Alex Heney S.O.G.A. 'acceptance' theory anyone????

You can't.

Killfiles are not possible with Google groups.

Now look, you might think it's funny, but this is a serious discussion. There is no precedent for determining the difference between a hammer & a frozen kipper & as such we are entering into unchartered legal waters.

So this is not the time or plaice for fishy puns. We really need to knock it on the head & nail this matter down.

Personally I think that introducing a pun will be seen as nothing more than a red herring - or possibly a brown & somewhat smoked herring.

IMO the rotten fish is not fit for porpoise, & the OP should file a clam & hammer it out at a full herring in front of a District Rudge.

"JethroUK" wrote

Really? That's very surprising -- all your posts seem to scream "spoilt teenager" !

Who says that opening the pack amounts to accepting the goods? Surely you can only accept *after* you've satisfied yourself that the goods are in a satisfactory condition, and that usually requires you to inspect them, for which you have to open the pack first.

By what law? What if an item has a latent fault which does not become apparent until after you've accepted it and used it for a considerable time?

Is this a troll? Heney is well-known as the village idiot, so best advice is to ignore his 5000 posts per month.

Cumu

You will be able to quote the law concerned then.

Won't you?

I doubt that very much, unless you are rather elderly now.

the only way I could even find out who you were responding to was to follow back up the references header, since you didn't bother to quote anything.

No, I was most certainly NOT referring to Tony when I said the above, since I have him kill filed, so didn't even know he *had* supported me.

It is possible, but unlikely that he is confused in the way you suggest.

I know I am not.

But your posts are getting very wild and almost meaningless.

There are people who consider me to be an idiot.

All of them are very stupid.

Slightly OT but this is about (unrelated) distance selling - Most online retailers starting with prolly the most famous Amazon.co.uk

Since they are forced to comply with distance selling laws - I think that they have tightened up on clauses like 'returned in 'as new' condition' - whereby you are not even allowed to return the product if you have so much as opened the box - strange but true - check it!

There is essentially no time limit on faulty products (not even guarentee) - The law does not reward manufacturers for producing faulty products (obviously)

If a product has a fault that can be attributed to poor materials or workmanship then you get a refund & it doesn't matter whether it becomes apparent day 1 or day 101 - e.g. A lawn mover blade breaking off ergo the manufacturers fault

This is distinct from a fault arising as a result of misuse - e.g. a lawn mower blade breaking off because you hit a rock either on purpose or by negligence ergo NOT the manufacturers fault

This is also distinct from the guarantee period which is as a direct result of "fair wear and tear" (manufacturing faults are not)

All good common sense really

Cheers - if only I had known - I was beginning to think i had walking into a lunatic asylum

Oh yes I was

I was

I am not bullying - a bloke talks bollocks - i say so - and i'm hearing it right now

that's what newsgroups are about

Have I bollocks - I'm frustrated coz he still talking bollocks is all

I forgotten more than you'll ever know about anything

I look forward to you missing my gems of wisdom

I certainly in-tench to do that - the bloke is giving my a haddock and it is worthy of a caught herring

Personally - I think he is talking a load of pollocks - And most definately in bream of the newsgroup cod of conduct

Yes we are.

that is normal English usage, not legal usage.

In legal terms, you can only "reject" goods if they do not conform with the contract, and only then prior to "acceptance" - which also does not have the usual English meaning.

Wrongly so.

The Trade Descriptions Act is purely concerned with criminal offences, and never "awards" the consumer anything at all.

It really would depend on how long it was before the fault appeared as to how likely it would be that the court would award a full refund.

If this is within a few days, then almost certainly they would. If a few weeks, less likely. If months, then they almost certainly wouldn't.

True, and also true of many other items.

But once a "reasonable period" (not defined in law, but normally quite short) has elapsed you will be considered to have "accepted" it.

And once you have accepted it, you only have the *right* to any refund at all if repair or replacement are not practical.

No, it's the law that is insane :-)

Nobody is suggesting it is.

But you only have a "reasonable period" to determine whether the goods initially appear to conform to contract, after which (regardless of whether you can *ever* fully test the item) you are deemed to have accepted it.

Remember that *any* action you take under SOGA will be because the goods do not conform to contract (or at least that is what you will be claiming).

If it were possible to test all of the possibilities initially, then there would be no need for the other remedies provided for by SOGA, because you would (according to you) always be entitled to a full refund.

So just what do you think the point is in having sections 48A to 48F of SOGA?

Remember ALL consumer actions brought under SOGA are because the consumer believes the goods are faulty.

If they always get a full refund, then there isn't much point in providing other remedies - which include a *partial* refund if the other remedies are not practical.

Not normally.

I don't think you will find many guarantees that fail to exclude damage caused by "fair wear and tear".

So nothing to do with the law then.

Shite

In 'most' cases it is 'impossible' for 'most' people to verify that 'most' items conform to contract - maybe a raspberry flavoured ice lolly but that's about it

Ergo - when you 'eventually' discover that you 'have' been stitched up - you get a full refund

To suggest anything other (which you are) - is to suggest that 'thick' people are not entitled to be protected from rogues - by virtue of the fact that they are 'less' likely to notice a breech of contract and consequently 'more' likely to have been deemed to have 'accepted' a peice of s**te - and hence why it is not law

Is this ringing any bells yet?

A full refund is worst possible outcome for a retailer - all other remedies are beneficial to the retailer, but not nessesarily the customer

An exchange maybe preferable to both - e.g. lawn mowers may have increased in price - increased in specification

After all - the guy is currently without lawn mower so he would also benefit from any solution that includes a replacement

you get a 'partial' refund, if

A/ You are 'partially' responsible

B/ Deduction has been made for 'fair, wear and tear'

It doesn't. "Acceptance" as an act is irrelevant to the Distance Selling Regulations. It is quite possible to accept goods under the SOGA and return them under the DSR's the next day.

The DSR's do not require goods to be returned unopened although some retailers try to impose this condition. It would not be an acceptable excuse for refusing a DSR return if a claim ever got to court.

There is an absolute time limit of 6 years. Beyond this no action can be taken no matter what the fault or misrepresentation might have been.

You don't really have much understanding of this subject do you? Day

1 you get a refund, day 101 you get a repair. The law does not give the buyer a choice in the matter.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here as it isn't written in a recognisable language.