cash refunds are not offered?

Sam Vimes

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Yes, and as pointed out these signs state "This does not affect your statutory rights".

that sign was different and in this case if you're right they very much do affect your statutory rights. you're saying that if a retailer insists on a replacement or repair on a product that has gone faulty after three months he's breaking the law. well that's the policy followed by every retailer i've ever dealt with so they must all be breaking the law. how is it that no one seems to know about this law?

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Well on the first point I thought I explained it pretty thouroghly, perhaps you should re-read my posts, and if you still don't get it, get a friend to read them for you. I interpret legislation every day at work and there is a knack to it. If you both still have difficulty go for a beer and write me off as an idiot.

you really didn't explain it well. maybe it seems so obvious to you that you didn't feel the need to explain it but what i saw was you posted the part explaining that a good has to be fit for purpose, as described and of merchantable quality (which i already knew) and said that meant that the reatiler can't insist on a repair or replacement. i don't see how it means that. i asked you to point out the bit that meant that and you said that the word repudiated means cancelling the contract which didn't really clarify much

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

On the second point, I doubt I'm overturning everyone who's ever spoken on the matter. There have been a number of posters, in this thread alone who agree with me.

there are always a few who say that they're always entitled to a refund. and historically on this forum they've been dismissed as the "I KNOW MY RIGHTS!!!!111" brigade

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I've posted the legislation, explained it, given examples. I'm not going to go over it again. If you don't believe it, fine. You're right and the legislation is wrong. Best of luck.

no, not "i'm right and the legislation is wrong", "i and every retailer i've ever dealt with in my personal and professional capacity is right and you're wrong". not really the same thing.

as i asked previously, can you explain to me how it is that every retailer i've ever dealt with is following a policy that's illegal under irish law?

Mr. Incognito

Deja Vou

Legislation is couched in particular terms. The Sale of Goods Act is to do with Contract Law and is phrased in this particular way as a result. The word "repudiated" is a technical term for cancelling the contract. There are a number of ways a contract can be cancelled, all with their own particular jargon but I don't want to drag this down to a lecture on contract law but basically as I've stated above once the contract is repudiated you're entitled prima facie to your consideration back, i.e you're entitled to a full cash refund of the consideration. This does not need to be expressly stated as it's a tenant of contract law.

You can refuse a repair or replacement on this ground. The contract is cancelled. A repair is a recognition that the contract is valid, which is not the case.

Quote:
this bit
Quote:

(3) Where a contract of sale is not severable, and the buyer has accepted the goods, or part thereof, the breach of any condition to be fulfilled by the seller can only be treated as a breach of warranty, and not as a ground for rejecting the goods and treating the contract as repudiated, unless there be a term of the contract, express or implied, to that effect.
says to me that once you've accepted the goods any problems can only be treated as a breach of warranty and not grounds for rejecting the goods
You're reading this wrong. You'll note that it says, "where the contract of sale is not severable". We've already learned that the contract is invalid under the terms listed above so this is not applicable when the goods are faulty. What this relates to is where there is a breach of warranty. This is contract law again. A warranty is a condition of the contract that does not automatically cancel the contract. An example might be that the shop may offer to deliver the goods within three days. You may not be able to cancel the contract for sale if the goods turn up on day four unless such a term is written into the contract as grounds for termination.

Quote:
well there are times when retailers will give refunds subject to their policy. most places i worked in had a 14 day or 28 day policy. Some are more generous but in all cases it was store policy and not the law.
well Sam, retailers can make all the policies they want but when they are illegal, they are illegal. Any policy that denies a consumer his cash refund when the goods are dodgy under the terms above is illegal. Most places will offer refunds on items with a receipt within a certain time but they are under no obligation to. Once you have purchased something the retailer is under no obligation to refund you unless the item is faulty. Add to that the fact that most of the staff working there have no idea as to the actual law, misinterpretations will happen, heck I've seen it myself. But the Sale of Goods Act has been around a long time and people that have been in retail for anything longer than the odd summer job will generally have a good understanding of the law.

