Jump to content


sjc1985

Currys laptop and Sales of goods Act

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4555 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Btw, when you say "judge", what position do they hold?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no six year rule at all! The SOGA says that goods must last for a "reasonable time" after purchase, which is not defined, but depends on various factors, eg value, purpose for which they were acquired, etc etc.


The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no six year rule at all! The SOGA says that goods must last for a "reasonable time" after purchase, which is not defined, but depends on various factors, eg value, purpose for which they were acquired, etc etc.

 

The six year rule refrred to is the time limit imposed for action to be taken to court. The context to which RPOV has put it in bears no relation to reality or any fevered imagination or fantasy. In short, it is utter rubbish and not worth the bandwidth.

 

The only reason people continue to respond to RPOV is to ensure that the vulnerable do not make the mistake of following his (or her) advice. Personally, I think a warning should be put on:

 

"Warning: This person may be seriously detrimental to your consumer rights"

 

It won't happen, but it should.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The six year rule refrred to is the time limit imposed for action to be taken to court. The context to which RPOV has put it in bears no relation to reality or any fevered imagination or fantasy. In short, it is utter rubbish and not worth the bandwidth.

 

The only reason people continue to respond to RPOV is to ensure that the vulnerable do not make the mistake of following his (or her) advice. Personally, I think a warning should be put on:

 

"Warning: This person may be seriously detrimental to your consumer rights"

 

It won't happen, but it should.

well there is that, but also there's the "reasonable time", which is commonly defined as up to six years (five in Scotland) after purchase, for you to make a claim against the retailer for rectification of an inherent fault.

 

And as I said, the reasonable time can be no longer than six (or five) years, and is not defined in law. Because, you might expect a £5k product to last six years, but probably not a kettle costing £5. The expected lifespan of the product and its value and nature have to be accounted for.

 

The six years with relation to other issues, eg bank charges, is a totally different proposition.


The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest retailerspointofview
well there is that, but also there's the "reasonable time", which is commonly defined as up to six years (five in Scotland) after purchase, for you to make a claim against the retailer for rectification of an inherent fault.

 

And as I said, the reasonable time can be no longer than six (or five) years, and is not defined in law. Because, you might expect a £5k product to last six years, but probably not a kettle costing £5. The expected lifespan of the product and its value and nature have to be accounted for.

 

The six years with relation to other issues, eg bank charges, is a totally different proposition.

 

yep gyzmo UPTO.... so just because its not been 6 years does not mean they can demand repairs/ replacements.

 

AGAIN

batteries, ink cartridges, paper etc are classed as consumables. i wont waste a breath explaining what a consumable is.

 

but the life span on a tin of beans or ink etc are only a few months. so the issue the original poster of this thread had is that the battery has failed. due to many months of over charging. (plugging into mains)

 

by only charging for a couple hours a day and once a month fully depleeting the batteries charge (using till flat) and then re charging fully for 48 hours to fully refresh the battery still only has a approximate 6 month lifespan (1 or two years with certain sony batteries) so over charging all day over day would reduce the lifespan to a couple months.

 

seriously gyzmo if you want to pass you degree please get some real world expereince of the facts you are reading.. quoting from a book is great, using real life examples is much better.

 

and no offence. but as i own a shop i have yearly inspections from trading standards (all retailers do) i know of friends of mine with 50years real life expereince in SMALL CLAIMS.. you know that court you are trying to send everyone toooo... so their advice is right up your alley!! also to avoid situations and grey area's (oh yes there are grey area's in SOGA) i contact DTI, consumers direct and business link on occassions where a customers repair falls into this grey area.

 

so let me repeat that

50 years experience in small claims

10 years owning a retail store

yearly checkup as standard from trading standards

 

and yet i have not been sued once. DTI has never told me i am breaking the law. and the results of the TS checkups are all 100%

 

so you think your half finished degree beats my knowledge.

 

one thing to point out which may explain a few things. i know what rights buyers have, i know my responsibilities i know what is best for the customer too.

 

the only issue as you can tell by my shoddy spelling and grammer is that i have dyslexia. which means i find it harder to explain myself fully. but the facts are there.. and whether it takes 50 years for you to understand the facts then 50 years it will take.

 

i do not see this as a disability. as having it means i have learned to research, verify and check things double. so ensuring i know my stuff at the price of shoddy spelling is worth it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest retailerspointofview

yes gyzmo. use this website to test your understanding and find out who is right, buyer or seller...

 

 

but dont have the frame of mind

 

"its under 6 years so the buyer automatically has right to refund or take them to court"

 

law does not work like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes gyzmo. use this website to test your understanding and find out who is right, buyer or seller...

 

 

but dont have the frame of mind

 

"its under 6 years so the buyer automatically has right to refund or take them to court"

 

law does not work like that.

Well I suppose it does, but that always gives the court the right to a good laugh from time to time :D


The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh jees, here we go.

 

You have upto 6 years to make a claim under the Limitation Act (1980). It means, as I have said before (but you have somehow managed to completely misinterpret) that this is the time limit that you have to make a claim in court. After this time period, you cannot make a claim in court.

