I'm afraid you cannot legislate against people making accusations. The tort of defamation is there for people to pursue civil claims but in situations like this, the defence of honest comment comes in - notwithstanding the fact that it would be a stretch to consider this situation as defamatory in accordance with the accepted definition. The law protects people who have done nothing wrong in the circumstances of arrest and charge for example. This is because the onus is on the crown to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, not for the defendant to prove his or her innocence. Of course, if the defendant sought to rely on an alibi or excuse when faced with such accusations, then it will be for him or her to prove that excuse or alibi is true/correct/accurate.

I have read on here many times about people having been banned from a store and as has been advised before, a store can ban who they wish. If I went up the road to my local store and the manager said I had been selected at random to be the person banned that day, they can do so and not give reasons if they don't want to. The information you give is a little vague. What made them approach you? They will perhaps approach and make accusations if they see something suspicious or perhaps you matched a description of an offender and they were acting with honest intentions but it was in fact mistaken identity. I can say for example that if a person was arrested for shoplifting and the store boasted CCTV footage, the onus is on the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and they must therefore exhibit the footage. The crown cannot state there is good CCTV footage of the event without presenting such footage to a court.

You are preaching to the converted. I am more than aware of SOGA and that each case is judged on its own merits but it helps to see how the law has developed in this area. I don't doubt you could throw engineering expertise into the fray with regard my arguments about the quality of the car in itself as I am going on what I have read here and have no engineering and scientific expertise. What I do have though, are a very particular set of skills lol. My degree in law and the often referred to 'real world' experience that I have means that the original poster can at least take on board my advice about SOGA. Instead of opposing each other however, think of how we could help the original poster together. From now on if he asks any questions about the attributes of the car and what is reasonable to expect etc, you field it with your expertise. If he wishes to ask about any case law in this area or SOGA specifics, I can field it. I am more than happy to accept your engineering expertise here so please offer some to the original poster. I will then wait and see if he wants to ask any legal questions. Join me in smoking the pipe of peace:-)

I didn't fail to take it into account Helios, indeed there are no guarantees in a battle such as this. I reckon they could throw in the authority of Thain v Anniesland Trade Centre but having owned cars older than that with better seals, it's worth arguing, especially bearing in mind their attitude. Most if not all garages boast that they check cars before delivery to the buyer so that implies the car has been deemed by the seller as satisfactory quality. To fail so soon and not be repaired is worth a battle in my opinion.

If they have failed to honour the warranty by not repairing it under warranty, you could argue mis-sold warranty but remember that the warranty is a completely separate entity to SOGA and you must stick to arguing your rights at court under SOGA, it is powerful consumer legislation. With regard to telephone logs, anything in your favour if they do exist will be conveniently lost or deleted etc. This is why writing and emails are key to proving stuff.

Keep all correspondence in writing and use recorded delivery so that you can prove everything they respond with and receive etc. Don't worry about 'time lapsed' because you have given them chance after chance to repair during that time. If anything, you could have rejected the goods at an earlier point. You can claim for any outlay for independent repairs etc when at court if they are refusing to repair under SOGA. You pay to file the claim through the court but do not pay costs even if you lose. They must pay for representation but you represent yourself. This means that in reality, it would cost them less to cave in, repair and settle your costs than it would to fight it and lose at court. This might be useful: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system_e/law_taking_legal_action_e/small_claims.htm

If they were to claim you have had it too long for rejection, then you can counter that by saying that the time spent trying to repair, does not count when considering if sufficient time has elapsed to say that you have accepted the goods. Clegg v Andersson (t/a Nordic Marine) [2003] EWCA Civ 320 With regard to the deemed acceptance provision in s.35(4), the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 had altered the law with regard to the correct approach to the lapse of reasonable time. Consequently, the time taken to effect modification or repair was to be taken into account in resolving questions of fact arising under s.35(4), Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All E.R. 220 disapproved. In Clegg v Andersson T/A Nordic Marine, speaking of Bernstein v Pamson Motors, Sir Andrew Morritt VC said: "As the judge acknowledged that decision has been criticised (104 LQR 18). Further it was based on the terms of s.35 before amendment by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. It is unnecessary to express a view as to whether the decision of Rougier J was correct before the amendment to s.35 effected by Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. In my view it does not represent the law now. As originally enacted s.35(1) provided that a buyer was deemed to have accepted goods, inter alia, “when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them”. S.59 provided then, as it does now, that what is a reasonable time is a question of fact. The material difference arises from the removal of that part of subsection (1) to subsection (4) and the addition of subsections (5) and (6). Thus subsection (5) provides that whether or not the buyer has had a reasonable time to inspect the goods is only one of the questions to be answered in ascertaining whether there has been acceptance in accordance with subsection (4). Subsection (6)(a) shows that time taken merely in requesting or agreeing to repairs, and, I would hold, for carrying them out, is not to be counted."