Sam Vimes

yeah i read that but as far as i can see you just stated it again and didn't actually explain how the text of the act specified that that was the case. I still don't see it

Sam Vimes

basically you explained that once a contract is repudiated you can get your money back which is fine but you didn't show that going faulty after 3 months is grounds for the contract to be repudiated

Mr. Incognito

I think a good that breaks after three months is not

"of merchantable quality"
"fit for the purpose intended"

but of course this depends on the good. Single use razors for example wouldn't qualify.

Look, I don't intend entering the nuances of every single applicable transaction and example. Quite frankly it's boring me now. That's the law. It's black and white, if you can post a link refuting that feel free. If you want to sit in the ivory tower of ignorance with the me and my mates don't think so it can't be "na na", and damn the "I know my rights brigade". I've explained it quite clearly. If you don't get it, frankly that's due to your misunderstanding. I've been patient enough but it's hard to explain something to someone with their fingers in their ears.

You believe whatever helps you sleep at night. When I get into a dispute, me and the law will march boldly on.

axer

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Axer, you'll have to explain this one to me

Fair enough, I've never come across this definition of goods but the legislation points to

Totally different things.

Also, it is incorrect to quote the Sale of Goods Act section that refers to a breach of warranty as applicable. Custom made goods will conform to the laws of contractual sale like any other. There has to be an offer, and acceptance of the goods. There are many, many cases in contract law on custom made goods and custom orders that were disputed and one party subsequently sued to enforce their rights, a 4 line paragraph in the sale of goods Act is not going to cover all these scenarios. If you order custom goods and they are not up to spec you're totally entitled to reject the goods as not being what was ordered. The case law will allow you to do this if the breach is a breach of condition, i.e something that goes to the heart of the contract and not a mere breach of warranty. The sale of goods act does NOT legislate this distinction. It merely points out that once the goods have been accepted by the buyer then any subsequent dispute is a breach of warranty and not a breach of condition. In the second the contract is void, in the first it is not, unless of course it is a breach of a written contractual term. The logic behind this is that once the seller has discharged his obligations and the seller has accepted the goods without dispute the seller is allowed to rely on this and should not be put in a position the he will have to have his goods rejected and have to go to the expense of going to collect them. This is why in most places that deal with invoices I've advised that if the person that accepts the goods does not have time to check the delivery they should write "unchecked" on the invoice with their signature so they have an option should the delivery not be what was ordered to go back to the deliveror.

When condition to be treated as warranty.

11.—(1) Where a contract of sale is subject to any condition to be fulfilled by the seller, the buyer may waive the condition, or may elect to treat the breach of such condition as a breach of warranty, and not as a ground for treating the contract as repudiated.

(2) Whether a stipulation in a contract of sale is a condition, the breach of which may give rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated, or a warranty, the breach of which may give rise to a claim for damages but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated, depends in each case on the construction of the contract. A stipulation may be a condition, though called a warranty in the contract.

(3) Where a contract of sale is not severable, and the buyer has accepted the goods, or part thereof, the breach of any condition to be fulfilled by the seller can only be treated as a breach of warranty, and not as a ground for rejecting the goods and treating the contract as repudiated, unless there be a term of the contract, express or implied, to that effect.

(4) Nothing in this section shall affect the case of any condition or warranty, fulfilment of which is excused by law by reason of impossibility or otherwise.

You have repeated what I said - read my last post again. After acceptance of a non-severable contract, subsequent breaches of conditions are to be taken as breaches of warranty. Custom goods (or those that cannot be reclaimed) are non-severable once they have been accepted. Non-custom goods sale contracts can be rescinded if there is a breach of condition. I don't see your point.

You speak of contract law as if consumers generally write up a commercial contract for each transaction they are involved in. Commercial contracts are generally completely different to general consumer contracts that rely solely on the sale of goods act for nearly all, if not usually all, their terms since they generally have many terms regarding breaches of contract or non-performance.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

You seem to have a bit of a foot fetish with all these shoes
I cannot remember for the life of me where I picked it up but I know there is an implied warranty on shoes for 6 months normal use, i.e they should not fall apart for 6 months. I seem to remember a table with different goods and their average life usage but it was a few years ago, someone with more ingenuity than I might be able to dig it out, also you seem to be trying to overturn 20 years of standard commercial reality. The law is pretty easy straightforward. I posted the sections, explained them and you still seem to have some difficulty accepting them. Can I ask why?

