It is high time, then, for a prosecution. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations define this as a strict liability criminal offence:

An extended warranty has to be paid for (usually) so what would not be fair would be for one buyer to get a repair, free of charge, while another had to pay. Really? I had yet to notice that a bullet proof case is an advertised feature of an Apple Mac Pro. I rather suspect that were the question to be put in so many words, they would be honest enough at least to admit that there is no absolute guarantee that the thing will last for more than two years, no matter what.

Whatever the merit, you had better be quick. The opportunity to sue for the value times out after six years because of the Limitation Act.

Really? According to your own account, you made a mistake. It is the seller's right, to be paid, not a favour. I am not so surprised if the seller would rather not be bothered, in view of such an attitude. I feel the same.

That is ambiguous. Are you the tenant of a housing association or a local authority?

An omission is an offence, with regard to the main characteristics of the product, and a deceptive presentation may be prosecuted as such "even if the information is factually correct". The Regulations were designed to close every loophole. The thing to do is get back to the buyer to sort it out. Complaints like this are not invented for want of anything better to do.

... and you could then be charged with fraud, or the attempt is pointless. Amazon's claim is or is not legitimate. The card makes no difference to that.

Transactions concluded on eBay are not auctions. eBay is neither an auction house nor a retailer. The User Agreement prescribes the contractual relationship between the website provider and the seller, the organised provision scheme that eBay is, and is exactly the same for all the members and all the listings. A buyer is not a consumer if the goods are second hand goods sold at public auction at which individuals have the opportunity of attending the sale in person, but that is not a description of eBay.

That would infer that you noticed that two stones were missing on 10th June and accepted the item, none the less, but then you say that this was discovered last week. I would therefore assume that the store is quite rightly concerned that your inspection process is as biased toward yourself, as it is reluctant. Neither the buyer nor the seller is entitled to be the judge and jury of his own cause. The Sale of Goods Act provides the right to make a claim, not to bully the seller.

(3) of section 48C of the Sale of Good Act applies;

I fail to see the difference the address would make. If it is your warranty, it is presumably enforceable, whoever would use the machine.

What is missing here is an explanation of why the minibus did not turn up. The shock would be if the terms and conditions did not contain a disclaimer. Something like this is par for the course:

No judgement is won by ignoring the claim. The eventual result of that is a judgement by default.

Nor does a loss preventer threaten to act on his own behalf. It is a straw man argument to pretend that that they do. The invoice and all the rest of it is not only legitimate; the practice corresponds to the pre action protocol that a County Court requires before proceedings take place. The claimant must do everything possible to settle out of court so this is what you get; the more they show that every attempt was made to settle out of court the more likely they are to win in the end. When the intention is to seriously contest an allegation, the time and place to do that is right at the start. If every one of those accused demanded their right to a day in court, none of this would be happening. For as long as the intention is to avoid the event, the honest thing to do is pay the going rate for that.

If you are sure of your ground, your innocence etcetera, you should take them up on the offer. Call the bluff.

I see the nothing in that letter to scare them so it is probably a complete waste of time. Read The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, carefully, to see what would fit. Then look around to identify the appropriate person to send a summons to.

Which part of "Sellers aren't allowed to demand positive Feedback from buyers" is so hard to get? The issue is whether or not the seller pays to return the goods, his stance being tantamount to a threat to refuse to pay for the postage without a positive feedback. What then do you propose to do when the seller refuses to pay, in view of a neutral feedback? A letter before action for the sake of the postage? Just wondering. If you are going to have to sue the seller to get the money you could just as well leave a negative, immediately.

This is 14 months after purchase! The Consumer Protection Act 1987 covers the liability for defective products. If there is something inherently unsafe about a product that should always be treated as the responsibility of the manufacturer, in the interest of the safety of the public at large. Whether or not the safety of the public at large is in doubt is another matter; "started to fray a little" fails to make a big impression, so what you need is the opinion of an independent professional to add some weight.

That is ludicrous, irresponsible and remarkably ignorant, in view of what I wrote before. Why let a crook off so lightly? Fraud is difficult to prove because an element of dishonesty has to be proved. With the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations applied, a similar act is a strict liability offence, so not at all so hard to prove.

If it is a matter of fact, that a service book was provided but was fraudulently amended to falsely pretend that services were carried out, it should not be a problem to convict the offender, because the burden of proof would fall to the accused, to show that everything possible was done to be sure that the record is correct. This is the sort of case that Trading Standards ought to jump at. The courts own the power to compensate a victim, though you would have to ask for that. Otherwise, if need be, proceed with a civil action. The conviction of an offender may then be used as evidence. A judge may be reluctant to award the costs of a case to a claimant who might have been more careful but I don't really see how that would apply.

Come off it. The sort of case law that would allude to dates back to the 19th century. Since The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, it is a strict liability criminal offence for the overall presentation of an invitation to purchase to in any way deceive or be likely to deceive the average consumer, to cause or be likely to cause the consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise, even if the information is factually correct. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/regulation/5/made Strict liability means that the only defence is the defence of due diligence; the innocence of the intention is immaterial.

Whatever you call it, private or public, goods must conform to contract; "caveat emptor" is a red herring. The need is to examine what the contract was. There is nothing wrong with selling something that is inadequate, incomplete or unfit for a particular purpose so long as it was properly described as such and vise versa. Where a specific guarantee was made, the duty is of course to stick to that.

I would not have assumed that the replacement part is a transformer, just because " the transformer had broken" and it is ludicrous to expect that "any eng with this kind of issue could easily find an alternative from Maplins" . I used to do this sort of work in the days when electronic equipment was designed to allow for a transformer to be replaced, which is not the strategy nowadays. The chance to find a transformer to fit a particular chassis or circuit board is not at all so good. Unless you know for sure why the transformer broke, it is much more sensible to replace the entirety of the part, switch, motor and all.

Is it safe? The safety of a product is the responsibility of the producer.

... because the defendants capitulate as soon as the process proceeds; they admit; they settle out of court, or the judgement is achieved by default. Shop lifters are creeps and cowards by nature. The last thing they will ever want to do is stand up before a judge to give an account of themselves. That is a decision for the client to make. When a case eventually proceeds it is in the name of the client (ASDA), so they are the ones to ask, if you want to know.