Currys wants me to goto manufactuer

[StormWarrior]

wrong: again there is a separate act about warrenties which ensures the consumers new product is still covered by the original contract.

 

Name the Act ?

[Parva]

ofcourse you could take dell to small claims and use me as a witness, showing my crudentials and showing the machine in question which is using Dell's own parts and pictures of my workshop to show i have the right tools and everything. which could ensure you keep your rights.

but that depends on the judge.

'Crudentials' is probably the correct word ironically. What are the right tools? Maybe I should get my Black and Decker drill out and place that at the side of my PC and say "I can fix it!"! Crud fits quite well. What qualifies you as an expert witness?

[veto]

retailerspointofview

 

im sorry , but everything you put down was assumptions made about my situation , all of them were wrong .

 

i was over ten miles away when the CS lady in store called samsung for me , had nothing todo with my details .

 

samsung are one of the only manu's to fix there own sets with currys , thats the deal 'they' have with 'them'

 

my deal was with 'currys' , not samsung , had i went straight to samsung and gotted a new tv , any faults and im required togo straight to samsung again .

 

i didnt care who 'currys' got to fix my TV , as long as they sorted it with whoever they have contrcted to do repairs .

 

to end this thread .... i now have a brand new 40' samsung lcd , of which i poped a bit more cash in to get .

currys replaced this , so any more faults and im still tied to currys , not samsung .

[Guest retailerspointofview]

Write to Curry's. Inform them formally of the fault and the trouble to which you have been put so far.

describe the fault as fully as you can. Give them 7 days to visit and repair or to inspect the TV after which you will have it independently examined and bill them for it.

writing to curries wastes about 4 days postage, add on the weekend, and time to read the letter and book a engineer visit.. 7 days is too short, try 14 as that is reasonable time in most peoples books. (apart from currys/pcworld who are 28days as reasonable)

 

If they do not respond then have the set inspected and diagnosed by an official Samsung repairer.

hmm.. so call samsung to get them to inspect/diagnose fault.. read on as i come back to this point

Get the report and estimate for repair - you may have to pay for this.

yes external parties do charge labour. so be warned

Send the report and estimate to Curry's. Give them 7 days to repair the set or else you will have it repaired by the official Samsung repairer.

again ill come back to the point about the official samsung repairer

If they do not respond, have the set repaired, pay for it and then send all bills to Curry's for payment. Give Curry's only 7 days to pay and then sue them.

again 7 days for post is not long enough. if you want to stick to this then ensure it is special/recorded delivery.

some court cases get thrown out purely by not allowing companies enough time to action. honestly 7 days.. everyone knows how slow royal mail are!!

Do use an official Samsung repairer. Don't settle for some cheaper outfit.

using manufacturer officials ensures work is done to manufacturing standard and so the company (currys) cant just say you breached your rights by using shoddy repairers.

The trap to fall into would be to use a cheap repairer as if then broke down again, everyone would be able to disclaim on the guarantee and you would be left in a very difficult position.

 

Their legal reps are DG something or other. Very obstinate and difficult bunch who will cave in in the end.

Your position is unloseable. It is a disgrace that you are having this kind of trouble with a company such as Curry's which used once to be a very company - they have lost their way.

 

ok back to the point above. the advise is good, to contact a samsung official. is a great idea.

 

a more legal option is to ensure that the official is an employee of samsung with the authority to remedy items under guarantee's and under SOGA.

manufacturers as a separate legal act have to by law ensure their guarantees and services do not affect consumers rights, including SOGA.

 

someone that is just trained and qualified by samsung but is not an employee has less legal requirements to remedy faults and keep it all within consumers rights.

so ensure it is a samsung employee for best legal position.

 

second point. instead of giving currys 7-14 days to inspect/diagnose. and then contact and pay a samsung official. and then another 7-14 days to contact currys/samsung official to remedy it.

 

why not contact samsung manufacturer instead of external officials. no 7 day here 7 day there.. no pay upfront and sue later. no risk that official may have affected your legal rights.

 

REMEMBER contacting samsung manufacturers engineers rather then external officials does not affect your legal rights.

