Malvern Save The Children Christmas Quiz
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Call this justice?
A while ago I bought a second-hand video recorder from a chap living about 300 miles away. On its arrival I set about setting it up but found the remote didn't work, which was essential for this model, so I bought another one. When it arrived I continued and found a scart socket on the back was so loose I had to keep it connected by placing wooden wedges at certain places. I thought it shouldn't cost much to replace or repair, but continuing I found the tuner didn't work either, which, obviously made the whole machine useless.
I didn't have any plans to take it further but I received such a nasty reply when I wrote to the seller that I decided to take him to court, not for the money, but out of principle.
Together with my complaint I enclosed a technicians report which confirmed my statement but being that far away the cost of travel didn't warrant my personal appearance. Space here doesn't allow further evidence of proof I supplied, but the outcome of the case was that I lost.
The judge didn't give any reasons for his decision and refused one when asked.
Can someone explain this to me please?
I didn't have any plans to take it further but I received such a nasty reply when I wrote to the seller that I decided to take him to court, not for the money, but out of principle.
Together with my complaint I enclosed a technicians report which confirmed my statement but being that far away the cost of travel didn't warrant my personal appearance. Space here doesn't allow further evidence of proof I supplied, but the outcome of the case was that I lost.
The judge didn't give any reasons for his decision and refused one when asked.
Can someone explain this to me please?
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Mrs.Sippy. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Was it a private seller?
If so, then the only requirement is that the recorder is 'as described'.
If he had not described the condition, or simply said something ambiguous like 'used', 'three months old' and so on, then he has done nothing wrong in law.
If the seller was a dealer or sold in the course of his business the situation is vastly different.
If so, then the only requirement is that the recorder is 'as described'.
If he had not described the condition, or simply said something ambiguous like 'used', 'three months old' and so on, then he has done nothing wrong in law.
If the seller was a dealer or sold in the course of his business the situation is vastly different.
Hiya Ethel
Thanks for your comments.
I'm not angry at the seller so much as the judge. Obviously I can't remember the wording now but I doubt if I'd have bought it had it said 'No Remote, which is essential, scart sockets loose and tuner bust'.
I'm more annoyed at the judge with all the evidence I supplied, plus his arrogance at not giving a reason for his decision.
Thanks for your comments.
I'm not angry at the seller so much as the judge. Obviously I can't remember the wording now but I doubt if I'd have bought it had it said 'No Remote, which is essential, scart sockets loose and tuner bust'.
I'm more annoyed at the judge with all the evidence I supplied, plus his arrogance at not giving a reason for his decision.
Isn`t a little strange to buy a second-hand video from someone 300 miles away?. New ones are so cheap nowadays, and there are plenty of cheap second-hand ones around locally. In our local charity shops there are always half-a-dozen checked ones for sale. I do not know that this 300miles would have any bearing on the judges decision but it is odd.
Yes, I suppose I could've bought one a lot, lot nearer, but I'm really not bothered about the machine. Had the seller not been so nasty I would've put the whole sorry episode behind me but he wasn't gonna get away with the things he said as well as sell me something that was best placed in a skip. My annoyance springs from the judge, his decision and arrogance in not having to justify his stupid decision.
And yes, Ethel, it was in the County Court, and as he wanted to defend himself it was automatically transferred to HIS local court. I had no say in it.
And yes, Ethel, it was in the County Court, and as he wanted to defend himself it was automatically transferred to HIS local court. I had no say in it.
Those are the rules - the defendant can choose the court in most cases.
My guess is he won because you got what he promised - a used machine of the make and model he advertised.
If he produced the original ad to the court and there was no mention of age or condition there could have been no other outcome.
Especially if it sold for a very low price, in comparison to a new one of the same model.
As always, it is 'buyers beware'.
My guess is he won because you got what he promised - a used machine of the make and model he advertised.
If he produced the original ad to the court and there was no mention of age or condition there could have been no other outcome.
Especially if it sold for a very low price, in comparison to a new one of the same model.
As always, it is 'buyers beware'.
Hiya Ethel
Thanks again for your views and I suppose you've got to be right, though that does appear to open the flood gates for selling any type of tat. If that IS the law it should be changed. Again, how about the Sale of Goods Act 1969? That covers private sales as well as commercial ones.
I don't think I'll ever discover the real facts but I really appreciate your and everyone else's input. Thank you.
Thanks again for your views and I suppose you've got to be right, though that does appear to open the flood gates for selling any type of tat. If that IS the law it should be changed. Again, how about the Sale of Goods Act 1969? That covers private sales as well as commercial ones.
I don't think I'll ever discover the real facts but I really appreciate your and everyone else's input. Thank you.
Private sales are not protected by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended by the Sale & Supply of Goods Act 1994 and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002) - this is consumer law covering sales by traders.
As Ethel has stated the only remedy available would be if the item was not "as described", as covered by the Misrepresentation Act 1967.
As Ethel has stated the only remedy available would be if the item was not "as described", as covered by the Misrepresentation Act 1967.
Hiya Kepie
I think he did misrepresent the item he sold. Not once did he mention it didn't work.
I found this. "The law says that even private sellers must not �misrepresent� goods to you by misleading you or lying to you about something. So, for example, a person must not give you false information about the age or mileage of a second-hand car they are selling.
I think he did misrepresent the item he sold. Not once did he mention it didn't work.
I found this. "The law says that even private sellers must not �misrepresent� goods to you by misleading you or lying to you about something. So, for example, a person must not give you false information about the age or mileage of a second-hand car they are selling.
Hiya Ethel and Steve
Thanks for your comments.
Ethel: I can't believe, even in this day and age when victims of crime remain just that whilst the guilty are handled with velvet gloves so as not to infringe their human rights, that selling something that doesn't work can be classed as a legal transaction.
I'm sure you'd be extremely annoyed if I sold you a television, matching the description I gave, for say, �100 only for you to realise it had nothing inside merely because I failed to mention that little tit bit of information.
Steve: I paid for that court case and I doubt if any court system which had a sliding scale of importance completely dependant on the monetary value of the disputed item would last very long. In dealing with such matters the value/cost plays no importance; it's the principle that should count.
For example, if I paid 1p for this video I obviously wouldn't have done anything about it, but what about if I'd paid �500? At what point does it become unlawful and he being accused of fraud?
Thanks for your comments.
Ethel: I can't believe, even in this day and age when victims of crime remain just that whilst the guilty are handled with velvet gloves so as not to infringe their human rights, that selling something that doesn't work can be classed as a legal transaction.
I'm sure you'd be extremely annoyed if I sold you a television, matching the description I gave, for say, �100 only for you to realise it had nothing inside merely because I failed to mention that little tit bit of information.
Steve: I paid for that court case and I doubt if any court system which had a sliding scale of importance completely dependant on the monetary value of the disputed item would last very long. In dealing with such matters the value/cost plays no importance; it's the principle that should count.
For example, if I paid 1p for this video I obviously wouldn't have done anything about it, but what about if I'd paid �500? At what point does it become unlawful and he being accused of fraud?
1 to 12 of 12
