Hello I thought this was a discussion forum ? Oh well "obviously not" I type up a telephone conversation with Peter and get slated, the original interest was from the other forum not 1 because i had purchased from them and had no problems at all? and spent 5 years working at the Consumer advice bureau so i thought it was a little odd. I will ask Peter next week about rule 27 as that is beyond my full understanding and see what he has to say and try to post next weekend. Still the question remains on your reply do you still have the unusable goods that you claimed your chargeback on ? Which is what the whole case is about surely ? Regards and best intentions Tboner

Have watched this thread with some interest and printed it and passed to a very good friend who is in the court system at the sharp end ( A defence lawyer in the UK ) to see if my thoughts were correct after spotting the same name " Obvious" giving some different information on the same thing on a forum i use all the time. His Comments as follows. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The defendant in this case " Obv" has got his facts totally wrong i am afraid he will in the eyes of the law and any logical participating Judge have no case at all based on the information provided; he has taken Consumer law beyond any reasonable conclusion with his confirmed acts. The case would be a total No win situation for him he may if he had approached the Company in the correct manor via Recorded or Registered mail have been able to continue his negotiations with an aim to obtaining up to 10% of the original invoice value if agreed by the seller. Not only now by pursuing the defence and counter claiming will he bend the law still further but leaves the door open for the Company to counter claim within the same hearing for Loss of Time, General Pursuant costs, original Court Costs and also be liable to pay the whole chargeback + accruable Interest amount and then return the goods for a later agreed refund of the original purchase value. “Buying goods from a 3Rd party" for use against a separate holding should and will not have a bearing on this case. I am afraid the information provided By Peter ( Tboner) from both this forum and another confirms all of this in detail. " Mr Obv" i am afraid is going to end up with a very large bill to pay based on this information. My suggestion " get out of it while he still can" Presuming he still has the goods which were unfit for there intended usage from the original sale's invoice. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- As you can see from above he confirmed my thoughts from before , but looks like a worse scenario than i would have spotted. Good Luck i think you are going to need it on this case. Unless you can find away to sort it before hand to there agreement ! Tboner ( Peter )