Dell UK

Tumbleweed wrote

Client File transferred to: DO NOT INSURE category.

Remarkably satire does if the reader is.

I think you missed the sarcasm in his message, he was makinga (v poor) analogy, v poor on several fronts including the one you point out.

If JB feels has an aggreviance then he is well within his right to address this through the small claims court - that's what it is there for. JB has obviously assessed in his own mind whether or not the damage was the result of "excessive force" and has to come to conclusion that it was not - who are we to question this. It's obvious from JB's later posts that he's paid a hefty warranty, so comments like why don't you buy a new Dell because they are now cheap (Aztec), does not help - and who's to say the front cover won't break off the new one.

JB you might want to try uk.legal. You also might want to talk to trading standards; are Dell really saying that any warranties you buy are invalid if you move house within 3 years or just rearrange your office, maybe they should be making this clearer when you purchase the warranty. Rob made a good point, you should have a case under the Sale of Goods Act, it is not unreasonable to assume that PC will be moved or cleaned from time to time and so should stand up to this. You could claim that that there must have been an inherent fault in the clips see FAQ in

"Jim Brown" wrote

If you want to claim under the SOGA, the inherent fault would have to have been there at the time of sale.

OK, so it would be the seller (Dell) who has to prove that it wasn't there if you are claiming within 6 months of purchase - but AIUI it has now been over a year since purchase (22 months remaining of a 36 month service agreement), so *you* would need to prove that the clips were faulty **at the time of purchase**. Can you do that?

In message , Tumbleweed writes

Fooled me too!

If you advocate taking people to court over a bit of bent plastic that was caused by their own making then fair enough, by highlighting the cost of a brand new system I was merely pointing out how petty this may seem in the context of a courtroom.

Anyway, I'm off to ram my car into a lamp post so I can have a good moan at VW about how delicate their cars are when impacted in an everyday fashion, it seems their warranties are useless if I decide to rearrange a traffic junction within 3 years of its purchase?!?

We are people on usenet and therefore have the right to question anything said by a poster, and things not said :-)

The warranty cost is irrelevant. The issue is, does the warranty cover the cause of the damage? Perhaps you feel if he'd paid 250 that would cover hitting it with a sledgehammer? Dell do sell another, 'accidental damage' warranty. He didnt buy that.

The velcro I purchased was made by Dell !!!!!!!!!!

Is poor analogy worse than poor grammar?

Much worse, especially on Usenet where grammar, spelling and punctuation are all optional extras.

fwiw I thought it a very good analogy.

Tiddy Ogg.

As is a spellchecker wouldn't yoo say auld chap?

He believes his PC was faulty because it broke when he attempted to move it, and that Dell is to blame, seemingly because he beleives that the warranty should apply to anything that happens to the Dell, even though its a limited warranty, not covering accidental damage.

He then equated that with velcro being faulty because he dropped it on a wet patch of his own making.

Upon reflection I'm not at all clear what point he was making. That he should be recompensed for the velcro even if it was his fault he dropped it into water? Or that if he hadn't opened the box of velcro it wouldnt have been damaged? Or that since he had to open the box to use it, any condition Dell imposed about its use was unfair, therefore anything that happened to it was Dells fault?

What do you think he was trying to say?

The way I read it, this was an acknowledgement that he'd recognised that the responsibility was his own.

Tiddy Ogg.

You mean it was very anal? :-)

Perhaps he meant that, despite what he actually said, wet velcro really isn't useless at all, and by analogy that a PC with broken panel clips isn't useless either, and that he should either just live with it as it is, or glue the damned clips, or fasten the panel with velcro (after drying it out). Although the velcro does its job perfectly well even when wet, one might not want to get the computer wet.

I'd really like to know what your trying to say. Whatever it is certainly lacks substance, wouldn't you say?

No, since I had two entirely sensible replies, so they obviously did understand my wording, but I'll rephrase for you. I didn't understand your analogy, it made no sense whatsoever to me. Neither did another poster understand it. A third poster thought it meant that you agree it was, after all, your fault.

Care to enlighten us, or are you too busy drying the wet patch you made?

You really are quite sad little weed, are you not?