The bigger point is this: Nothing wrong means no liability.

If you can prove, as a matter of fact, that the hotel is not as advertised, the remedy is to prosecute the strict liability criminal offence that it is for an invitation to purchase to mislead the average consumer. Ask them who in particular the summons should be sent to. See how rude they think it is. The offence may be prosecuted regardless of any particular contract or consumer, because an advertisement misleads. The appropriate legislation is The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

A trader can't be forced to trade if the trader would rather not, but is obliged to inform without misleading. None the less, mistakes are allowed: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/regulation/17/made

It is also possible that the quality of your clothes is rubbish.

The duty of a trader with something to sell is not to mislead, so what you would have to do is make out a case to show that something about the way that the goods are sold misleads a buyer into believing that a spare part is available when it is not, or would not be needed when it is. It is a strict liability criminal offence for a commercial practice to cause or be likely "to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise, taking account of its factual context and of all its features and circumstances." It is therefore possible to apply The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations if what you are saying is that the average consumer would not be so daft as to purchase, were the presentation of the goods to adequately inform about the drawback. Whether or not a summons sent to the Chief Executive is likely to result in a criminal conviction depends on what he would have to say for himself. Section 19 explains the due diligence defence.

If he does that, eBay will not insist that the seller pays for the postage, to return the goods. A buyer who cancels a distance contract is entitled to be completely reimbursed, without a duty to "deliver the goods except at his own premises and in pursuance of a request in writing ....". Is it out of time, beyond the seven working days, to cancel the contract?

Ebay's help page is perfectly clear about it: Basics Feedback extortion Buyers aren't allowed to use threats of poor Feedback or low detailed seller ratings to get something that wasn't part of the original listing. Sellers aren't allowed to demand positive Feedback from buyers. http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/feedback-ov.html Which part of "Sellers aren't allowed to demand positive Feedback from buyers" is so hard to get?

Who told you this? My advice is to go back to Wilkinsons (not to a subcontracted security firm) to clear it up, shake hands and put your mind to rest. At the other end of life it is the things we never got around to doing that play on the mind, not the stupid things we did.

To the contrary, with regard to safety, the liability for a defective product falls to The Consumer Protection Act 1987 applies.

Pot - kettle - black. Is this the lionalcook who sells on eBay? It is a strict liability criminal offence for an invitation to purchase to omit the geographical address of the trader.

You don't have to return anything. All you have to do is declare that the contract is cancelled in order to be entitled to get your money back.

Probably. The gist of eBay's Policy is that a member may not attempt to deprive another of a legal right. It is a legal right to expect the seller to pay for goods to be returned if the seller is at fault, so the seller would be out of order to demand a positive, and be at fault. On the other hand, a cancelled contract is supposed to be treated as if it had not been made, so it would then depend on another reason to complain, not a breach of contract. The anomaly is that according to ebay, this is extortion: A buyer who cancels a distance contract is entitled to be completely reimbursed, without a duty to "deliver the goods except at his own premises and in pursuance of a request in writing ....".

The Director of the department is the one to ask. Take him out for a meal or a holiday if the developer did not, already.

Cancel the contract, as per section 10 of the Distance Selling Regulations. The duty of the supplier is then to completely reimburse the buyer, unconditionally, with no obligation to give a reason to cancel, so from there on the delivery is the problem of the seller, not the buyer, as it always was. A contract to sell goods from a distance is a contract to deliver the goods, not just a contract to send them, so if a sender refuses to be sensible to the instruction of the intended receiver he does so at his own risk. In the mean time get yourself down to your local sorting office to give the manager a piece of your mind and an ache in his ear. Nobody who was not especially authorised to receive your mail owns the duty or the right to receive it, nor does the postman own the right to deliver the mail to anybody but the person a registered letter is addressed to. The attempt could otherwise be charged as an offence under the Fraud Act 2006.

To be fair, this business of two windows being open at the same time, depends on the way that a browser works, so is beyond the control of the proprietor of a website, to that extent. The server at the other end knows nothing of how many windows you would happen to have open, except for messages sent by the browser. If the browser you use treats both of the windows as one, so will the receiver of the information at the other end.

You are an insufferably ignorant idiot, so are more than likely to lose, the rule of thumb being that the party most likely to lose is the one most in need of a reality check. It was already pointed out, in detail, in at least one of the several threads you started, that Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act explains exactly what it means for goods to be fit for purpose. If you can't be bothered to heed the advice that a member takes the trouble to give, and to follow the links to the legislation, to see for yourself, then in my opinion you deserve to lose and I hope you do. P.S. Do you know how to read or does somebody else do it for you? That is meant as a serious question.

I think that the need above all else is for a buggered buyer to be honest with himself about the circumstance. Was this a sale where the buyer acted in all good faith and with due diligence, with a fair price paid to a seller with every appearance of being honest and respectable, or was it too good to be true, a bargain at the price, so there were not so many questions asked as there might have been, so as not to miss the chance?

If the argument is about a "commercial purpose", the law says a good deal more than that. The EU Directive 92/12/EEC requires that guide levels "may not be lower than" They don't just make it up as they go along and there were indeed attempts, test cases to see what it may be possible to get away with. You are going to have to get up early in the morning if the hope is to outsmart HMRC, as if they had not seen it all before.

A judge may be more concerned with the veracity of the issues and charges marked in the said report. There is something of the smell of a red herring to a fuss over the technicality of an electronic signature.

Do you happen to have a written copy of the terms and conditions, to see exactly what you were supposed to get for the £500?

The Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 defines the offences and grounds for forfeiture in every detail, so there is no argument, no other basis to raise a case. Did you think they just make it up as they go along, on a whim?

If that is dishonestly intended to gain, cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss, it is tantamount to an offence, since the Fraud Act 2006, so the person to look would be a magistrate. P.S. The suspect is therefore innocent unless proved guilty.

This a question that bewilders me, every time that it comes, which it often does. Why in ordinary terms, would you expect to get a deposit back; why do you think you should? A deposit is "Something, usually a sum of money, committed to another person's charge as a pledge for the performance of some contract, in part payment of a thing purchased" [Oxford English Dictionary] Unless the deposit was especially intended as a holding deposit, not a part of a payment for goods, and the seller and the goods are OK, you are the one in breach of the contract, so could be sued for specific performance, forced to complete the purchase.

This is a question of fact, particular terms and conditions, etcetera. A standard is set by the custom and practice of public auction houses whose terms and conditions distinguish between what is sold as seen or guaranteed to conform to description. A dealer may also deny that this was a sale to a consumer, if a price was negotiated. In so far as the opinion of the valuer is presented as respectable, I am surprised if he did not inform about the value of his own opinion, in legal terms, so to speak. A person with a valid claim to outdo the opinion of another with regard to the authenticity of an antique, ought to be better informed than you or I, about the chance to get your money back.

You are pushing your luck on that, as well. The Sale of Goods Act prescribes a "reimbursement". If what you lost or spent was credit, it is fair enough for the same to be given back.