Faulty goods exchange refused, best excuse ever.

[Gritineye]

I used to run a shop that sold some lovely oak and walnut loo seats, one Saturday with the shop full of people, a chap brought a seat back and pronounced loudly and clearly that it was no something use as his something hung over the front of it.

He might have some sort of complex, but the first rule of returning/complaining is, do it when the shop is full of customers, always works for me1

 

[mcostello]

Should have told Him let it dip in the cold water,Then He would be looking for it inside His belly button.

 

[rcx132]

Then you skimmed a bit too much, the CRA has significantly strengthened the remedies available with a new 3 tier system and further reduced a suppliers ability to try and get you to contract out of the terms. What can be submitted as evidence of a fault to court has not changed and is not dictated by the CRA but rather the parties agreement or otherwise and court directions. The CRA does however flip the burden of proof for a limited time whereby for the first 6 months (typically but not always) the burden of proof lies with the seller to demonstrate that the goods were of satisfactory quality.

Yup, I only read the bits that mattered to me ツ I wasn't interested in the remedials section, my claim was against Curry's and they just gave me a pro-rata refund based on how long the product should have lasted. The 6 monthb urden of proof thing was in the Sale of Goods Act as well, at least according to all the consumer websites (Which? magazine, and MSE). The old Sales of Goods Act explicitely required an engineers report, the new act does not so there is a difference, though I appreciate that if the fault isn't obvious then an engineers report would be needed anyway.

 

[Kent]

Then you skimmed a bit too much, the CRA has significantly strengthened the remedies available with a new 3 tier system and further reduced a suppliers ability to try and get you to contract out of the terms. What can be submitted as evidence of a fault to court has not changed and is not dictated by the CRA but rather the parties agreement or otherwise and court directions. The CRA does however flip the burden of proof for a limited time whereby for the first 6 months (typically but not always) the burden of proof lies with the seller to demonstrate that the goods were of satisfactory quality.

But British law means you cannot sign away your legal rights anyway.

 

[fixerupper]

I once returned a mid priced plastering trowel to a builders merchants, the handle had come loose after one days work . handed it to the guy and the counter and he turned and lifted a top of the range Tyzack of the display behind him .".See how you get on with that" ...I've still got it ...20 or more years later ...

 

[slim_boy_fat]

I've still got it ...20 or more years later ...

Ah, but that was before Accountants ruled everything.

 

[Gritineye]

I once returned a saw to builders merchant, it was so badly made and just didn't cut, I was given another make but then he put the old one back in the rack.

 

[tlovatt]

But British law means you cannot sign away your legal rights anyway.

There is no 'British law' England and Wales have a common law system, Scotland has a codified law system NI has common law but with quite a few differences.

You can also contract out of quite a lot of English law (on the civil side not the criminal)

 

[Kent]

There is no 'British law' England and Wales have a common law system, Scotland has a codified law system NI has common law but with quite a few differences.

You can also contract out of quite a lot of English law (on the civil side not the criminal)

Well I have actually gone to court on this on a contract and lost . I think the pre numptual etc might have changed but it's still a matter for court to decide I think (talking about events of decades ago now)

 

[tlovatt]

There are some rights that are termed statutory rights and can not be contracted out of, the CRA has greatly expanded these via section 31

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/31/enacted

You can do things that can invalidate a contract (typically seeking to cap or remove liability for death or personal injury due to negligence) or the contract can be wrongly worded (a surprising amount contain errors) but if done correctly, it was possible to contract out of quite a bit of consumer protection, but this has now stopped.