Re: Don't bank with the COOP because they are either incompetant or crooked

It extends your dizzy theory such that were the Sale of Goods Act as you describe then, it would be legal to sell frozen kipper 'as' hammers

Thank goodness you are totally wrong - and should anyone attempt to sell you a frozen kipper desguised as a hammer you would be entitled to a full refund - not only after you had "accepted" it, and not only after you had used it but even after you have irreperably damaged it

it takes more than 'accepting' goods to make them of "merchantable quality" - does that phrase mean anything to you? - "misrepresentation", "fit for purpose" - any of those?

It doesn't come remotely close to doing so.

And BTW, my "dizzy theory" is just fact.

Try it and see.

I have never suggested otherwise.

You seem to be conflating a number of different issues here, and coming to a false conclusion as a result.

First, while there is indeed an implied term that the goods are of "satisfactory quality" (not "merchantable"), and that includes "fit for purpose", neither of these mean that the buyer is *automatically* entitled to a refund if they are not true.

Once the customer has accepted them, he is no longer entitled to a refund. If the goods are then shown not to meet the relevant criteria, he is entitled to repair or replacement, or to a partial refund if those are not practical or are disproportionate.

The fact that he is only entitled to those remedies after acceptance most emphatically does NOT mean that acceptance makes them magically "fit for purpose". If it did that, then he would not be entitled to ANY remedy.

"Misrepresentation" is a complete red herring, because that doesn't in itself entitle the customer to anything, it just entitles the seller to a criminal record. It does usually lead on to breach of contract entitling the buyer to one of the above remedies, but that is really a separate issue.

are you suggesting that I could indeed sell a frozen kipper - describe it as a hammer - and the swindled (i mean 'buyer') is not entitled to a full refund?

Because that could not be further from the truth - i'd like to say obviously but i fear not

Nah Nah - I think you're getting mixed up with remote selling laws - whereby you have # days (i can't remember how many) to return the order in 'as new condition' for a full refund just because you've changed your mind (don't like the colour, whatever) - in this case, some companies don't even allow you to open the packet before you have been deemed to have accepted the product (it no longer qualifies as being 'in 'new condition') and no longer entitled to a refund (because you feel like it)

but this is in addition to your statutory rights that protects you from being sold frozen kippers diguised as hammers (generally being ripped off) - in such cases you are entitled to a full refund (made whole again) - obviously

nah! - he is entitled to a refund

nah! - full refund + any delivery/handling costs refunding

Wrong again - If the materials/box/carton/advert or sales person describe a frozen kipper as 'a hammer' - which happens! - it is misrepresentation - you get a full refund - of course

These are very fundimental rights that you don't undertand

Hey you'll like this:

I bought some wall & ceiling lights from Argos - spent whole morning, fitted them all - beautiful - they came with 6 glass globes which i fitted last of all and noticed one was cracked in the box - i'd wired in all the lights by now so i popped the one glass back for a replacement - getting no sense out of the till wallers i ended up having to speak to the manageress

Argos: Sorry - you got to bring all the lights back for a refund Me: But i don't want a refund - i dont want to fill out forms - I am not taking all the lights down again - i just want you to replace the glass Argos: Anyway we don't have the glasses seperate Me: No - swap it with one in a box and send 'that' one back Argos: Can't do that Me: Let me have a look at another set of lights Argos: Why Me: I might buy another set to get the glass Argos: Here you are Me: What would you do if I opened this box and we found one glass was broke? Argos: I'd send it back Me: Soooooooooo???? I'm an adult - you're an adult - you give me a glass - i give you the broken one - you send it back - ta daaaaaa Argos: It's not policy - You'll have to bring the whole set back in Me: I am not taking the lights back down and 'you' are going to replace the glass - you can either so it the easy way i suggested or you can fill out more forms Argos: You have to bring the set in Me: No! I'm going to buy another lamp set Argos: What for Me: I am going to take it home - swap the faulty glass and bring it back for a refund Argos: You can't Me: I can and I am - The glass is faulty and 'you' will give me a refund and fill out all the forms for it

As the manageress is processing my debit card and 'wrapping up' my purchase she is almost beside herself with anger

Argos: You had better make sure you don't bring it back to me Me: I only live down the road - I will be back in 10 minutes and I am specifically going to ask for 'you' - and because you don't have the common sense to do it the easy way - 'you' will refund me for the faulty product - and you will fill out all the forms

10 minutes later i walked in -asked for the manageress -by which time she was on fire as i claimed - "i just bought this lamp set and one of the glasses is faulty" - i was pissing myself as she completed the credit slip

haven't laughed so much in years

Not in the least.