 

BY LAW using manufacturers guarantee's/services does not affect your SOGA rights.

 

even if trained by samsung if they are not authorised or employed by samsung they dont have to care about consumers rights. but manufacturers and retailers do

[Guest retailerspointofview]

here we go

 

Consumer Direct - Using a guarantee

 

bottom of the page the manufacturers guarantees and services must clearly state that they do not affect consumers rights

 

ill find the legal act which came in march 2003 to ensure manufacturers guarantee's dont affect consumers rights.

 

maybe then you will realise that the retailer can use the manufacturers guarantee as a remedy.

[gyzmo]

 

maybe then you will realise that the retailer can use the manufacturers guarantee as a remedy.

 

In what way?

 

BTW, the "legal act" you are referring to is the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2003 which states that guarantees are contracts and legally binding on the guarantor.

 

All they do is offer ADDITIONAL rights to consumers and are best used only where those rights are in force but statutory rights are not applicable (e.g, where an item is faulty after ten years, and the guarantee states a replacement wil be given in such cases).

[Guest retailerspointofview]

In what way?

 

BTW, the "legal act" you are referring to is the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2003 which states that guarantees are contracts and legally binding on the guarantor.

 

All they do is offer ADDITIONAL rights to consumers and are best used only where those rights are in force but statutory rights are not applicable (e.g, where an item is faulty after ten years, and the guarantee states a replacement wil be given in such cases).

 

seriously you have no clue. reading about how to load a gun does not make you a expert sniper.

 

reading the french dictionary does not make you french.

 

unless you see the laws, acts, regulations in the real world you will see their true meaning and not the grey area called a book.

 

manufacturers guarantee's do not affect consumers rights. pure and simple.

retailers can use the manufacturers services as a remedy. if the retailer afterwards refuses to deal with the fault then the retailer is in breach. manufacturers contact the retailer concerned with what remedy they have given the consumer. (which is why they ask for proof of purchase to know who to contact).

so if the item is a new product the seller has to accept this.

because no money changes hands between consumer and manufacturer then there is no new contract between the manufacturer and consumer.. the old consumer/seller one remains.

 

the contract between buyers/seller only ends with these options

recind of contract

breach of contract

passed life expectantcy of product.

 

the manufacturers guarantee does not affect consumers rights so the consumer is not breaching the act.

the consumer receives no reimbursment. refund, full or partial from the seller so the contract has not been recinded.

the manufacturers guarantee lasts for 12 months. apart from consumables the life expectancy of most things is about 3 years, and upto 6 if your lucky.

 

if the retailer refuses to deal with it after the manufacturer has dealt with it then the retailer is in breach.

 

so use the manufacturers guarantee.

 

going to external repairers(not manufacturer) is the iffy area as they are not regulated. and so they can affect your rights

 

manufacturers services are there as a means if getting your product repaired to high standard in a more prompt method then your legal rights. the retailers know this and they know that they can use the manufacturer as their repair method. and so they do. consumers refusal to use retailers repair method can be seen as a breach on the consumers side not the retailer. as the retailer has offered an option which is fast convenient and free. obviously after the manufacturers guarantee period the retailer has to find other methods to remedy the solution

[patdavies]

 

unless you see the laws, acts, regulations in the real world you will see their true meaning and not the grey area called a book.

 

I think you have this (as usual:cry:) back to front. An Act of Parliament or subsequent regulation or SI is absolutely black and white and written down (in what, for the sake of argument, we'll call a book).

 

It is only when retailers attempt to bend the law to suit themselves that the so-called 'grey' areas emerge.

 

 

manufacturers guarantee's do not affect consumers rights.

They are in addition to the consumer's rights under SoGA. They may not replace or curtail those rights in any way.

 

retailers can use the manufacturers services as a remedy.

As has been said before, (ad nauseum) this is absolutely true. What they cannot do is require the buyer to use the manufacturer's services - the retailer remains wholly liable for remedy.

 

Please, please tell me that you understand this - I cannot see how it can be explained more simply.

 

 

manufacturers contact the retailer concerned with what remedy they have given the consumer. (which is why they ask for proof of purchase to know who to contact).