Is this directed at me? What have I difficulty accepting?

Any such table, if exists, is merely a guideline and in no way affects consumer law since description, price and any other circumstances are what are taken into account when deciding whether something is not of merchantable quality - not some table. I very much doubt there is any law specifically about how long a pair of shoes should last.

Sam Vimes, you can fight for and get a refund through the courts if any of the implied conditions of the sale of goods act are breached since a breach of condition is a breach of contract which can result in a rescission of the contract. Of course that does not mean shops are going to say "oh yeah, here ya go". The cause of the fault etc can be contested by the seller in court of course.

Mr. Incognito, the law is not black and white especially when it comes to consumer law. It depends on a number of factors as to what someone is entitled to as a remedy for a breach since it has to be first determined whether the breach was a breach of condition. You can rescind a contract for more than just not of merchantable quality (e.g. not as described or when the seller, when seen as an expert, sells you goods that cannot do what you told the seller what you wanted it for).

foggy_lad

(3) Where a contract of sale is not severable, and the buyer has accepted the goods, or part thereof, the breach of any condition to be fulfilled by the seller can only be treated as a breach of warranty, and not as a ground for rejecting the goods and treating the contract as repudiated, unless there be a term of the contract, express or implied, to that effect.

i would read this as referrring to certain goods or services such as fresh cut flowers or other perishable goods and services such as ear piercing etc where the goods or services cannot realistically be returned in the event of the contract being repudiated, custom made goods would not fall into this category, but i could be wrong

FX Meister

Nody wrote: »

And he could then have said no leaving you only with the choice of going to SCC over it (and waiting another 3+ months for your money) if you don't accept it.

He could have but he knew he was in the wrong and that he was a cock.

Nody

FX Meister wrote: »

He could have but he knew he was in the wrong and that he was a cock.

And that would still not have changed the fact you'd have to wait 3+ months for the SCC case to go through before you got your money.

Sam Vimes

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I think a good that breaks after three months is not

"of merchantable quality"
"fit for the purpose intended"

but of course this depends on the good. Single use razors for example wouldn't qualify.

That's not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether or not going faulty after 3 months is automatic grounds to cancel the contract and get your money back

For one thing it doesn't seem fair to the retailer. Take the example of a phone where a fault in the firmware is discovered. New firmware is released and the retailer could take the phone for 5 minutes and fix the fault by upgrading the firmware leaving everyone happy but you're saying the law doesn't allow him to do that. He has to take them all back leaving him with thousands of second hand phones that he can't sell again even though there's nothing wrong with them. If that is the law, the law needs updating

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Look, I don't intend entering the nuances of every single applicable transaction and example. Quite frankly it's boring me now. That's the law. It's black and white, if you can post a link refuting that feel free. If you want to sit in the ivory tower of ignorance with the me and my mates don't think so it can't be "na na", and damn the "I know my rights brigade". I've explained it quite clearly. If you don't get it, frankly that's due to your misunderstanding. I've been patient enough but it's hard to explain something to someone with their fingers in their ears.

You believe whatever helps you sleep at night. When I get into a dispute, me and the law will march boldly on.

You haven't explained anything. You've posted an act i already knew and gave an interpretation of it that doesn't seem to fit with what you posted and when i asked for clarification you just kept posting your interpretation over and over again in more condescending ways without explaining the part i keep asking you to explain

Absolam

I would address the posts rather than the posters but this thread seems to have turned into a battle of the personalities so;

Axer - excellent posts, it's a breath of fresh air to see consumer legislation issues laid out so thoughtfully; could you be persuaded to take on Dermot Jewells job I wonder? We'd be better off!

Sam - you'd do well to take the advice of Mr Incognitos sig. It's obviously a warning to those who wish to argue with him.

Mr Incognito - without going into the nuances as you say, you're just wrong. Your interpretation of what you've read may be black and white, but the evidence of experience of interpretation of consumer law in the shops, and in the small claims court, is against your interpretation.