I must say that I disagree with boots in their initial reply (unless of course I am reading it out of context). After the first 6 months from purchase/delivery of goods to the buyer, the buyer does indeed need to prove there is a fault but not that the fault was there from day 1. SOGA does not entitle you to a repair or replacement solely on the condition that you prove a fault was "there since the delivery, due to a faulty part inserted during manufacture." If the goods were fine upon delivery and fine every day since but suddenly develop a fault that renders them unsatisfactory according to the obligations arising from S.14 of SOGA, then the buyer has rights of repair or replacement as per what dx100uk has advised. Sometimes goods and their working parts are fine and can suddenly just fail. It doesn't mean that something has always been iffy from the word go and just waiting to go wrong so to speak.

As has been suggested, don't bother with solicitors because of costs and you can indeed do it yourself. That said, I can understand your apprehension and if you were local to me(Derbyshire), I would even volunteer to represent you FOC. It would be further experience for me. Been at Crown Court today with the CPS for a trial. Interesting stuff.

I would say both need to agree. Not encountered that situation but short of a significant reason for the court to instruct both parties to proceed without a hearing, then consent of both parties would be needed.

By all means put on the form whatever it costs you for the witness to be there, can't say I've done any costs before but if the court didn't accept it they would tell you so.. It will depend on both you and her agreeing to submitting everything to a judge for a decision but you won't get the chance to put your view across in person. Case wise, all cases I know of are about points of law etc hence they get reported, significant arguments using particular legislation etc. Never read a case that places any emphasis on which court it is heard in. Did they state which rule or guideline etc was used to decide in her favour with regard to which court to use? They will have seen your reasons for wanting it at your court but felt that she had the stronger argument. They must have criteria or guidelines etc for such things. The fact she has children could mean she has played the human rights card because under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the state must show respect for her private and family life. That right is qualified as opposed to absolute but I dare say it is considered.

Outstanding news. I love it when the villains of the retail world get a comeuppance! Well done for playing things smoothly at court. Even with my academic and employment experience on that front, I get edgy beforehand and actually prefer it once into the flow so to speak. I keep wanting some smug manager to try and argue with me over SOGA so I can say: "I might not have what it takes to get my remedy at this moment but what I do have are a very particular set of skills. Skills I have acquired over the course of my law degree, skills that make me a nightmare for people like you..." Wouldn't bother saying it really but it works in cloud cuckoo land. It's nice there lol!

Ah, thanks ims21

No it's just that it didn't display in the post I made and I wondered why that was. I now know its a safari issue. Weird how its ok in this topic, perhaps I forgot to tick it and then it wouldn't edit. Oh well

It's gone and done it on this post! Still won't let me edit my post in general retail though. Weird!

I have made a post today on my iPad and signature box was ticked but it didn't display it. I edited the post and unticked signature and saved the changes. I edited again and ticked signature and it showed when I clicked preview but doesn't show when changes are saved. Despite this, I can see my signature on posts from a few days ago. Same issue on my iPhone and I do use the full version as opposed to the mobile one. No probs on MacBook so perhaps it's an iOS issue. Any thoughts?

Having had a number of years working in both retail and legal environments within the public sector coupled to a strong 2:1 law degree, I cannot say this has ever cropped up in any studies of mine or even anything similar. I do recall that prior to new legislation coming in, a bet was considered a gentleman's agreement and not a legally binding contract but that's going off on a tangent... In any case, my knowledge is based on the English legal system and the Isle of Man has its own courts and jurisdiction for this. Personally I would take the hit and move on because to find a solicitor with skills and knowledge to find and exploit a loophole could prove costly indeed.

Just as an add on, they will look to counter an S.13 argument by saying it did comply with the description of having all oils/fluids topped up and here is the MOT/reports to prove it. The S.14 'reasonable person' test for the car running out of oil so quickly is the strong argument. They are tripping themselves up in one sense because if they prove it was indeed topped up but you have evidence to say it ran out after a short drive just 2 hours later, how can the car and relevant components be of satisfactory quality to the 'reasonable person.' Very interesting so go on the offensive and keep us posted.

You need to respond by giving him the info that the witnesses will testify to that effect. Also obtain an independent fault report from a mechanic and stress your intention to either reject or repair, whichever you wish. As I was taught, you can sue under more than one head and in my opinion, there is a S.13 Sale by Description argument here. Prior to completion of the contract they described the car as being topped up with oils and you took that into consideration before buying. If goods are described in any way, shape or form, it is a sale by description. Nothing to lose by arguing that as well and make sure you get the witnesses on board to try and counter their arguments. I had a feeling their big card would be documentation to show it was tested beforehand but even so, would the reasonable person expect a car to run out so quickly? I think not and thus S.14 comes in. Hit them with that.

