rights under the Sale of Goods Act

Absolam

monument wrote:

It looks like you and the Consumer Association have a different interpretation of it..

It's not interpretation; the text of the Act states:
Remedy for breach of warranty. [s. 53: 71/1893]
(2) Where—
(a) the buyer deals as consumer and there is a breach of a condition by the seller which, but for this subsection, the buyer would be compelled to treat as a breach of warranty, and
(b) the buyer, promptly upon discovering the breach, makes a request to the seller that he either remedy the breach or replace any goods which are not inconformity with the condition,
then, if the seller refuses to comply with the request or fails to do so within a reasonable time, the buyer is entitled:
(i) to reject the goods and repudiate the contract, or
(ii) to have the defect constituting the breach remedied elsewhere and to maintain an
action against the seller for the cost thereby incurred by him.
The buyer requests that the retailer should either remedy the breach or replace any goods which are not inconformity with the condition; the retailer therefore can choose whatever option they wish.

monument wrote:

If it was not “disclosed” at the time, to the retailer or any one, it can easily be seen as a fault, and then the consumer’s recourse is legally with the retailer.

Non disclosure of a feature is not a 'fault' in a product, as it doesn't prevent the product from fulfilling its function as described.

monument

Absolam wrote:

It's not interpretation;

Yes, that is what you are doing. That is what the Consumer Association has done, and that's what judges do...

interpretation
noun
an explanation or opinion of what something means
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=41557&dict=CALD

If Absolam can not interpret simple English, who here will trust his interpretation of law?

I for one I'm going to trust people like the Consumer Association, and the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs, before I trust some who was interpreting something but says he was not.

Absolam

monument wrote:

Yes, that is what you are doing. That is what the Consumer Association has done, and that's what judges do...

If Absolam can not interpret simple English, who here will trust his interpretation of law?

I for one I'm going to trust people like the Consumer Association, and the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs, before I trust some who was interpreting something but says he was not.

The English used in a legal document is constructed so as not to be open to interpretation.
gram·mar
n.
The study of how words and their component parts combine to form sentences.
The study of structural relationships in language or in a language, sometimes including pronunciation, meaning, and linguistic history.

Instead of trying to 'interpret' the meaning simply take the grammatical construction of the sentence, and there is only one meaning.

monument

point....









your head


I'll make it simple - Like it or not, you are interpreting the law (not something you really should be doing in public unless you’re a lawyer), like it or not, your interpretation differs from that of the Consumer Association, and the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs.