Of course that is not his/my point
His point being that since i had accepted a frozen kipper i have no right to a full refund
but he's guessing - whereas i *know*
'because' it was sold as 'a hammer' (lied about) i would get a full refund
It defies common-sense, and consequently 'the law'
the law does not rewarded companies for lying about a product - hence 'trades description' will give you a full refund in cases where they do - even a tiny white lie
But was the kipper bought on HP or would the sauce be added later?
Sometimes, but relatively rarely. In by far the greater number of cases the acceptance window has been considered to be short. Where it has been extended it is usually related to numerous attempts at repair or complex repairs (Clegg - v - Olle Andersson in 2003 formalised the position of the rejection clock stopping while repairs are attempted).
In the case of simple equipment where inspection takes but a short time then the window of opportunity for rejection is also short.
What is clear is that an early life failure does not mean the right to rejection is automatically extended to that point because the failure proves the goods were not durable/of sufficient quality. Inspection is not intended to pick up latent defects and a buyer who rejects a reasonable offer for repair or replacement will have great difficulty in establishing any significant claim for damages.
Common sense and the law are frequently divergent.
Did you have your sense of the ridiculous removed before or after Alex's operation?
Has the Misrepresentation Act been repealed?
If it has not, then one might suppose that the misrepresentation about the contents of the box would be sufficiently gross as to strike at the root of the contract and, hence, the contract should not be repudiated but rescinded ab initio.
It is very difficult to match the head pattern on kipper hammers. Using asymmetric kippers causes the hammer to pull to one side. Everyone knows that which is why I didn't feel it worth mentioning.
So that's how left-handed hammers are made!
Fascinating!
Assume I did!
Assume absolutely anything you want that indicates the seller is lying (my life isn't long enough to carve out the obvious)
Now tell me 'accepting' it at face value invalidates a full refund
Never in a million years
Lies about the product are not rewarded in court - hence you are always entitled to a 'full' refund
They aren't any different, new sections notwithstanding.
However, if it was a consumer that had bought the frozen kipper* then they would have additional rights that are independent of the older 'acceptance' rules. The position would be unchanged as regards a B2B transaction.
The right to reject goods is lost once they have been 'accepted'.
We are not discussing the right to reject goods
because the word 'reject' implies 'choice', as in 'rejecting' it because it doesn't match my curtains, i don't want it anymore
That is the domain of distance selling laws/customer satisfaction (Argos 30 day money back) which i have already accused A. Heney of getting confused with
We are discussing something that fails to meet it's description (kipper not performing like the hammer it-claims-to-be) - in which case Trades Description award you a full refund in all cases without exception
Yes we are, because that is the only situation where you are automatically entitled to a full refund.
Not in terms of contracts for sale.
"Reject" has a specific meaning there, and can only be done if the goods are found to be not in accordance wit contract, prior to the point of acceptance.
It has nothing to do with changing your mind.
Wrongly, both then and now.
The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 does not cater AT ALL for civil remedies. It is an Act regarding criminal offences, and does not give the consumer any rights whatsoever.
As in the opposite of 'accept' - ha ha - i can see why 'you' might find that particular word significant - it also indicates how you made you mistake
However - Neither phrase is appropriate when discussing goods that are not performing as they 'claim' to
That is the domain of 'Trades Description', "not fit for purpose", 'Misrepresentation' - to which there is always a full refund
Likewise if goods are faulty - there is always a full refund
+refund of costs incurred
Whatever!
Not exactly, no.
I didn't make a mistake.
We are talking about the law here. It doesn't matter in the least what phrase or word you (or I) think "appropriate". It is what they man in the context of the law under discussion that matters, not what they may mean in normal English usage.
I presume you didn't bother to read the law then.
Now the words 'accept' and 'reject' have been used in the same paragraph - It's clear to see you are confused with the:
"if you open the pack (accept it) - we wont take it back" - which is a Company policy but not the law - well next time read a bit further on until you see:
"this does not affect your statutory rights" - this *is* the law
If an item is faulty - you get a full refund by law If an item is not as described - you get a full refund by law
I was involved in consumer law before you were born - nothing has changed in basic consumer rights
P.S. Despite being broadcast over two very popular newsgroup - i have seen no support for your theory - lotta chat - but no support
as i suspected :o)
You thick or something, Heney did you in spades, and I would have liked to have had ago at him, no f*ck off and be agood boy, idiot.
Ah! - Shit head alert
I noticed you spouted quite a lot of legal style jargon (like you was quoting) - an although i fell asleep half way down it was clearly bollocks and hence just your 'opinion'
I strongly suspected that the "LARGE number of people" Heney cited - is in fact:
YOU!
ptttttt!
So this is the origins of the 'acceptance' consumer laws - ha ha ha ha
I'll tell you the same as him - you are confused with the:
"if you open the pack (accept it) - we wont take it back" - which is a Company policy but not the law - well next time read a bit further on until you see:
"this does not affect your statutory rights" - this *is* the law
If an item is faulty - you get a full refund - by law If an item is not as described - you get a full refund - by law
I was doing this stuff when you was still shittin nappies
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.