Bought brand new samsung tab on adverts.ie seller wont hand over receipt

Scotty #

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

The warranty is not transferable.

Cabaal wrote: »

As it's a second hand item you will have no warranty on the item as you are NOT the purchaser

Cabaal wrote: »

Second hand is second hand, warranty's don't transfer over unless the manufacturer allows them to...most don't.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

The warranty is only with the original purchaser and retailer so you don't need to worry about that, you have no warranty.

While extended warranty or manufacturers specific warranty may be only with the original purchaser, under Irish law, the guarantee is transferable.

From citizensinformation.ie...
A guarantee or warranty on a product gives additional protection and this protection is extended to anyone who has possession of the goods during the lifetime of the guarantee.

A guarantee or warranty is a written statement given by the manufacturer or other company. The guarantee or warranty indicates that the manufacturer or other company will repair or replace an item within a set amount of time after it has been purchased. Guarantees are legally binding.

the culture of deference

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In almost all circumstances, a person can not give better title to property than he himself has. That means that if you buy something that has been stolen, you do not acquire good title. The principle is set down in lawerly Latin as "nemo dat quod non habet" - nobody can give that which he does not own.

If I buy a brand new product on adverts.ie, that has a receipt, and the mods have seen said receipt, and the mods know I have purchased it and the seller has confirmed that fact.

Am I the legal owner of the tab?

ceegee

the culture of deference wrote: »

If I buy a brand new product on adverts.ie, that has a receipt, and the mods have seen said receipt, and the mods know I have purchased it and the seller has confirmed that fact.

Am I the legal owner of the tab?

Not if the person who sold it to you had stolen it

P. Breathnach

Scotty # wrote: »

While extended warranty or manufacturers specific warranty may be only with the original purchaser, under Irish law, the guarantee is transferable.

From citizensinformation.ie...
A guarantee or warranty on a product gives additional protection and this protection is extended to anyone who has possession of the goods during the lifetime of the guarantee.

A guarantee or warranty is a written statement given by the manufacturer or other company. The guarantee or warranty indicates that the manufacturer or other company will repair or replace an item within a set amount of time after it has been purchased. Guarantees are legally binding.

That piece is remarkably unclear, and I would be slow to rely on it.

P. Breathnach

the culture of deference wrote: »

If I buy a brand new product on adverts.ie, that has a receipt, and the mods have seen said receipt, and the mods know I have purchased it and the seller has confirmed that fact.

Am I the legal owner of the tab?

As ceegee has said, you are not the owner if the person who sold it to you had stolen it.

It is quite imaginable that a person could steal an item and the receipt together: think how often people put the receipt into the same carrier bag as a newly-purchased item. Somebody who lifts the bag in a bus or in a coffee-shop or wherever ends up with the receipt.

Nevertheless, the receipt would be helpful if the ownership is ever disputed. It would, at least, clarify matters.

I think it is more useful if you have some good ID of the person who sold the item to you. If it emerges that it has been stolen, you know who to go after for compensation and, more important, the Gardaí know who to go after for prosecution.

Scotty #

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That piece is remarkably unclear, and I would be slow to rely on it.

Fair enough.

I'll quote directly from the SALE OF GOODS AND SUPPLY OF SERVICES ACT, 1980 under the GUARANTEES section...

19.—(1) The buyer of goods may maintain an action against a manufacturer or other supplier who fails to observe any of the terms of the guarantee as if that manufacturer or supplier had sold the goods to the buyer and had committed a breach of warranty, and the court may order the manufacturer or supplier to take such action as may be necessary to observe the terms of the guarantee, or to pay damages to the buyer. In this subsection, “buyer” includes all persons who acquire title to the goods within the duration of the guarantee and, where goods are imported, “manufacturer” includes the importer.

It's crystal clear. Guarantees and warranties do transfer to new owners for the duration of the guarentee/warranty.

You can read the whole act here... http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1980/en/act/pub/0016/

Scotty #

the culture of deference wrote: »

Am I the legal owner of the tab?