Mr. Incognito

you're just wrong. Your interpretation of what you've read may be black and white, but the evidence of experience of interpretation of consumer law in the shops, and in the small claims court, is against your interpretation.

Anyother warrior of the world who thinks their blinkered view of real life usurps the law- spent much time in the small claims courts have you?

Who's evidence of experience? -Yours? Perhaps you should call me worng and then put FACT at the end of it. That seems to do the trick.

Here's some light reading for you and Sam,

http://www.consumerassociation.ie/rights_knowrights.html

You do not have to take a credit note if your complaint is covered by the Sale of Goods Act. You can insist on a refund, a replacement or a repair.

If you have a genuine complaint about faulty goods, you can ignore shop notices such as 'No Refunds' or 'No Exchanges'. Such notices cannot take away any of your statutory rights under the Sale of Goods Act see Retailers' responses.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/consumer-affairs/consumer-protection/consumer-rights/consumers_and_the_law_in_ireland

Under the EU Directive on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (1999/44/EC), which was passed into law in January 2003 (S.I. 11 of 2003) in Ireland, all consumers purchasing goods have a right to a minimum guarantee of two years on products. The seller is liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists when the goods are delivered to the consumer and which becomes apparent within the period of 2 years. The consumer is entitled to ask that the goods be repaired or replaced free of charge.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2005/10/02/story8422.asp

Refunds

Perhaps the most pertinent part of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act is the entitlement to a full or partial refund, repair or replacement if a consumer buys faulty goods or services.

If you discover a defect shortly after you buy the good or service, you can insist on a full refund as long as you take action quickly.

However, if the goods have been used for some time, there is reason to believe that the goods have been accepted, or there is a long delay in making the complaint, you might only be entitled to a repair or a partial refund.

http://www.nca.ie/eng/Business_Zone/Guides/Full%20List/Sale%20of%20Goods.html

If you offer a credit note or voucher instead, the consumer has the right to refuse and to ask for a refund instead.

Mr. Incognito

You know what I've just realised, it's easy to know what you are against but another to know what you are for.

Sam,

Take the example of a phone where a fault in the firmware is discovered. New firmware is released and the retailer could take the phone for 5 minutes and fix the fault by upgrading the firmware leaving everyone happy but you're saying the law doesn't allow him to do that. He has to take them all back leaving him with thousands of second hand phones that he can't sell again even though there's nothing wrong with them. If that is the law, the law needs updating

You're pretty slow on this. This qualifies as a breech of warranty after the good have been accepted. Take two asprins, re-read the thread and call me in the morning.

Sam Vimes

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

You know what I've just realised, it's easy to know what you are against but another to know what you are for.

Sam,



You're pretty slow on this. This qualifies as a breech of warranty after the good have been accepted. Take two asprins, re-read the thread and call me in the morning.

oh.my.****ing.god. i've spent the entire thread trying to tell you that such things are treated as breaches of warranty after the good have been accepted, not grounds for cancelling the contract and you kept telling me i was wrong, that the warranty referred to was for things such as delivering it late. you simply said faulty product=refund, always

edit:see post 27, where i said that
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58461996&postcount=27

Mr. Incognito

Edit: Incorrect post corrected.

Sam Vimes

edit: problem solved

Mr. Incognito

The point I made still stands. Where the sale is non severable, i.e where the Sale of Goods Act does not apply to cancel the contract then subsequent breeches are breech of warranty not condition.

This is the point made in the next post and them point I am still making. Are we in agreement on this?

Sam Vimes

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The point I made still stands. Where the sale is non severable, i.e where the Sale of Goods Act does not apply to cancel the contract then subsequent breeches are breech of warranty not condition.

This is the point made in the next post and them point I am still making. Are we in agreement on this?

i think we might be getting some crossed wires here.

i'm not sure if we're in agreement because there seems to be different definitions of "non-serverable" going around. what exactly are you saying it means, ie what makes a sale non-serverable?

Mr. Incognito

That's the issue I was raising with Axer. I had never heard of custom goods called "non-severable goods"

Anyway, a severable contract is one that can be cancelled. We already know that grounds that a contract can be cancelled under the SoG Act.

If these grounds are broken then the SOG Act applies and you are entitled to your refund.

