Isn't this exactly the opposite view to that which you're expressing on the PRS thread, where=A0you're campaigning for a draconian implementation of the law with no regard to what's reasonable?
But that statement isn't meant to be taken literally. It's an admonition to retailers to please their customers for the sake of repeat business and recommendation. You said that's what you yourself did in the past when an order went wrong - you offered a refund and future discount. And it worked.
I hope you'll let us know what he says.
I don't favour a confrontational approach to any situation. But I find amusing your confrontational approach to trivial problems with your neighbours - problems that you have allowed to fester literally for years without ever saying or doing anything about them.
Even now, I bet you have done precisely *nothing* to sort the problems out - you just like to scream blue murder at your neighbours on a Usenet newsgroup that they don't even subscribe to!
As for what you will and won't put up with, you've admitted that you have put up (for years) with a monstrous eyesore in your neighbour's garden that ruins your view. You're all piss and wind.
The PRS licensing is neither draconian nor unreasonable, except to people who expect to be allowed to break the law without suffering any consequences.
There is nothing fair or reasonable about copyright theft, and I would very much like to see it punished to the full extent the law allows.
OK. Seems fair enough comment and seems to align pretty well with the experiences I have had with my opticians (Tesco in-store, as it happens, and the optician whom I personally prefer - and they always seem happy to let me see - has been there from the very start)
Arfa
That's sad. I can't see any benefits from this for D&A customers.
Thanks.
I only asked for his comments on the legal issue I brought up with Peter, which was about the general expectation of reasonable behaviour and how that sits with written law, such as the Sale of Goods Act.
He certainly wouldn't be able to comment on your dispute with the optician. It wouldn't be ethical, and he only gives "free" advice to his friends - the cost of which he will no doubt include in my next bill!
Almost certainly they are referring to the "new" remedies in Pt5 which do not allow recession of the contract before an attempt at repair or replacement. Whether to use Pt2 or Pt5 is entirely up to you, not them. You are under no obligation to use Pt5 and can chose to use Pt2 instead.
If they try to claim you are too late for rejection under Pt2 remind them that you rejected the goods when first supplied and only agreed to withhold that rejection because their employee said all would be OK. S35(2) therefore applies and after trial for the length of time suggested by their employee, on whose skill and judgment you relied, you again rejected the goods.
"35 Acceptance
(2) Where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he has not previously examined them, he is not deemed to have accepted them under subsection (1) above until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose (a) of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract,..."
I'm afraid you're talking bollocks again. I've never had any confrontation with any neighbour.
We all know you haven't. It's all in your mind. You just fulminate on here about your problem, get all aggressive, and then you do precisely f*ck all about it.
Like I said, you're all piss and wind.
Hallucinations now. Did your medication run out a few days ago?
Thanks Peter. I've just turned up the full legislation (somehow managed to miss this site before) and have been reading through the sections you mentioned.
But is it written down anywhere that I can point them to that the buyer gets to choose Pt2 and that this overrides the seller's choice?
Is it the established Clegg's yacht case law that trumps the seller's desire to use pt5 and asserts the absolute right of rejection?
Does case law act as an addition and/or clarification to statute law?
You also mentioned previously:
"The SOGA therefore has ended up with the twin remedies of rejection (unfettered by any need to be reasonable) from old UK common law and the "new" EU introduced civil law bits in Section 5 which favour a negotiated settlement with the seller getting, in practice, to make most of the choices."
Presumably though the fact that the EU/Section 5 bits are newer does not give them precedence over or rescind Pt2. It's not like the Army rule that you follow the last order you were given?
Why don't you just let the optician fit the right lenses?
Is it that you enjoy the fight more?
Let's face it, if your sole objective was to get a pair of glasses that had the correct lenses properly fitted, why would you bother with all this crap? Surely you would just take the frames back and let the optician sort them out.
You are dribble posting under yet another alias.
Why don't you stop posting argumentative crap?
Is it that you enjoy the fight more?
Let's face it, if your sole objective was to have a civilized discussion, why would you bother with all this crap? =A0Surely you would just keep your gob shut until you had something intelligent to contribute.
It's a matter of wounded pride, isn't it? You've tried to show what a big man you are, but a mere optician has dared to challenge your authority and made you look like the fool you really are.
Now, the barrack room lawyers are encouraging you to fight to the death based on a highly selective interpretation of laws they probably don't understand, when we all know that in reality, away from this newsgroup, they would do the sensible thing and go back and get the right lenses fitted to the frames.
You are Every Retailer's Nightmare and I claim my five pounds.
(thanks, it's been worth it!)
It is implicit in the SOGA, both options exist and in the absence of a specific directive the option is that of the person to whom it is open
- in this case the buyer. That is pretty fundamental common law and should be understood by D&A. The Law Society paper I quoted spells it out pretty clearly.
The buyers right to chose is so fundamental it has never been questioned as the answer is obvious. Clegg certainly mentioned it in passing. The seller simply doesn't have a choice in the matter. They have failed to complete the contract. It is up to the buyer to chose whether to reject the item and end the contract or accept the new remedies. What the seller thinks about it is irrelevant.
Case law modifies statute law in that it interprets the law. Case law sets out how the statute is to be interpreted. Once a court of record has made a judgment all lower courts are bound by that interpretation.
No, the Pt5 options were in addition to the old rights and did not alter he existing right to reject the goods at all. What they did do is clarify the situation after acceptance (at which point you irretrievably lose the right to reject goods).
'Challenging authority' is saying a product which doesn't do as it says on the tin is being a big man, is it? Or is it you who mildly excepts any rubbish you're sold without question? It would seem so by what you've said. I take it that's why you suddenly get plenty courage from behind the safety of a keyboard.
You've had chapter and verse from Mr Parry. Do some research to prove him wrong if you dare.
Thanks, Peter.
HomeOwnersHub 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.