It is absolutely obviously not true, agreed.

But utterly irrelevant to the situation under discussion.

there is no realistic chance of "accepting" that. But if one somehow or other did so, repair or replacement is obviously impossible, and the deduction for use would be minimal at best.

I am not getting remotely confused.

This is NOTHING whatsoever to do with distance selling laws. In which, BTW, there is a *specified* time limit of 7 days - but that is if yo just change your mind.

Not under UK law.

Not under UK law.

You clearly just don't understand this concept of "acceptance" at all.

Wrong. I understand them very well.

You appear not to. "Misrepresentation" by itself entitles the customer to NOTHING.

But if that misrepresentation means that the goods do not conform to contract, THEN the buyer is entitled to a refund for breach pf contract. Which is a separate issue to the criminal one of misrepresentation.

Very good :-)

Not relevant to the situation under discussion, but very good.

Deduction for use - my ass - Are from the UK?

So you 'are' suggesting that 'but for the fact' that i recognise it as a kipper and not a hammer - they can sell me a frozen kipper, as a hammer and the only protection i legally have (under SOGA) is to recognise that it is a kipper and so not 'accept' it?

That's Crap! - You MUST see where you're heading with this which is not even sensible

OK i'll have to give you an example - more subtle this time

You buy a Genesis CD, it says 'Genesis' on the CD, on the sleeve and the man says so - you 'accept' it - you get home and it plays 'Will Young' (not as described) - You get a full refund in UK - this is such a fundemental rip-off that it isn't even mitigated by software exchange policies

You want to buy a gold watch - they sell you one with only 1 year guarantee, but tell you it has a 5 year guarantee, it says 5 year guarantee on the box (it's misrepresented) - you 'accept' it and use it for 18 months before you notice it is not a 5 year guarantee Under UK you get a full refund, not because it did not last 5 years, but because it was misrepresentation

Your brakes are poor - you ask for new brake pads fitting - the garage adjust up your old ones so they work like new - you 'accept' the pads they have not even fitted because you are not in any position to know any different - 2 months later you find out they are not new pads - under UK you get a full refund + time + labour for the pads you cannot even return

Does any of this strike you as common-sense laws?

That is simply because no one (incl you) is qualified to recognise/accept anything

I can only suggest you never buy either a computer or a car - your life is not long enough to verify (and accept) either is as described

In the states maybe - but i "know" misrepresentation is quite a simply a lie, and companies are not rewarded for ripping people off in the UK - they are penalised - by refunding the sale, and any other expenses incurred

If you have any confidence with a single word you're saying - I suggest you make a seperate post on uk.legal xposted to uk.finance, stating your point - upon where you will be hung out to dry

Of course.

No, I am not suggesting that for one moment.

there is plenty of protection under SOGA for goods which do not conform to contract.

What I AM suggesting is that the protection does not extend as far as a FULL refund once you have accepted the goods.

You may not think it sensible.

But it is the way the law works.

How?

No you don't.

You *do* get the full five year guarantee, because the statement by the manufacturer on the box is legally binding.

You have, of course, not "accepted" them at all since they weren't even there to be accepted.

Possibly.

I wouldn't know, having very little interest in US law.

I have never suggested they might be.

Have you understood a single word I have typed?

No, they are penalised by being *fined* under *criminal* law.

They will (if the consumer demands it) *also* normally be required to pay compensation to the consumer in some form.

Given the LARGE number of people, many of whom are legally qualified, who have said exactly the same thing in this group in the past, I doubt that very much indeed.

