[GLLUG] Overclockers

Peter Cannon peter at cannon-linux.co.uk
Wed Apr 23 13:03:20 UTC 2014

On 23/04/14 12:58, John Edwards wrote:

>> Please don't believe what you read on wikipedia for pitys sake.
> What exactly do you mean by that?

Exactly what I said. Quote the links you have quoted not that crappy wikipedia

> Nonsense. You can not sign away your statuory rights.

Yes you can. Shall we continue in the "No you cant" "yes you can" vein? You are wrong and I know you're wrong but there you go that's the nature of disagreement.
We bought an addon for Swiftpage ACT! last week, it clearly stated there was a 'No returns' policy. I wonder what part of "Sold as seen" which you find on most Auto Trader sites you don't understand?

>> Overclockers has a physical shop.
> Which is irrelavent because the original posters did not use it.

No it's not. You said "Think of it this way: If you bought something in person from a physical store then you can look them before buying." I was responding to your statement. You do remember writing that don't you?

>>> In the account given the company made a serious mess of the returns
>>> procedure. If they could not refund the method of payment (a cheque
>>> I believe) then they should not have accepted it. It is also the
>>> company's responsibilty to ensure that the goods are delivered to
>>> (or collected from) the correct address.
>> That's a nice idea. Very few companies 'collect' you nearly always
>> have to send it back at your own expense.
> Not true. Read the Distance Selling Regulations, section 18 (4):

Oh shut up about your distance selling regs. T&C's override that. I may trade with you on my own terms. If you don't accept them then you don't buy from me. How many things have you seen where it says "You must accept before continuing"? Well it's the same with on-line stores that's why they have T&C's and returns policies on their sites so you can read them and accept them or not your distance selling regs are irrelevant.

>>> Plus in the original case the goods appeared to be faulty, so the
>>> "Satisfactory quality" and "Fitness for purpose" provisions of the
>>> Sale of Goods Act would come into effect.

What did it say in the 'Returns policy'? We offer RTB most of our suppliers offer RTB I suspect you have no idea what that is? Return To Base e.g. you have to return it. I state yet again. When you buy from me you buy on the understanding goods come with a Return To Base Warranty. It's no good six months down the line you waiving your sale of goods act at me I'll just waive my returns policy at you and you'll loose I can assure you.

> Like much of UK law it's subject to the definition of "reasonable",
> which is deliberately not defined because it would be impossible to
> define for every possible instance.

Erm, That's what I said in't it?

>> I have when some low life threatened me with it over a dead laptop
>> till I had it checked over and found someone had spilt orange juice
>> in it! And did I get my £95 back for having it checked over because
>> the arse wipe threatened me with fooking Consumer rights? No of
>> course not. Did I get an apology? No of course not.
> I've no idea of the specifics of that case, but if you run a business
> in the UK then you really should be aware of the UK laws that apply to
> you.

No. You failed to understand the point of what I wrote. The point was the individual was clearly like yourself, while no lawyer he felt like you that by whipping out the sale of goods act he could 'get one over' on the evil seller. He felt that by reading the very line you wrote "Fit for purpose" I was going to shit myself and roll over. Which is why most people pull that one out of the hat because they're all smart Alec "I know my rights" types.

>> TBH anyone who whips out the sale of goods act is clearly using a
>> sledgehammer to crack a nut. There are lots of people 'out of
>> pocket' still bleating about the sale of goods act.
> Most companies behave reasonably, but not in the case the original
> poster outlined. Mentioning the appropriate laws (in a non-threatening
> manner) can get some companies to wake up and behave correctly.

Personally using laws for an item I'd value at around £30 is just overkill in my book.
> The original poster did not use PayPal or a credit card, so that's
> irrelavent.

Really? Martin A. Brooks, who actually was 'The Original poster' never mentioned how he purchased anything? But hey I thought nobody was sticking to specifics on this thread given the thread is all over the place?

Now I know you'll be itching to have the last word, it's probably written in the On line sales act or something so I'm outta here I'm bored to death with this thread anyway. :-)

Peter Cannon

IRC: dick_turpin @ freenode.net
Podcast: http://tdtrs.co.uk
"There is every excuse for not knowing
There is no excuse for not asking"

More information about the GLLUG mailing list