Hi, Yes, you are quite right. This has always been a somewhat 'grey' area of the law in the mail order business. What is a reasonable amount of time? In this case, the goods were transported from where they were delivered under the customers own steam (Damage could have occured during this process!) to their garage and left with the garage (Any damage could also occured whilst in the garage's possession!) It could also of been damaged when the garage attempted to fit the part. The fault was reported at least 48 hours after the delivery had been made. The fact of the matter is that the goods were checked once when we recieved them from the supplier in the presence of their driver, and also upon dispatch by someone who has previous MG/Rover franchised dealer experience and were found to be in A1 condition. I'll leave you to ponder?! Had a judge actually allowed us to defend this claim would the outcome been the same? We all know that the Judge is always likely to find in favour of a customer over a retailer, but I believe that in this case the verdict would of been in our favour, as we supplied goods of merchantable quality and also offered to replace the goods, which the customer declined!

Hi, Yes, she did order a pair of headlamps, 1 of which was fitted fine, and the other she claims was faulty. She then claimed for all sorts of things such as 'lifts' to work, petrol for 'lifts' to work, postage for delivery of another headlamp etc etc We submitted the defence, and in the meantime discovered that I was unable to attend the court. I spoke to the court who said that if I faxed a letter over confirming that I would be unable to attend then the hearing would be adjouned. This was done immediatley and I phoned the court straight after to confirm they had recieved the fax to which the answer was yes, I also asked if it would be adjourned and the second person confirmed this. After the court hearing I telephoned the court six times trying to find out when the new hearing would be. It took them 5 days to find the file, and was eventually told that judgement had been passed in my absence against us for the total amount. I can't express how incompetant the court was! We tried many times to submit an appeal, but the court kept on returning the appeal with no covering letter and in the end I got so frustrated that I decided it wasn't worth my time in continuing to deal with such an incompetant court. Every time I called the court I was promised a call back which never materialised (On at least 10 different occasions).

You have forgot to mention a number of facts regarding this sale, which I would like to make clear. Firstly, you refused a replacement part, and in fact have never returned the part for inspection. Secondly, Swansea County Court denied us our legal right to defend this case and judgement was given in our absence. We were told by two different employees of the court that as we were unable to attend on the date given that the hearing would be adjourned to allow us to attend. The Judge then gave judgement in our absence. Obviously, Wales must have a very different view of justice than England. Thirdly, you claimed nearly £300 for a headlamp that was £99 + VAT. Fourthly, you recieved the part in working order and checked it on delivery, deemed it to be in good condition and signed for it in good condition. The part was inspected prior to dispatch by a former MG/Rover employer This whole case was absurd, and I'm sure that if we were given our legal right to defend this case the outcome would have been very different.