As I pointed out that paragraph you highlighted points to issues where the SOG Act does not apply to break the contract and then there is subsequently a breech of warranty

non severable is a double negative. if might be better phrased "In the case of a valid contract"

Here is the paragraph where I alread explained this;

You're reading this wrong. You'll note that it says, "where the contract of sale is not severable". We've already learned that the contract is invalid under the terms listed above so this is not applicable when the goods are faulty. What this relates to is where there is a breach of warranty. This is contract law again. A warranty is a condition of the contract that does not automatically cancel the contract. An example might be that the shop may offer to deliver the goods within three days. You may not be able to cancel the contract for sale if the goods turn up on day four unless such a term is written into the contract as grounds for termination.

Sam Vimes

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

That's the issue I was raising with Axer. I had never heard of custom goods called "non-severable goods"

Anyway, a severable contract is one that can be cancelled. We already know that grounds that a contract can be cancelled under the SoG Act.

If these grounds are broken then the SOG Act applies and you are entitled to your refund.

As I pointed out that paragraph you highlighted points to issues where the SOG Act does not apply to break the contract and then there is subsequently a breech of warranty

non severable is a double negative. if might be better phrased "In the case of a valid contract"

Here is the paragraph where I alread explained this;

right so the non-serverable part has been cleared up but there are still some issues.

here you said that if a product is faulty, the contract is cancelled and you can get your money back on those grounds. but here you said that a faulty phone is treated as a breach of warranty, which i understand to mean the contract is not cancelled and the retailer has a right to upgrade the firmware to solve the problem. you also called me slow but thats neither here nor there. those two posts seem contradictory to me

FX Meister

Nody wrote: »

And that would still not have changed the fact you'd have to wait 3+ months for the SCC case to go through before you got your money.

Boring!!! He didn't do that though, and as a direct result of him being a dick he lost quite a lot of custom to his shop.

Mr. Incognito

Sam, You ARE slow. I'm explaining the same issues over and over.

A breech of a condition, i.e a fundamental part of the contract which includes of the Sale of Goods Act negates the contract and you are entitled to your refund.

A breech of warrantly which is a minor breech and you are entitled to remedies that which may or may not add up to a refund. In this instances a repair may be applicable.

A vendor cannot insist on a repair for a breech of condition or Sale of Goods Acts.

BOTH your links have me trying to explain the difference to you. Unsucessfully it seems. There is no contradiction in them, only in you.

Sam Vimes

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Sam, You ARE slow. I'm explaining the same issues over and over.

A breech of a condition, i.e a fundamental part of the contract which includes of the Sale of Goods Act negates the contract and you are entitled to your refund.

A breech of warrantly which is a minor breech and you are entitled to remedies that which may or may not add up to a refund. In this instances a repair may be applicable.

A vendor cannot insist on a repair for a breech of condition or Sale of Goods Acts.

BOTH your links have me trying to explain the difference to you. Unsucessfully it seems. There is no contradiction in them, only in you.

right, so what i've been saying throughout the thread and what i've always believed is correct and you are not automatically entitled to have the contract cancelled and get your money back when a product is faulty because depending on the fault it might be treated as a breach of warranty. there doesn't seem to be any dispute here

Nody

Incog. the problem is, how do you define what is major or minor with out going to a court? We have a easy case of major here, an oven that never worked properly; we have an easy case of minor in the phone firmware example where the phone has been in the possession of the user for noticeable time.

But the question is the definition in between those, how do you define a major claim where the item has been accepted (i.e. the customer has picked up item X, gone to check out, paid for it and brought it home) BUT something goes wrong (it has worked but some where down the line something happens with it). The customer now stands in the store demanding his rights saying I want a cash back because of Y and the store says, nope sorry pal this is breach of warranty and we'll fix it for you.

Sam Vimes

btw, i said in post #27 that i my understanding of the quoted text was that once the goods are accepted, problems (by which i meant going faulty) are treated as breach of warranty.

you then said that i was reading it wrong, that the text didn't apply if the goods were faulty and actually applied to "breaches of warranty" things such as delivering it late.

now in post #83, you yet again call me slow and then say:

A breech of warrantly which is a minor breech and you are entitled to remedies that which may or may not add up to a refund. In this instances a repair may be applicable.

so in post #28 you say that going faulty is not a breach of warranty and in post #83 you say it is. this is quite confusing to me

Mr. Incognito

Look, I'll make it very simple.