You bought the product in good faith. Unless you believe the product to be stolen or until someone challenges you regarding ownership, yes, until someone proves otherwise you are the legal owner.

slimjimmc

Samsung's own statement on warranties.

Your SAMSUNG warranty

Samsung products carry a full warranty for the period specified. Some Samsung products carry different warranty periods due to the nature of the product's design, manufacture or expected use.

The warranty applies from the date of purchase by the first customer and is transferable only between end-users.

This warranty does not affect your statutory rights as a consumer in any way.

So, it seems under Samsung's terms the warranty is transferrable to the OP and he can initiate a warranty claim directly. However if he returned it to a third party, e.g. shop or repair centre to be fixed then the shop/repair centre can't initiate a warranty claim to cover repairs because they are not end users.

P. Breathnach

Scotty # wrote: »

You bought the product in good faith. Unless you believe the product to be stolen or until someone challenges you regarding ownership, yes, until someone proves otherwise you are the legal owner.

Unless what you acquire is (a) a negotiable instrument, or (b) purchased in a "market ouvert", then you can not acquire better title than the seller had. Outside those very limited exceptions, if you buy a stolen item you do not become the legal owner.

Good faith does not come into it. Waiting to be challenged does not come into it as a matter of law (although as a practical matter, if your possession is unchallenged you can act as if you are the legal owner).

dudara

culture of deference and other posters - If you want to discuss the Adverts mods' actions, then take it to the Feedback or Adverts forum. This is not the place for that discussion.

dudara

Scotty #

P. Breathnach wrote: »

... if you buy a stolen item you do not become the legal owner.

..if your possession is unchallenged you can act as if you are the legal owner

What constitutes 'legal ownership' of the tablet? There is no registrar, no certificate of ownership, no changing of deeds, passing of printed title. I don't know the answer but I presume possession has an awful lot to do with it. Lets just say we know the tablet not to be stolen. Does legal ownership pass then? Yes? Why?

So let's say we presume the tablet not to be stolen. Unless the OP believes or knows otherwise, they should also presume legal ownership. Right?

P. Breathnach

Scotty # wrote: »

What constitutes 'legal ownership' of the tablet? There is no registrar, no certificate of ownership, no changing of deeds, passing of printed title. I don't know the answer but I presume possession has an awful lot to do with it.

That's too big and complex a question for my limited expertise. But possession does not amount to much in proving ownership.

Lets just say we know the tablet not to be stolen. Does legal ownership pass then? Yes? Why?

Because the person purporting to pass on the ownership actually has the right to pass it on.

So let's say we presume the tablet not to be stolen. Unless the OP believes or knows otherwise, they should also presume legal ownership. Right?

Pretty well, subject to reasonableness: if you bought an item at a knock-down price in cash from a stranger in a pub, then it you are unlikely to be believed if you argued that it never crossed your mind that it might be stolen goods. But in less dodgy circumstances, you are sensible to presume that the seller had good title. That's what I meant when I said "as a practical matter, if your possession is unchallenged you can act as if you are the legal owner". But if the presumption turns out to be ill-founded, that's a game-changer. If you buy something in good faith and it is then discovered to have been stolen, you are obliged to return it to its rightful owner.

Scotty #

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's too big and complex a question for my limited expertise. But possession does not amount to much in proving ownership.

Of course it does. How many items in your home do you have proof of ownership for? What makes you the owner of these items and not me? POSSESSION! I've seen the limit of your expertise with the issue of transfer of warranty.

OP, as long as you believe the person you bought the tablet from to be the owner or until someone else claims ownership, you are the new owner. Legal or otherwise!

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Pretty well, subject to reasonableness:

That would be a YES then. :rolleyes:

Procrastastudy

Scotty # wrote: »

Of course it does. How many items in your home do you have proof of ownership for? What makes you the owner of these items and not me? POSSESSION! I've seen the limit of your expertise with the issue of transfer of warranty.