Where in the name of all that is Holy does this latest nonsense come from?

 

There is no requirement whatsoever to fill out those little guarantee cards so beloved by manufacturers for gathering marketing information. There is no legal requirement to provide a proof of purchase to a manufacturer - although it can often speed up the process.

 

so if the item is a new product the seller has to accept this.

because no money changes hands between consumer and manufacturer then there is no new contract between the manufacturer and consumer.. the old consumer/seller one remains.

Time and time again, this has been explained to you and still you spout this arrant nonsense.

 

If you purchase product XYZ serial number 1234 from a retailer then your rights under SoGA relate to your contract to purchase this particular item.

 

If it breaks and you send it to the manufacturer, who doesn't repair it but sends you a new one with a different serial number - then your contract with the retailer for the item you bought is ended as you no longer have ownership of the item contracted under SoGA

 

If the retailer sends it to the manufacturer by way of remedy and it is replaced, then your rights under SoGA remain with the retailer as replacement by the retailer is a possible remedy under the Act

 

the contract between buyers/seller only ends with these options

recind of contract

breach of contract

passed life expectantcy of product.

 

the manufacturers guarantee does not affect consumers rights so the consumer is not breaching the act.

the consumer receives no reimbursment. refund, full or partial from the seller so the contract has not been recinded.

the manufacturers guarantee lasts for 12 months. apart from consumables the life expectancy of most things is about 3 years, and upto 6 if your lucky.

 

if the retailer refuses to deal with it after the manufacturer has dealt with it then the retailer is in breach.

 

so use the manufacturers guarantee.

 

going to external repairers(not manufacturer) is the iffy area as they are not regulated. and so they can affect your rights

 

manufacturers services are there as a means if getting your product repaired to high standard in a more prompt method then your legal rights. the retailers know this and they know that they can use the manufacturer as their repair method. and so they do. consumers refusal to use retailers repair method can be seen as a breach on the consumers side not the retailer. as the retailer has offered an option which is fast convenient and free. obviously after the manufacturers guarantee period the retailer has to find other methods to remedy the solution

This is just so much nonsense, I'm simply not going to try and make sense of it.

[Darren]

seriously you have no clue. reading about how to load a gun does not make you a expert sniper.

 

reading the french dictionary does not make you french.

 

 

Buying a business degree does not give you a brain.

[StormWarrior]

Pat, giveup, you will not get anywhere.

 

I understand that you don't want his mis-information to mislead the visitors here, but you will not succeed in teaching someone who does not want to learn.

 

I never thought I would hear myself suggest this on a forum, and if you knew some of the things I've done for freedom of speech, you'd understand how hard it is for me to suggest this, but perhaps it's time for the mods to think about this persons posts, and thier effects on this forum.

 

And for what it's worth..

reading about how to load a gun does not make you a expert sniper.

I am an expert sniper, and one of the first things we had to learn IS how to load a gun, and that included a pile of book study on ballistics, etc.

Some people, or should I say 'person', should go back to basics and read a few books, starting with 'Introduction to contract and consumer law'

[gyzmo]

 

unless you see the laws, acts, regulations in the real world you will see their true meaning and not the grey area called a book.

 

RPOV, I do get to see the laws, acts, regulations in the real world.

This is achieved by visiting businesses, along with my Trading Standards and Weights and Measures buddies, to ensure that they are complying with all these laws, acts and regulations, and applying the aforesaid "in the real world". And if they do not do so, well......

 

why don't you just shut up?

[Guest retailerspointofview]

I think you have this (as usual:cry:) back to front. An Act of Parliament or subsequent regulation or SI is absolutely black and white and written down (in what, for the sake of argument, we'll call a book).

thing there are no grey area's. you personally beleive that the venue is the so called seller where does it say that the venue is the legally binding party. no where. so the legally binding party is the company. the initial owner of the product

 

It is only when retailers attempt to bend the law to suit themselves that the so-called 'grey' areas emerge.

so retailers can change the laws and make grey area's appear?? WOW is that with fairy dust. maybe it is more of they case that SOGA already has grey area's and retailers use them. this is not bending the law. this is just understanding the law more then you do. and using its weaknesses