A breech that is a breech of condition is a serious breech which is legislated for by, wait for it- The Sale of Goods Act (who knew). If you break any of the guarantees, which we've only gone over twenty times already, merchantable quality etc. This is a breech of condition and we're into the realms of a refund.

If the breech is a minor one which does not fall under the headings of the sale of goods act breeches then this is a breech of warranty.

But the question is the definition in between those, how do you define a major claim where the item has been accepted (i.e. the customer has picked up item X, gone to check out, paid for it and brought it home) BUT something goes wrong (it has worked but some where down the line something happens with it). The customer now stands in the store demanding his rights saying I want a cash back because of Y and the store says, nope sorry pal this is breach of warranty and we'll fix it for you.

You'd have to look at the facts and it depends on the good. A rolex that breaks after two months- well you'd expect a refund. A casio, perhaps not, but there will always be questions of interpretation.

btw, i said in post #27 that i my understanding of the quoted text was that once the goods are accepted, problems (by which i meant going faulty) are treated as breach of warranty.

you then said that i was reading it wrong, that the text didn't apply if the goods were faulty and actually applied to "breaches of warranty" things such as delivering it late.

Sam, post 27 was answered in post 28, and again, and again five posts ago.

Here's the important bit, try and read it aloud this time.
You'll note that it says, "where the contract of sale is not severable"

This is taken directly from the sale of goods act. If the contract is valid, it's a breech of warranty. If the contract is invalid, it's a breech of condition. Conversly, it's a breech of condition that invalidates the contract.

Just try and get this into your head and ignore everything else. "If the good breaks the terms of the Sales of Goods act I'm entitled to cancel the contract and get a refund, if the good does not break the terms of the sales of goods act and there is a minor fault I may be entitled to a refund or a repair"

You are trying to dream of a position where a good is accepted, has a major fault and is then a breech of warranty. Stop. It only exists in your head. A major breech is always going to be a breech of condition that goes to the heart of the contract.

Sam, I really cannot believe the amount of explainations this has taken. My 4 year old son would grasp this quicker.

Sam Vimes

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Look, I'll make it very simple.

A breech that is a breech of condition is a serious breech which is legislated for by, wait for it- The Sale of Goods Act (who knew). If you break any of the guarantees, which we've only gone over twenty times already, merchantable quality etc. This is a breech of condition and we're into the realms of a refund.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

If the breech is a minor one which does not fall under the headings of the sale of goods act breeches then this is a breech of warranty.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Sam, post 27 was answered in post 28, and again, and again five posts ago.

Here's the important bit, try and read it aloud this time.
You'll note that it says, "where the contract of sale is not severable"

This is taken directly from the sale of goods act. If the contract is valid, it's a breech of warranty. If the contract is invalid, it's a breech of condition. Conversly, it's a breech of condition that invalidates the contract.

i know all the above. the question was whether something going faulty was a breach of warranty or a breach of condition. you originally said it was a breach of condition, then later on said that it depends on the good and the fault, which is what i always believed to be the case

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

You'd have to look at the facts and it depends on the good. A rolex that breaks after two months- well you'd expect a refund. A casio, perhaps not, but there will always be questions of interpretation.

that's not what you originally said. you simply said faulty=refund

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Just try and get this into your head and ignore everything else. "If the good breaks the terms of the Sales of Goods act I'm entitled to cancel the contract and get a refund, if the good does not break the terms of the sales of goods act and there is a minor fault I may be entitled to a refund or a repair"

and that's what i always believed. you originally made no distinction between minor and major faults. you simply said faulty=refund

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

You are trying to dream of a position where a good is accepted, has a major fault and is then a breech of warranty. Stop. It only exists in your head. A major breech is always going to be a breech of condition that goes to the heart of the contract.

no i'm not dreaming of anything. i just said that a fault does not automatically entitle you to a refund which is correct, it depends on the fault. and again you only made a distinction between minor and major faults very late on in the thread.