OP, as long as you believe the person you bought the tablet from to be the owner or until someone else claims ownership, you are the new owner. Legal or otherwise!

That would be a YES then. :rolleyes:

WOW a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You've managed correct some of us on a point and now you're Gods gift? Magnanimous - perhaps add that word to you vocabulary.

The legal owner would be the person who bought it in the first place. The only time this doesn't apply is equity's darling that doesn't apply to stolen goods like this (TY RangeR & P. Breathnach for putting me right). Furthermore the OP by their actions could be found to be on notice even if it did apply.

KwackerJack

He will most likely claim off the insurance for a new one and still have spare cash!!

Scotty #

Procrastastudy wrote: »

The only time this doesn't apply is equity's darling that doesn't apply to stolen goods like this (TY RangeR & P. Breathnach for putting me right).

Like this? You know this tablet to be stolen? I don't, so in my opinion, from what's been said in the thread, the buyer is a BFP.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

You've managed correct some of us on a point and now you're Gods gift?

Don't know what you are trying to get at here. Yourself and others have given inaccurate and misleading information to the OP. This is worse than not giving any information at all. I'll bow out of this thread before I ruffle anyone else's feathers.

Procrastastudy

Scotty # wrote: »

Like this? You know this tablet to be stolen? I don't, so in my opinion, from what's been said in the thread, the buyer is a BFP.

BFP doesn't, as far as I know apply here. This was discussed further up. I'm happy to be corrected, however a civil manner wouldn't go amiss. Especially as you yourself have given incorrect information.

Scotty # wrote: »

Don't know what you are trying to get at here. Yourself and others have given inaccurate and misleading information to the OP. This is worse than not giving any information at all. I'll bow out of this thread before I ruffle anyone else's feathers.

Well I did assume it was just a lack of interpersonal skills rather than you actively trying to be rude.

Scotty #

WOW!! Now I'm being uncivil and rude?? At no time have I been either, you will be under no doubt when I have. As a matter of fact it was you who accused me of thinking I'm "God's gift" after I corrected you.

I have not given misinformation. The OP has made an honest purchase without notice from whom they believe to be the owner of the device (which Adverts has verified) thus obtaining good title. This makes them BFP. FACT! (Why do you find this so hard to accept?? (Rhetorical - I don't actually care))

I have no idea what you do for a living but I sincerely hope it has nothing to do with giving legal advice or law in general! (That's maybe rude... but not uncivil )

Good day!

dudara

Posters - take a break from attacking each other. Continue and I will issue infractions.

dudara

P. Breathnach

Scotty # wrote: »

... The OP has made an honest purchase without notice from whom they believe to be the owner of the device (which Adverts has verified) thus obtaining good title...

You do not acquire good title simply on the basis of a purchase in good faith.

Procrastastudy

Specifically dealing with the issues then.

BFP doesn't apply due to the issues surrounding the sale. Sorry to give you duff info on the guarantee OP, warranty is something slightly different but to be fair that is being pedantic. Glad I could set you right on the ownership issue.

Good Morrow!

Procrastastudy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You do not acquire good title simply on the basis of a purchase in good faith.

Actually, now having read up on it some more I'm going back to my original position of yes you can. That said the issues surrounding the sale mean that the OP can not avail of bona fide purchaser for value without notice (BFP) because, arguably, he's aware something fishy is going on or he wouldn't have contacted the mods/chased the receipt. I'm assuming probably wrongly that the SOGA 1893 doesnt apply to this sort of private sale as section 21 would mean that your position is correct.

Finally I'm a bit hazy over whether BFP applies to claims over the legal owner or beneficial owner.

All of the above shouldn't leave you in any confusion though OP. If it's nicked you may lose it I'm afraid.

Scotty #

Procrastastudy wrote: »

BFP doesn't apply due to the issues surrounding the sale.

More specific please. What issues?

Procrastastudy

Scotty # wrote: »

More specific please. What issues?

