Ravey Gravey Davy
Well-known member
Ginder:Very Annoyed:
Also sad to see how ppl such as Ravey are trying to misinform ppl of their statutory rights, sounds like a retailer to me lol. The test of reasonable period is layed out in section 48B part 5: http://www.johnantell.co.uk/SOGA1979.htm The test of reasonalbe time is a test of fact, dependent on price and product, it is reasonable to expect a tv to out last an electrical kettle that was purchased for a tenner. However both have a warranty of one year? That would not be seen as reasonable. Anyway I cant be done with reiterating the law, its up to the person to persue it if they so wish as the retailer will always try and fight it and argue against it.
My final word at the moment -
a/ I have already stated I am not a retailer and never have been.
b/ I am not misinforming people Please refrain from making that accusation.I am reacting to your and others comments .I have willingly looked at the sites provided and find nothing concrete to substantiate the claim.I even quoted them back on this post.If this is misinformation then the sites provided are misinforming.
c/ I agree with your comments above on the different product values v equal warranty terms,in fact I agree on a lot of what you say on defending consumer rights,it is just I do not believe the law currently gives you a five or six year warranty,just a statute of limitation for claiming against a seller ,and the onus is on the buyer to prove said claim so the retailer does seem to have the upper hand.
I am quite happy to be proved wrong if the proof is there and also because it is a big plus for all us consumers..To this end I will be seeing a mate in a couple of weeks who has been a solicitor for 25 years so I shall pick his brains for free and report back on a separate thread,if I may be permitted.
Also sad to see how ppl such as Ravey are trying to misinform ppl of their statutory rights, sounds like a retailer to me lol. The test of reasonable period is layed out in section 48B part 5: http://www.johnantell.co.uk/SOGA1979.htm The test of reasonalbe time is a test of fact, dependent on price and product, it is reasonable to expect a tv to out last an electrical kettle that was purchased for a tenner. However both have a warranty of one year? That would not be seen as reasonable. Anyway I cant be done with reiterating the law, its up to the person to persue it if they so wish as the retailer will always try and fight it and argue against it.
My final word at the moment -
a/ I have already stated I am not a retailer and never have been.
b/ I am not misinforming people Please refrain from making that accusation.I am reacting to your and others comments .I have willingly looked at the sites provided and find nothing concrete to substantiate the claim.I even quoted them back on this post.If this is misinformation then the sites provided are misinforming.
c/ I agree with your comments above on the different product values v equal warranty terms,in fact I agree on a lot of what you say on defending consumer rights,it is just I do not believe the law currently gives you a five or six year warranty,just a statute of limitation for claiming against a seller ,and the onus is on the buyer to prove said claim so the retailer does seem to have the upper hand.
I am quite happy to be proved wrong if the proof is there and also because it is a big plus for all us consumers..To this end I will be seeing a mate in a couple of weeks who has been a solicitor for 25 years so I shall pick his brains for free and report back on a separate thread,if I may be permitted.