure it's a use by date? I thought Coke had bets before. If it is a use by then also report it to environmental health or trading standards, as selling food (or to have in possession for sale) beyond the use by date is a criminal offence. Supermarkets claim these are "one offs", however there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest otherwise.

Oh, you may want to check if you can claim the additional cost back from your employer or offset against tax, but I don't know anything about that.

Yes you will need business use most definitely. SDP&C is only for use to and from work (though insurers will not be bothered about the odd trip to another office). What you describe goes way beyond that.

I think the best course of action would be to rely on part 5a of SoGA. Acceptance of goods is not relevant. The fact that they have been worn is also irrelevant. It will be up to the seller to prove that the goods conformed to the contract.

Your claim would be for misdescription, since that is the only thing you can claim for under Sale of goods legislation. With regards to the DSRs, there are two problems. Auctions are not covered. However, there has been a discussion as to whether ebay is an auction or not, which, in my opinion, has not quite been resolved. Further, I presume the seller was not acting in the course of a business or profession. The DSRs do not apply to private sales (consumer to consumer).

I wouldn't leave - not until you have another job anyway. And one that you DO have a contract for. Good luck.

You would be surprised at how stupid some people can be (I am not including the OP in that or suggesting thereto). I once had a call asking if accident damage was covered by TPF&T. On being told no, he hung up. An hour later, he's back on the phone again (by chance, to me) to claim for AD. He had amended the policy to comp between the calls and obviously did not recognise my voice. Another caller stated the damage was his own deliberate act. When told he wasn;t covered, he said "OK then, someone else did it". On both occasions, when challenged, each asked "Are you calling me a liar?". "Yes" "I want to speak to your boss, blah blah blah". "OK. In the meantime I will get the recording of the conversation in which you gave the other version before realising you weren't covered. Still want to speak to my supervisor?" One did, but complained only of my "rudeness" to him and completely evaded the issue of lying. I also remembered another call when working for a breakdown company. I advised the caller that it would be a 2 hour wait. She repeated the time (in an incredulous manner as you do) and said "OK". 40 minutes later she was back on the phone complaining that it had been more than the 35 minutes quoted (ignoring that we did not even use that timescale). I got the usual "You calling me a liar?" and advised her that it was me she spoke to. The phone quickly went dead. Off topic I know, but like I said, people do the most stupid things.

It's really a generalised situation. Can't recall case names of the top of my head, but it is a general principle that terms of a contract cannot be altered once complete simply because one side thinks them unfavourable. There are instances of couse, such as lack of concencus ad idem (yes, my Latin is worse than my English), mistake etc. But with consumers in today's age, its generally accepted that sellers should be competent enough to catch incorrectly priced items. As put by the OP, they cannot come chasing 3 weeks later to get the increase. There is no legislation allowing it.

Just on that, it applies only to offers. A price is an invitation to treat, and it is the buyer who makes the offer. This differs to the situation posted. the order has been accepted and the contract concluded, yet the seller is seeking to change the terms AFTER that point.

As far as I know, it's tough on the seller. I cannot find anything in case law, DSRs or E-commerce regs that allow for this. The took the order details, have systems in place, agreed everything and sent them out to you. They had every opportunity to examine the details, and either did not do so or were pretty poor in not doing so. They cannot ask you now for additional money.

Contact the police to see what they can do. Do you have any insurance yourself or legal cover for anthing? They may be able to instigate the claim for you. I would not settle privately - if something goes wrong you will have a hell of a job chasing him up.

Can I just mention that changing the cover on your insurance, then having an accident 2 hours later will possibly trigger a fraud investigation - at least it used to. I am not saying that you are lying, only that it is quite easy for someone else to come to that conclusion. As such you will be best off getting whatever proof you can.

I have a similar complaint. Can someone please point to legislation or case law?

A reasonable length of time. Sorry, but that's the shor and curlies of it. There is no definition of that, nor could there be really. In terms of who decides what is reasonable, it is the court. You need to get evidence to show that you expected it to last more than 3 years. Price, how described, quality etc will all play a factor. You could also get an independant report, and if you are successful, claim the cost back.

To get parts, you need to contact them (pref email or letter) and make time of the essence. You might also want to remind them that they have yet to complete their side of the contract and that you retain the right to reject the goods.

Two things raised in posts above that I want to address for reference. Firstly, even if there is a "banksman", liability still rests with the driver. The only time I can imagine it would not is if the banksman is employed in a position specifically for that purpose in a capacity that the driver MUST rely on him. Secondly is something said about getting the details of the parked TP vehicles to see if they can be held partly liable. The short answer is don't bother. You cannot claim against a parked TP. I suggest again that this be moved to the employment forum as the insurance matter is clear cut and has been addressed.

In terms of liability, it rests with you. Whether objects should have been there or no is irrelevant, they were there and you hit them. This has been discussed before in detail, so it will be fruitless to argue the point further. For your own peace of mind, try to accept that it is you who is liable as you will get nowhere arguing othewise. Not what you want to hear I know, but put your efforts into something more fruitful. As to employment, I don't know sorry. With the insurance aspect answered, maybe a mod can move this to the employment forum for those in the know to answer.