BFP requires the OP to make all proper enquiries. He started off doing that, by insisting on the receipt, then decided no to follow through. Probably enough in itself, however the OP himself is saying he's unsure.

dudara

Posters - your discussion is getting very technical and is much more suited to the Legal Issues forum than here.

dudara

Scotty #

Procrastastudy wrote: »

BFP requires the OP to make all proper enquiries. He started off doing that, by insisting on the receipt, then decided no to follow through. Probably enough in itself, however the OP himself is saying he's unsure.

What the OP believes now is irrelevant. At the time of the purchase he believed the sale to be above board. Adverts.ie further clarified this. It is perfectly fair and reasonable for the OP to believe the sale was above board. But even if at a later date the tablet did turn out to be stolen the OP is still a bona fide purchaser. That's my final word on the subject, we're just going in circles now.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Sorry to give you duff info on the guarantee...
I'm going back to my original position...
I'm assuming probably wrongly...
Finally I'm a bit hazy over...

:rolleyes:

the culture of deference

Brennan Bald Hairpiece wrote: »

If the receipt was so important to the OP why did he/she hand over money for a tab without one?.

I agreed to meet the seller after asking many questions. When we met he had his passport as ID but said he couldn't find the receipt but he had it and he would send it on.

The Tab was sealed and brand new and he told me the shop it was purchased from as a gift, it also had the shop sticker on it with the details.

RangeR wrote: »

Worse than that, he sent a PHOTO of a PHOTOCOPY of SOME receipt. Did that receipt have the actual serial number of the tablet printed on it? If not, then a photo of a photocopy could be for a pile of ****e, as far as I'm concerned.

The mods requested it from him, but he still would not say why he couldn't send it on to me.

KwackerJack wrote: »

He will most likely claim off the insurance for a new one and still have spare cash!!

I had not thought of this .... does this happen?

Scotty # wrote: »

At the time of the purchase he believed the sale to be above board. Adverts.ie further clarified this. It is perfectly fair and reasonable for the OP to believe the sale was above board.

:rolleyes:

If it turns out to be stolen am I covered legally with the gardai?
Have I done enough?

P. Breathnach

the culture of deference wrote: »

...
If it turns out to be stolen am I covered legally with the gardai?
Have I done enough?

You should be all right on that score, as you seem to have made reasonable efforts to establish that the seller had the right to sell the good. You acted in good faith (bona fide).

Being a bona fide purchaser protects you from prosecution for being in possession of stolen goods. It does not mean that you are entitled to hold on to the goods should they prove to have been stolen.

Addendum: The relevant legislation is S23(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893, which still apples here:

21.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, where goods are sold by a person who
is not the owner thereof, and who does not sell them under the authority or with the
consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller
had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the
seller’s authority to sell.

Procrastastudy

Scotty # wrote: »

What the OP believes now is irrelevant. At the time of the purchase he believed the sale to be above board. Adverts.ie further clarified this. It is perfectly fair and reasonable for the OP to believe the sale was above board. But even if at a later date the tablet did turn out to be stolen the OP is still a bona fide purchaser. That's my final word on the subject, we're just going in circles now.

:rolleyes:

Well you'd be wrong. Just to point out though none of us are experts and we do our best to help each other out and correct each other. We tend not to have an attitude with each other (well Foggy and I do but that's different) but fair enough if you want to I'm not a mod so can't stop you. The God's gift comment was actually in relation to a rather sarcastic post made by you. However two wrongs and all that...

Many Thanks for the info re guarantees it will come is useful as we all muddle through. You need to look at BFP though it doesn't apply here for a number of reasons not least of which provisions in the SOGA.

EDIT: Yes you should be covered ref Gardai but you can be done for handling stolen goods on recklessness alone. So basically if someone sold you a brand new BMW for a tenner you could, potentially, be done.

wyndham

The seller possibly wants to claim the amount spent as a business expenditure, reclaiming the VAT/liberating cash from company, or reclaiming expenditure from employer. I can't see any other reason why they would want to retain the receipt, apart from possible insurance fraud.