Jump to content

Kraken1

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,664
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Kraken1

  1. I think you are fairly stuffed. Perhaps best off trying to flog it yourself and see if that will minimise your losses.
  2. if they did try and contact you, yes.
  3. Unfortunately she is right - in business to business contracts some parts of the Sale of Goods Act can be over ridden by terms and conditions. For example the time to reject can be limited if it is considered reasonable to do so or liability for breach can be restricted. The fact that this is a plumbers' merchant implies that this is a business to business thing.
  4. no, especially at this late stage (assuming you have raised the issue with them before) but you might want to make it clear that they can come to you to inspect. practically, taking it in might get it sorted sooner though? you don't give timescales, but it might be hard for you to make a claim if the faults are as obvious as you say.
  5. yes, maybe, if the original supplier refuses to honour the deal, but is it really worth it?
  6. Irrespective of whether the satisfaction guarantee is worth anything, you say that they have not provided what they agreed to provide. This would indicate that you have grounds for a claim.
  7. according to clause five that seems to support the idea that you need to pay to use it at all. This isn't to say that they can force you to renew, only that if you don't, you can't get access to the software. I think.
  8. Honestly, this one is a bit technical and quite odd - it will turn on the actual docs. It may be that you have bought a service and can cancel the renewal and keep the basic software, have bought only a licence or bought a licence with a renewal which may, or may not be enforceable. Depending which it is will depend on whether the distance selling rules or any of the above stuff is relevant. I don't think that they can enforce payment for the new year, but they might have be able to cut you off from the existing stuff. Depending on the amount of money involved you might want to see a professional so they can review all the docs properly. Unfortunately there are limits to these forums, the art is in recognising when we've reached that. To be fair I need to say that I'm not sure of your position and would not want to advise based on the limited information we have.
  9. but this puts a different spin on things, it would seem that they are saying that it isn't the software + a service agreement, but a yearly licence for a service. To claim you will need to show that the contract you entered into was for the software only.
  10. 'Thank you for your message. As you may be aware, just because something is in your terms and conditions does not mean that it is enforceable, as was found in both the Foxtons and Asbourne Gym cases. I will vigorously defend any claim you may seek to bring. I am happy to accept service of any claims at (my address).' By the way, not saying that you gave a good claim, as we don't have all the details, but based on the limited info you have given, it is perhaps slightly better than average chance.
  11. you might want to dial back on the pressdram stuff though, as funny as it is. In the cold light of morning I'm of the view that it might not be the best potential response...
  12. "Dear Sir, You will be aware that an agreement to agree is void in English law and therefore unenforceable. This is aside from other issues relating to the Distance Selling Regulations which, likewise, give grounds to cancel. I am happy for a court to judge this matter. In the interim I would therefore, and with regret, refer you to the reported response coined in the case of Arkell v Pressdram (1971) which I believe fully outlines my response to any claim you may make. Yours sincerely etc"
  13. so he's looked at it and realised he's screwed up. A stern letter threatening action against him might be required.
  14. your analysis seems reasonable to me, subject to them renewing and you affirming the contract somehow.
  15. are we talking about making a claim that it is not fit for purpose nearly a year after it was bought? Or have I misread?
  16. I would have thought that an agreement to agree, which this seems to be is voidable in law. You can't have an agreement to agree in contract law. I'd suggest that they can therefore 'do one'. That said, this is common and so if this is a valid view then other contracts must have been challenged on this basis before. There is also a DSR angle that suggests that this is a new contract and was therefore entered into at a distance and is therefore cancellable.
  17. i think it is ropey - they should have delivered the house on the plan. Talk to the solicitor that did your conveyancing and ask them why he did not tell you about this change - you'll probably find that he inadvertently gives you free advice whilst explaining that it wasn't his fault and that he didn't miss something...
  18. in england the relevant law would be the supply of goods and services act and cases like jones v gallagher and ruxely electronics v forsyth. worth a google or local advice to see if they are relevant to you.
  19. I'm sorry, I can't really advise as I'm not familiar with Irish law. I can say that if this was in the UK, and it was just a standard contract, then you'd have a claim. Suing wouldn't get it sorted in time though.
  20. the 'fast track' is actually slower than the 'small claims' track...
  21. I don't think that you can divorce 10.1.1 from 10.1 - '10.1 The contract will terminate immediately on notice from us to you:' - note the colon. This is a precondition for the second clause to apply.
  22. the dsrs will not be relevant to this unless you signed up a week or so before it all went down and sought to cancel. the 30 days is irrelevant. the above also says that contract will only terminate on notice. I don't think they served notice, did they?
  23. I'm not certain the consumer direct advice is correct in this instance. I can't be certain but I believe that RM are considered to be agents of both parties and therefore goods would have been considered to be delivered once passed to RM. This means that there is no breach of contract and no claim. Worth looking into in more detail before taking action. That said, the costs involved in this one and the value of your claim means that you need to getting professional advice.
×
×
  • Create New...