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

the culture of deference

wyndham wrote: »

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.

I hadn't thought of that either.

I just cannot understand it. But reading the thread about bord gais tickets made me think why keep the receipt?

Thanks all for your comments.

uberalles

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Don't do this!

The warranty is not transferable. If you say that you are not the original owner, the warranty is invalid.

So it appears I was correct on this thread and you were wrong
The warranty is transferable. People buy and sell laptops while in warranty and Dell etc transfer ownership. You usually have to know the name it was last in - thats it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82862562&postcount=6

fasttalkerchat

uberalles wrote: »

So it appears I was correct on this thread and you were wrong
The warranty is transferable. People buy and sell laptops while in warranty and Dell etc transfer ownership. You usually have to know the name it was last in - thats it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82862562&postcount=6

I haven't ben following the thread. Some manufacturers will transfer a warranty. I have the document from my phone here that says it isn't transferable.
The OP needs to check before declaring himself as a new owner.

Sorry if I missed any thing since I last posted.

Procrastastudy

uberalles wrote: »

So it appears I was correct on this thread and you were wrong
The warranty is transferable. People buy and sell laptops while in warranty and Dell etc transfer ownership. You usually have to know the name it was last in - thats it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82862562&postcount=6

Careful - the legal guarantee is transferable. This is much more limited than a servicing agreement or your statutory rights. The manufacturer is entitled to give you a year and charge you carriage etc. That's not to say something like a service agreement can't be transferred by mutual agreement.

Scotty #

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I haven't ben following the thread. Some manufacturers will transfer a warranty. I have the document from my phone here that says it isn't transferable.

If you read to the end of that document it will almost certainly say something like "This does not effect your statutory rights." Manufacturers and retails can claim whatever they like on their terms & conditions but the law takes precedence and under the law (as quoted above) guarantees and warranty is transferred for the duration. This does not include 'extended warranty'. Extended warranty is a separate purchase to the product you are buying and is more of an insurance policy than a guarantee. Though having said that, extended warranty is often transferable also. Also, it's worth nothing that under the consumer act, a product must be 'fit for purpose'. In other words if you buy a €1500 TV set with 12 months manufacturers warranty and it fries after 14 months you could claim that the life expectancy of the TV should exceed 14 months and be entitled to compensation. The Consumer Association is a great help in these matters. Their website is here.... http://thecai.ie/. Some of the Podcasts on their are really good and a worthwhile listen. It's also worth pointing out that a product may have more than one warranty and these warranties may have different durations. For example, I sell industrial freezers with a general warranty of 2 years but a 5 year warranty on the compressor.

the culture of deference wrote: »

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

Hi OP, I can assure you of one thing. Criminals, while fencing stolen property, do not bring along their passport. Never!! NEVER!!! NEVER!!!! You've also had Adverts.ie verify the receipt. You have absolutely done enough and have absolutely covered yourself. Short of visiting the shop on the label and asking to see the CCTV of the purchase taking place I don't know what else you could have done.

A "bona fide" (Latin for "in good faith") purchaser is a purchaser who buys a product/property/etc at a reasonable price believing the product to be owned by the seller (ie. not a bank, co-owner, wife, parent, victim of crime). An 'innocent party' if you like. You satisfy these conditions and are therefore a BFP.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Well you'd be wrong. ... 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.

SOGA and BFP have absolutely no relationship whatsoever! None! You have insisted several times that the OP is not BFP but despite several requests you have failed to explain why, only that you are "a bit hazy" on the subject and "probably wrong".

Procrastastudy wrote: »

you can be done for handling stolen goods on recklessness alone.

This is a ludicrous comment and quite frankly, I think you are just trolling now.

My first, and likely last, visit to the consumers affairs forum and I'm finding it hard to believe the amount of misleading and totally inaccurate information being given out.

Procrastastudy

Scotty # wrote: »

SOGA and BFP have absolutely no relationship whatsoever! None! You have insisted several times that the OP is not BFP but despite several requests you have failed to explain why, only that you are "a bit hazy" on the subject and "probably wrong".

You need to read s21 onwards of the SOGA 1893. I qualify my remarks when unsure and am willing to admit being wrong. Please keep quoting them with the :rolleyes: emoticon - it's only making proving you wrong more fun! Section 21 has already been linked here's the rest for you to have a look at.

Scotty # wrote: »

This is a ludicrous comment and quite frankly, I think you are just trolling now.

17.—(1) A person is guilty of handling stolen property if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) he or she, knowing that the property was stolen or being reckless as to whether it was stolen,

Scotty # wrote: »

My first, and likely last, visit to the consumers affairs forum and I'm finding it hard to believe the amount of misleading and totally inaccurate information being given out.