i asked you if you buy something, it goes faulty 3 months later and the retailer insists on a repair, what do you do. you said to take it to the small claims court. i asked if you would definitely win and you said:
"What do you think? If you think a judge is going to overturn 20 years of standard commercial law take it to conspiracies my friend."

so i asked you if a judge would ever rule that you weren't entitled to a full refund for a faulty good and you called me a conspiracy nut.

so is it that i'm slow or is it that you changed your story?


edit:just for clarity, here's the part where you said that a contract is invalid is a good is faulty (not that it has a major fault, just that it is faulty) and the part relating to breach of warranty does not apply:

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

You're reading this wrong. You'll note that it says, "where the contract of sale is not severable". We've already learned that the contract is invalid under the terms listed above so this is not applicable when the goods are faulty. What this relates to is where there is a breach of warranty.

Mr. Incognito

Here's the important bit, try and read it aloud this time.
You'll note that it says, "where the contract of sale is not severable"

Sam, reread the last thing you have quoted for me again.

Here's three times, click your heels.

Here's the important bit, try and read it aloud this time.
You'll note that it says, "where the contract of sale is not severable"

Here's the important bit, try and read it aloud this time.
You'll note that it says, "where the contract of sale is not severable"

Here's the important bit, try and read it aloud this time.
You'll note that it says, "where the contract of sale is not severable"


Why can you not grasp this simple concept.

The point I made still stands. Where the sale is non severable, i.e where the Sale of Goods Act does not apply to cancel the contract then subsequent breeches are breech of warranty not condition.

This is the same point I have ALWAYS made. I think it might just be wasted on you.

no i'm not dreaming of anything. i just said that a fault does not automatically entitle you to a refund which is correct, it depends on the fault. and again you only made a distinction between minor and major faults very late on in the thread.

For the last time and then I write you off as a troll. A fault which breaks the sale of goods act entitles you to a refund. End of. The distinction between minor and major was made after you posted your incorrect interpretation of the section which deals with subsuquent breeches of warranty where the SOG Act is NOT broken. Repeat. NOT broken, repeat NOT broken.

Sam Vimes

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Sam, reread the last thing you have quoted for me again.

Here's three times, click your heels.

Here's the important bit, try and read it aloud this time.
You'll note that it says, "where the contract of sale is not severable"

Here's the important bit, try and read it aloud this time.
You'll note that it says, "where the contract of sale is not severable"

Here's the important bit, try and read it aloud this time.
You'll note that it says, "where the contract of sale is not severable"


Why can you not grasp this simple concept.



This is the same point I have ALWAYS made. I think it might just be wasted on you.




For the last time and then I write you off as a troll. A fault which breaks the sale of goods act entitles you to a refund. End of. The distinction between minor and major was made after you posted your incorrect interpretation of the section which deals with subsuquent breeches of warranty where the SOG Act is NOT broken. Repeat. NOT broken, repeat NOT broken.

and to you for the last time, you did not originally say "A fault which breaks the sale of goods act entitles you to a refund". i know that. i never contested that. what was contested was whether or not every single fault broke the sale of goods act. you originally made no distinction between the type of fault, you simply said that a fault makes the contract invalid, which is not true. possibly in your mind you were only considering major faults and not minor ones such as upgradeable firmware but that's not what you said


look, just explain this one thing to me please which was in my previous post but not addressed:

1. i asked what would happen if a product stopped working after three months and the retailer insisted on a repair
2. you said you should take them to the small claims court
3. i asked if you would definitely win (ie get your refund)
4. you called me a conspiracy nut for suggesting that a judge might side with the retailer and say that a repair was reasonable

i didn't say what type of product it was or what type of fault it was, whether it was a major fault that broke the sale of goods act or a minor fault that might be counted as a breach of warranty as you suggest here:

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

A breech of warrantly which is a minor breech and you are entitled to remedies that which may or may not add up to a refund. In this instances a repair may be applicable.

since i gave no idea of the nature of the fault, how could you be so absolutely sure that the sale of goods act had been broken?

noodler

If something is faulty then Refund can be demanded over an exchange/repair.

That has always been mu understanding from business studies in school to 3 years working in retail.