Jump to content

Legislation

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Legislation last won the day on November 15 2011

Legislation had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

35 Excellent

About Legislation

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Who sold the guarantee if not the retailer? The manufacturer's guarantee is a part of the product the retailer sold, a thing with a considerable value so a failed guarantee is a breach of the contract of sale.
  2. Disappointed buyers may care to note that according to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations bait advertising is a criminal offence, "without disclosing the existence of any reasonable grounds the trader may have for believing that he will not be able to offer for supply". The relevant part is 5. of Schedule 1. When it happens as often as this that they fail to supply, an enforcement authority (Trading Standards) ought at least to investigate.
  3. Goods already used are therefore accepted so a reasonable refund would be for the second hand value and the retailer is responsible for that, if and when a repair or replacement is inappropriate or fails. The relevant parts of the Sale of Goods Act are easy to find if you browse the Table of Contents: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/contents N.B.
  4. Ignorance is bliss, but not the way to win the day. The incubation of a flea may indeed be delayed and they do survive without a blood meal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_flea I am not so much of an expert on fleas but this was not so difficult to investigate, already convinced that the suspicion of the Landlord is probably wrong, You could have done the same for yourself. Before you go any further, read this as well: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?328161-Private-Rented-Property-Damp-Mouldy-and-Infested-with-Bugs
  5. You are absolutely right. They are absolutely wrong. Whether or not there was an administrative error or they tried it on deliberately, the goods delivered do not conform to contract so were not accepted; you are therefore entitled to rescind the contract, as would a victim of fraud. The legislation to cite is The Misrepresentation Act 1967, section 1 The mistake you made was to play along. They had no right, whatsoever, to force you to accept an unwelcome delivery. You should charge them for the storage of the unwanted item, as well as the refund.
  6. Seriously, what sort of people do you expect to be peddling a "legal high"? If a case went to court the term that a judge would use is "author of his own misfortune".
  7. Yes. You are absolutely right; Paypal is absolutely wrong. Your duty is to surrender the fake to an enforcement authority (Trading Standards, HMRC or the Police) in order to present a copy of your receipt for that to eBay and Paypal. The duty of the enforcement authority is then to investigate. Otherwise, eBay and Paypal would not so much as count it as fraud (no criminal conviction) in order to fiddle the eBay fraud statistics. An honest, respectable company would report the suspicion to the enforcement authority on their own initiative instead of doing all they can to avoid the event. Beware though of an unfortunate effect. To treat an eBay transaction as a criminal offence is to forfeit the so called protection of eBay and Paypal. If you study the terms of the User Agreements their "protection" is not intended to be a crime insurance, nor does the right exist to purchase a fake nor would the consumer protection legislation apply to an illegitimate contract. In order to be "protected" you have to pretend that it was not a crime. That is the deal you make with the devil.
  8. I was trying to suggest that the case to be made in terms of the EU Directive with regard to the "average consumer" is the better bet. There may or may not be a case to be made with regard to the one particular purchase. If it is a contrived attempt to have a go at Dell, not so much of a genuine complaint a judge would be on to that, wanting to know what it is about the MS End User Agreement that a buyer should object to. The devil would then be in the detail, not the principle.
  9. In the real world, the sensible thing to do would be to offer the landlord an extra consideration [more money] for the extra consideration you want, to keep a pet. Otherwise, a sensible landlord may or may not decide to evict, may or may be soft hearted enough to tolerate the pet, rather than go to the trouble of re-letting but if the right is reserved to evict as soon as they so see fit, because of the breach, where are you then? What you achieve, in effect, is a voluntary forfeiture of the security of tenure. Another consideration could be that the same terms apply to other tenants, if you happen to know if this may be so. When a landlord gives way to one while others are expected to comply, it's a recipe for trouble if ever there was one.
  10. So did I. Idiots complain and suggest to send a CCA letter because they'd not so much as bothered to read the Ebay User Agreement, never mind that they're up to their eyeballs with the dirty brown stuff. If you take the trouble to study the terms, you will find that not only did you agree to allow ebay to make a final decision, in their "sole discretion"; you also agreed to provide a reimbursement method in order to directly refund the buyer for the cost of the item. When you then proceed to get a new debit card in order to obstruct the opportunity to directly reimburse the buyer, this could also be charged as fraud. If in the mean time, if your beef is that you reckon the sale was good; ebay is wrong; you were entitled to the money for the sale of goods, what you need to do is sue the buyer for the money. The contract of sale is still intact and enforceable. The result of an ebay or paypal resolution centre dispute makes no difference to that. It is their decision over what to do with the money they hold, not a legal precedent. Your problem is then that a buyer is entitled to rescind because of misrepresentation. In view of the age issue, therefore, your chance of winning a claim against the buyer is not at all so good. There are better ways than this to impress a judge that a claimant is of good character and acts in good faith.
  11. According to the eBay User Agreement, "You may not use our sites and services if you are under the age of 18". What you ought to do, therefore, is report yourself to the Police or Trading Standards. To proceed to use the site notwithstanding the age restriction would amount to an offence under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Fraud by false representation, Fraud by failing to disclose information, Fraud by abuse of position or a combination of those, depending on the particular facts of the matter. To be guilty of fraud, the conduct would have to be found to be dishonest, so what is your defence on that account?
  12. That is remarkable, to say the least, from one of their own! "nothing has been done for 5 months" appears to confess that they fail the due diligence defence prescribed by section 17 of the CPUTRs which is to say that Tesco is run by offenders who have yet to be prosecuted. An available option is therefore to remind an enforcement authority that a misleading of the average consumer is a criminal offence and it shall be the duty of every enforcement authority to enforce these Regulations. What is missing is the sincere intention of the OFT to put a stop to it and a consumer with the mind to go the extra mile. Were the case to be heard by a judge there would not be so much as a leg to stand on, for the OFT and Tesco between them. They know that this is happening and the remedy prescribed by law was supposed to be more than enough prevent the offence of advertising goods to be sold at one price but advertised at another.
  13. No, definitely not. The Distance Selling Regulations implement the Distance Selling Directive, Article 12 of which especially provides that ---- The purpose of section 25 of the Regulations: "No contracting-out" is therefore to transpose Article 12 to national law and (4) of 25 especially provides that If you follow that through to 14(5) and 17(8) you will find that the inference is that when the consumer fails to comply with a term requiring to return goods, that is not enforceable except in so far as the supplier may make a charge, not exceeding the direct costs of recovering any goods supplied under the contract, when the supplier comes to collect the goods, during which time the duty of the consumer is to retain possession and take reasonable care of the goods . Otherwise, 17(4) could hardly be clearer than this: ---- " In the event that the product has a fault, just return it to us at your own expense within 7 days of receiving it." is therefore tantamount to a strict liability offence since The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, the effect being to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise, taking account of its factual context and of all its features and circumstances. 6(a) of section 14 of the DSRs especially provides, in effect, that the consumer is not obliged to pay the cost of recovering goods when the seller is at fault.
  14. There is no "if" about the breach. According to the OP "... i have had to take the dog back" [past perfect tense] so the question is "where do i stand if she does [chuck me out]? if she gives me one month to leave and i cant find no where, and i continue to pay the rent on time till i do,would that be sufficient?"
  15. What is that supposed to mean? A concluded contract is a exactly that, a settled agreement in good faith, not a negotiation yet to be concluded. The demand to keep a pet notwithstanding a contract to the opposite effect is impertinent. The contract is enforceable whether or not the landlord would bother to reply to a tenant so annoyingly ignorant.
×
×
  • Create New...