 

The reasonable time has nothing to do with this six years. The reasonable time is a matter of fact (i.e, upto a court to decide what is reasonable, which is dependant upon the circumstances). Where the hell has this 6 years come from as to what is generally regarded as reasonable? Make up your mind.

 

So, before you start getting too smug, I suggest AGAIN that you read things properly before you post. And as for your knowledge, I think your previous posts bear testament to the lack of knowledge that you have of law. I'm not going to try and prove myself, I don't need to. All I want is for you to get your facts right before you post anything else, and save others the task of having to put things right so that some poor fool does not come up short after reading your drivel.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh jees, here we go.

 

You have upto 6 years to make a claim under the Limitation Act (1980). It means, as I have said before (but you have somehow managed to completely misinterpret) that this is the time limit that you have to make a claim in court. After this time period, you cannot make a claim in court.

 

The reasonable time has nothing to do with this six years. The reasonable time is a matter of fact (i.e, upto a court to decide what is reasonable, which is dependant upon the circumstances).

 

So, before you start getting too smug, I suggest AGAIN that you read things properly before you post. And as for your knowledge, I think your previous posts bear testament to the lack of knowledge that you have of law. I'm not going to try and prove myself, I don't need to. All I want is for you to get your facts right before you post anything else, and save others the task of having to put things right so that some poor fool does not come up short after reading your drivel.

 

Dude, i honestly believe you're wasting your time. There's only so many times you can repeat yourself before you get the brick wall feeling.

 

I'd not bother... If someone's willing to believe it then that's their issue.


The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is just one example.

 

secondly it went passed the 6 month period. because batteries are classed as a consumable they do not come under SOGA. just like a tin of beens with a 6 month use by date.

 

Lets say that the battery was described as "suitable for all Toshiba laptops", and it turns out that they are actually only compatible with Sony laptops. Lets also say that the seller of these batteries does does not actually own them or have title to them (they have been stolen).

 

Are you saying then, according to what I have quoted above, that the consumer has no rights under ss 12 or 13 of SoGA?

 

Or are you suggesting that all batteries were bought before 1894 (see s.1(1)). Or is it that batteries are things in action (s.61(1)).

 

If this is the combined knowledge of your experience, your "judge" friend and everything else, then god help anyone who shops at your place or goes to court.

 

Just do us all a favour and stop wasting bandwidth with your nonsense.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i wont waste a breath explaining what a consumable is.

 

I'm so desperately sorry. I don't think that any of realised that the simple acting of typing made you breathless.

 

 

but the life span on a tin of beans or ink etc are only a few months.

The lifespan of a tin of beans is actually many years - that is why they are tinned in the first place. Just to be sure, hang on, I'll go and look.

 

Yep, best before date over 5 years hence

 

 

by only charging for a couple hours a day and once a month fully depleeting the batteries charge (using till flat) and then re charging fully for 48 hours to fully refresh the battery still only has a approximate 6 month lifespan (1 or two years with certain sony batteries) so over charging all day over day would reduce the lifespan to a couple months.

 

My experience of serving Dell laptops for many years us that, depending on the battery technology, their lifespan is 18 - 24 months - even when nearly always used on a charger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if tested in court i would imagine a "reasonable" legth of time for a laptop battery to work would be perhaps 3-4 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I thank you for all your comments but we went to court yesterday and did completly great! Better than expected in fact! We had a full refund of the computer, warranty and interest on the time they have held the money for.

 

When we got there, the judge asked us if we liked to speak and the lawyer from the other side said yes.

 

We went into a room and he showed us his case which missed several vital points of our arguments... When I showed him our copies of everything, he informed us that he hadnt been told half of that and that he wasnt happy he had been sent there with only half the information for the case and their defence didnt cover half of what we had proof for.

 

He also told us that only 2 days before had he found out that packard bell had already attempted to repair the laptop as well...

 

He said that he was very sorry it had got this far and his exact words were

 

"Im not going into court with this and I think we best start talking money".

 

We walked away with £725 and there apologies for not conducting the case correctly.

 

Goes to show that if you fight a big company, you do sometimes win!


03/10/06-Data Protection Act request sent via recorded delivery

06/10/06- Letter signed for. 15th Nov cut off date.

10/10/06- Statements come in tatty brown envelope.

Will be claiming for £1946.22

23/10/06- Preliminary request for £1946.22 sent recorded delivery.

24/10/06-Letter signed for. 7th Nov cut off.

08/11/06- Standard letter received wanting more time.

 

23/03/07- Time up for NatWest to say whether defending or not.

19/03/07- Acknowledgement of service and saying was going to defend came through.

04/04/07- Deadline for Natwests defence.

03/04/07- Defence filed came through.

05/05/07- Letter from Court to say claim stayed until 27/06/07

25/06/07- Letter from court, claim stayed until further notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They just didn't want to lose. An 11:59 settlement if ever there were one.


The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...