Common law and stare decisis are essentially the same thing..

m Lawful visitors to whom occupiers owe the common duty of care for the purposes of the Occupiers Liability Act of 1957 include: Invitees - S.1(2) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - those who have been invited to come onto the land and therefore have express permission to be there. Licensees - S.1(2) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - those who have express or implied permission to be there. According to S. 1(2) this includes situations where a licence would be implied at common law. (See below) Those who enter pursuant to a contract - s.5(1) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - For example paying guests at a hotel or paying visitors to a theatre performance or to see a film at a cinema. Those entering in exercising a right conferred by law - s.2(6) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - For example a person entering to read the gas or electricity metres. Implied licence at common law In the absence of express permission to be on the land, a licence may be implied at common law where there exists repeated trespass and no action taken by the occupier to prevent people coming on to the land. This requires an awareness of the trespass and the danger: Lowery v Walker [1911] AC 10 Case summary Repeated trespass alone insufficient: Edwards v Railway Executive [1952] AC 737 Case Summary

That's not correct, common law fills the gap and or interprets statute, there a fair bit of wiggle room via the rules of statutory interpretation. Furthermore, the case law has already said that to the way to lisence operate is compatible with article 8.

Indeed, this is why I'm asking about summary judgment because his defence has no basis in law. He's also claiming that he tried to call me several times but I have my call logs proving he didn't. Also claiming he offered to replace it when I came in his shop, another blatant lie I have him recorded.

Personally I would formally reject the goods and demand a refund.

Go higher, don't bother with customer service monkeys. Michael Dell CEO Email michael@dell.com Telephone 512-338-4400 Website http://www.dell.com Personal Twitter @MichaelDell

Got his defence, says he's not liable because it was second hand. Lol. He's also written all over it "do not give her my address", even though I have it.

Still dodgy

In a nutshell: yes. They should disclose everything they intend to rely on before the hearing.

You cannot lawfully withhold rent. But, if you were to go down the claims route you can claim a rent rebate for not having full use of the property. Also consequential losses re destroyed clothes etc. Take photos of everything and start documenting. Get environmental health to come and do a report they can force repairs.

Consumer rights act only applies to contracts taken after 1st October. Statute cannot be retrospectively applied.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/section/48B And http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/section/48C Also, as it broke within 6 months you have the EU warranty: http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/shopping/shopping-abroad/guarantees/index_en.htm Happy to link to the actual directive (1999/44/EC) but it's lonnnng!

If they fail to repair or replace within a "reasonable" time s.48c sale of goods act says you can rescind the contract and get a refund. There's no "law" about it, it IS the law.

I have an advert of his doing "free house clearances". I reckon he's collecting people's old rubbish then advertising as "refurbished" then once he's mugged a few people he moves again.

:focus:

That's your opinion. Whilst you are entitled to it I am entitled to disregard it entirely.

Just to add the guy I bought from is now making loads of accusations; I've threatened his wife on the phone, I told him "I'm a law student with connections in the court", and I got a friend to phone him and threaten him. This is all entirely fictitious and my call logs will back me up. This is the main reason for me not letting it go. He's lieing through his teeth and even now is mugging people off selling faulty goods. He's operating on gumtree now and has a mother store, his third that I know of. Because he keeps moving I did some digging and claimed against his house which he owns. I have the official deed. He's claiming he doesn't live there but somehow got the paperwork that was sent to that address. It's not about the money, never was. It's about the fact he's mugging off vulnerable people. I have spoken to one who says the fridge doesn't work and she keeps having to turn it off and on. Another one says he grabbed him by the arm and dragged him out the shop when he went in to complain about his cooker which had never worked.

Exactly, but the statute does say the seller than deduct amounts for "reasonable use". However, the case law says when there been significant inconvenience then the full price paid can be claimed. Which is exactly what I'm claiming because I had no fridge freezer for eight weeks.

That's an awful lot of assumptions to make based on not a lot of information. I would suggest less obiter and more ratio

Relevance?

But the thing is, it was under warranty. Any tinkering With it on my part invalidates said warranty, no? So yes, it could be some Thing simple, but what if something major goes wrong and I've invalidated the warranty. Not worth the hassle? I disagree..

It's not the fuse....

Besides the point, it was under warranty he was obligated to repair or replace.

I have informed trading standards there looking into it. I've passed along 9 statements up to now of him mugging people off. I want my money back. His defence is that I "refused" a replacement. However, he has neglected to acknowledge that this was only offered after a 6 week wall of silence and after filing.

Cash