Listen carefully

I *have* accepted the frozen kipper

I was just sold to me as 'a hammer' - i used it as 'a hammer' - it only lasted 3 days 'hammering'

Just to get this clear - Are you 'suggesting' I am not entitled to a full refund - just because i didn't recognise it was not the hammer described?

If so - not only do you not know the law - you are clearly insane

If you even attempted to use the frozen kipper as a hammer, then you are the one who is insane :-)

But the law, regardless of whether you think it may be "insane" is that once you are deemed to have "accepted" the goods, you are no longer *entitled* to a full refund.

If you think otherwise, then please cite me a case which has been decided on that basis.

There are plenty of cases around which hinge on whether the goods had been accepted or not, but those do not help to show that a full refund is an entitlement after acceptance.

And again, if you think otherwise, where exactly do you draw the line? Remember that the remedies stipulated by SOGA are *always* remedies for breach of contract. So how major does the breach have to be before you think a full refund is an *entitlement* even after acceptance?

On Oct 1, 5:22 am, Alex Heney wrote: The SoGA does provide the buyer with rights to obtain a "full" refund/ damages in such instances where the gravity of the breach so specifies. The SoGA does not state that if the buyer has accepted the goods s/he cannot obtain a full refund should the seller subsequently be found to be in breach- for instance where there is a lack of conformity of the goods to those specifications as stipulated in the contract (be it implied or otherwise)- the SoGA allows the buyer reasonable time to discover the non conformity- the reasonable time of course depends on the nature of the goods and the non conformity.

The Buyer furthermore has the right to partial rejection of the goods- to accept those that conform and those that do not.

Damages are simply damages, and obtaining a refund by reason of defective goods or breaches of the contract, is protected by the common law and statue.

It's not unclear - only your theory is

I cannot beleive I need to hammer this in - companies are not at liberty to lie/cheat about products - obviously! - Their lying and cheating maynot be immediately apparent

It may need an expert to define whether it is 'as described', so no one will ever be in a position to verify it or 'accept' it

Just to see how far you are off your trolley:

How do you verify say, a CD-RW that claims to be able to write 100 times ("twice" as good as a write 50 times disc) - and this 'benefit' is reflected in the price (it's twice the cost) - You can't verify it! - You buy one - 'accepted' - it only writes 10 times - Trades descripton protects just such situations & gives you 'a full refund' = makes you whole again

Now lets hear your bollocks version

P.S.

You now have your own post in uk.finance x posted to uk.legal - I am fishing for the 'LARGE numbers of people' that also live in cloud cuckoo

I'm sure someone out of one of these two groups will agree with you

So you will be able to answer the question then.

Nobody has ever suggested otherwise.

You tell me.

What "bollocks version" might that be then?

There do seem to be quite a few agreeing with the basics of what I have said :-)

*You* have

I refer to a company that describe a frozen kipper as a hammer (lie & cheat) and because i have 'accepted' the item (their word at face value) - *you* say i don't get a full refund (this is *you* 'suggesting otherwise')

If your not happy with the kipper/hammer thing - substitute it for any two items in the world - the key is 'lying' (Misrepresentation)

name - One!

There's a lot of people like yourself who equally don't actually *know* anything - and are just 'tossing stuff about' - but no one agrees

I stand corrected - I've found One!

I have done no such thing.

You seem to have decide for some strange reasons that if the consumer is not automatically entitled to a full refund, that means the company is "at liberty to lie and cheat".

they aren't. As I have already pointed out several times, regardless of what the consumer may or may not be entitled to, the companies are subject to *criminal* sanctions for doing so.

That is *in addition* to any civil remedies to which the consumer is entitled.

No it isn't. (see above).

this is you taking what I have said, and deciding it means something entirely different.

the "key" is that you don't seem to have a clue about the difference between criminal law and civil law, nor about what remedies *are* available at civil law.

So you are making the ridiculous assumption that lack of automatic entitlement to a full refund would mean that the companies could do what they like.

Andrew Magee, The Todal, Thommo at least.

And I believe at least the latter two of those are legally qualified.