You're giving out a fair bit of it. As stated before none of us are experts. I don't really understand why you're getting so worked up - we're all jst trying to help out the OP and educate ourselves at the same time.

Scotty #

Procrastastudy wrote: »

17.—(1) A person is guilty of handling stolen property if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) he or she, knowing that the property was stolen or being reckless as to whether it was stolen,

So verifying the sellers identity by passport and the receipt by Adverts.ie is being reckless? WOW!! By the way, until the tablet is deemed stolen (by way of proof - ever heard of that?) this clause is irrelevant and does not apply here.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

You need to read s21 onwards of the SOGA 1893. Unlike you I qualify my remarks when unsure and am willing to admit being wrong. Please keep quoting them with the :rolleyes: emoticon - it's only making proving you wrong over and over more fun!

Again, until the seller is deemed to not hold title s21 does not apply. AND, even if the seller does not hold title AND the tablet was indeed stolen - The OP would STILL be a BFP.

BFP and ownership have nothing to do with each other. BFP and the SOGA have nothing to do with each other.

I'm clearly talking to a brick wall.

Procrastastudy

Procrastastudy wrote: »

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.

Scotty # wrote: »

So verifying the sellers identity by passport and the receipt by Adverts.ie is being reckless? WOW!! By the way, until the tablet is deemed stolen (by way of proof - ever heard of that?) this clause is irrelevant and does not apply here.

Pretty clear from my comment that the OP was in the clear given the example. I notice you've dodged being wrong on the point though.

Scotty # wrote: »

Again, until the seller is deemed to not hold title s21 does not apply. AND, even if the seller does not hold title AND the tablet was indeed stolen - The OP would STILL be a BFP.

BFP and ownership have nothing to do with each other. BFP and the SOGA have nothing to do with each other.

Nice dodge but the challenge to title would come if the item was reported stolen and tracked down. You're not linking the two together or are refusing to; you can't be a BFP if the seller didn't have good title. EDIT: I think I see where the confusion is creeping in, I think you're taking the literal translation rather than the legal concept? Let's say for the sake of clarity - OP is not equity's darling.

Scotty # wrote: »

I'm clearly talking to a brick wall.

I know the feeling :rolleyes:

Scotty #

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Nice dodge but the challenge to title would come if the item was reported stolen and tracked down.

If, if , if.... lets try sticking to facts. There is no reason to suspect the item has been stolen and the OP has done everyting in their power to verify this.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

you can't be a BFP if the seller didn't have good title.

OMG! That's exactly when BFP needs to be established!! Procrastastudy, I'm sorry but you clearly have no understanding or experience of what a bona fide purchaser actually is in the eyes of the law or when it's called into question. In court, a BFP only comes into play where a person has innocently bought stolen property or property that wasn't owned by the seller (Usually outstanding finance in my many cases). Once a purchaser has been cleared of wrongdoing (ie. an innocent party) they are deemed a BFP.

I hope this makes it clearer for you.

dudara

Scotty # and Procrastastudy both infracted for continuing to argue with each other, despite being warned earlier.

dudara

Scotty #

Very harsh on both of us Dudora. We're merely debating the definition of a legal term (I'm right btw ). How boring boards.ie would be if everyone agreed on everything.

dudara

Scotty # wrote: »

We're merely debating the definition of a legal term (I'm right btw ).

Then go to the Legal Issues forum (as pointed out in a previous warning).

I issued two warnings - firstly to cease and desist from arguing and secondly, to stop delving into legal jargon and arguments. Neither warning was heeded. Hence the infraction. If you want to continue, take it to the DRP process.

SamAK

I'm just gonna wade in here and say good things about Microsoft - I bought a second hand Xbox Elite a couple of years back on E-Bay off some bloke up north, was about a year old at the time of purchase, had receipt too...

Anyway, after a few months, something went wrong with it (hardware issue I believe), and I rang Microsoft to see if I had a leg to stand on. Thought that with it not being registered and me not being the original owner that they'd tell me to bugger off....

But no! They were absolutely delighted to transfer the registration from yer man to me, didn't ask for any sort of proof of purchase, got it registered, warranty initialized and honoured, and got it fixed for free!



Gotta say, I've had quite a few Xboxes over the years, and had a few reasons to ring customer service..and every single time i've been pleasantly surprised as to how helpful they are.



So, if Microsoft would do that, why wouldn't Samsung?

dudara

Zombie thread - closed

dudara