You could try finding an independent mechanic/garage (ideally family member or friend or contact of as they might go the extra mile) who would be willing to spend time with the car and diagnose the fault. If they could, then get such a diagnosis in writing and present it to them. If they maintained their stance that they must find the fault etc, then request a repair under S.14 of SOGA which is not subject to the terms of the garage and its policy. Thinking about it, under S.48 of SOGA, a fault that occurs within 6 months of delivery of goods to the buyer is taken to have been there from day one unless the dealer can prove otherwise. Presumably they would seek to do so with paperwork of pre-delivery checks. If you had the aforementioned diagnosis then you have serious weight behind any argument and could write to them informing them that you plan to go through the small claims court. KEEP EVERYTHING IN WRITING. Massively important to do that. Recorded mail to prove they received it. They can change their story if you relied on phone conversations. Please read this topic in its entirety and my input on page 2 of it might be useful to you: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?395811-Had-car-for-2-hours-and-it-broke(1-Viewing)-nbsp

Also, if you were to begin small claims proceedings, consider this: You pay a small sum depending on the price of the goods in question (e.g £100) to file the claim and if you lost you pay no costs. If they settle out of court or you win, they pay your claim fees and they would have to shell out for barrister fees to fight the case whereas you can represent yourself. This is why with a good case, the majority will crumble before court. This post (although not a SOGA argument) makes interesting reading and they crumbled before court: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...acing-my-i-pad

This might be useful regarding the above: Bernstein v Pamson Motors (1987) 2 All ER 220 • Bernstein bought a new Nissan motor car, which about three weeks after delivery broke down on the motorway; it had done 140 miles. • B advised PM that he rejected the car as not being of merchantable quality. • PM repaired the car, so that it was as good as new, but B refused to have it back. • B claimed rescission and damages. • Held, that B was not entitled to rescind, but could claim damages limited to his cost in getting home after the breakdown, the loss of a full tank of petrol, compensation for his ruined day out, and for his loss of use while the car was being repaired (five days). This seems to be the latest authority: Clegg v Andersson (t/a Nordic Marine) [2003] EWCA Civ 320 With regard to the deemed acceptance provision in s.35(4), the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 had altered the law with regard to the correct approach to the lapse of reasonable time. Consequently, the time taken to effect modification or repair was to be taken into account in resolving questions of fact arising under s.35(4), Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All E.R. 220 disapproved. In Clegg v Andersson T/A Nordic Marine, speaking of Bernstein, Sir Andrew Morritt VC said: "As the judge acknowledged that decision has been criticised (104 LQR 18). Further it was based on the terms of s.35 before amendment by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. It is unnecessary to express a view as to whether the decision of Rougier J was correct before the amendment to s.35 effected by Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. In my view it does not represent the law now. As originally enacted s.35(1) provided that a buyer was deemed to have accepted goods, inter alia, “when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them”. S.59 provided then, as it does now, that what is a reasonable time is a question of fact. The material difference arises from the removal of that part of subsection (1) to subsection (4) and the addition of subsections (5) and (6). Thus subsection (5) provides that whether or not the buyer has had a reasonable time to inspect the goods is only one of the questions to be answered in ascertaining whether there has been acceptance in accordance with subsection (4). Subsection (6)(a) shows that time taken merely in requesting or agreeing to repairs, and, I would hold, for carrying them out, is not to be counted."

This post (although not a SOGA argument) makes interesting reading and they crumbled before court: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?385179-whatever-happens-not-replacing-my-i-pad

Each case is judged on its own merits of course but you could argue it isn't of satisfactory quality and lacking durability under S.14 of Sale of Goods Act 1979. The burden of proof is with you to prove your case so consider the sort of use it has had. Any kids jumping on it etc. How much did it cost? Lower expectation of durability with budget items compared to expensive ones in theory. If you went down the road of court action, consider this: You pay a small sum depending on the price of the goods in question (guessing circa £100) to file the claim and if you lost you pay no costs. If they settle out of court or you win, they pay your claim fees and they would have to shell out for barrister fees to fight the case whereas you can represent yourself. This is why with a good case, the majority will crumble before court. It seems there is a prima facie case under S.14 here.

The loss for the child would be the injuries so no need to go any further then presenting medical reports of the injuries and knock on effects (and any associated costs) in my opinion. If settled out of court, damages would be negotiated according to the extent of the injuries and any knock on effects it has had etc (and any associated costs). If it goes to court and the claimant is victorious, the Judge will award an amount of damages in accordance with injuries and knock on effects (and costs). Damages in common law tort isn't restricted to financial loss and can be awarded solely on injuries sustained and any knock on effects. In the situation originally posted, the injuries were thankfully not severe. There was sadly a death recently in similar circumstances in a shop.