 

They are in addition to the consumer's rights under SoGA. They may not replace or curtail those rights in any way.

yep they are in addition to the consumers rights. also the retailer can legally use these additional rights as a remedy. if the manufacturer cannot repair it then the retailer then has to find other avenues/ remedies

it is only when the buyer refuses a retailers remedy that the buyer is forcing the retailer to find a remedy which is disproportionatly costly.

a remedy is a remedy is a remedy. the retailer is only in breach if they not help you at all. but if they offer a solution that is free, fast and repaired/replaced to high standards then this is a remedy.

ill let you check up the bit about a buyer cannot refuse a remedy that is disproportionate to other remedies.

 

As has been said before, (ad nauseum) this is absolutely true. What they cannot do is require the buyer to use the manufacturer's services - the retailer remains wholly liable for remedy.

where does it state in SOGA that manufacturers guarantee does not apply. come on prove me wrong show me the quote that seller cannot use guarantees.. ill give u £100 via paypal.. so its worth it. from my reading the soga act says the seller must find a remedy, which is not too inconvenient, free to buyer and dealt with within minimal time. manufacturers guarantee covers all of this.

lets see you try and make £100

 

Please, please tell me that you understand this - I cannot see how it can be explained more simply.

 

 

Where in the name of all that is Holy does this latest nonsense come from?

 

There is no requirement whatsoever to fill out those little guarantee cards so beloved by manufacturers for gathering marketing information. There is no legal requirement to provide a proof of purchase to a manufacturer - although it can often speed up the process.

to use a manufacturers guarantee your right you dont need to fill in those cards. hense why they have a no marketing box. but yes if you really insist on wasting your own time and delaying a repair or replacement then dont bother telling them where or when you bought it. go on waste companies time. dont bother getting fixed.. just cause arguments and laugh.. and forget that while you enjoy wasting other peoples time you dont have working product.

personally i want my products fixed for free and fast. so i am glad you dont care about wasting months where you could have got it fixed in days

 

Time and time again, this has been explained to you and still you spout this arrant nonsense.

 

If you purchase product XYZ serial number 1234 from a retailer then your rights under SoGA relate to your contract to purchase this particular item.

actually in most retailers this is wrong. especially high street retailers. as high street retailers do not take down serial numbers of it.. all that is mentioned should you wish to check your receipts from clothes, electrical and phone shops is the make and model. not serial number.

If it breaks and you send it to the manufacturer, who doesn't repair it but sends you a new one with a different serial number - then your contract with the retailer for the item you bought is ended as you no longer have ownership of the item contracted under SoGA

manufacturers take details such as name and address and pass on the results of repairs or replacements onto the original retailer so the retailer knows that the new product is under the same original contract. again manufacturers guarantees do not affect consumers rights.

only when money changes hands is when problems arise. as the replacement would not be classed as a replacement but a new purchase if the buyer pays for it.

this means if you use a guarantee which is free it does not affect your rights. if you use a guarantee which is free it does not affect your rights. if you use a guarantee which is free it does not affect your rights.

get the idea?? remember there is £100 in it for you. just show me a quote that says sellers cannot use manufacturers.

 

If the retailer sends it to the manufacturer by way of remedy and it is replaced, then your rights under SoGA remain with the retailer as replacement by the retailer is a possible remedy under the Act

 

This is just so much nonsense, I'm simply not going to try and make sense of it.

it means the manufacturer is a authorised repairer/replacer of product. manufacturers also have additional regulations which ensure the retailers know about what happens as a result of a guarantee use so that it does not affect consumers rights

 

 

remember £100 in it for you to find the words a seller cannot use guarantee as a remedy

[Guest retailerspointofview]

RPOV, I do get to see the laws, acts, regulations in the real world.

This is achieved by visiting businesses, along with my Trading Standards and Weights and Measures buddies, to ensure that they are complying with all these laws, acts and regulations, and applying the aforesaid "in the real world". And if they do not do so, well......

 

why don't you just shut up?

 

ok so when your trading standards buddies do inspections of compet, DSG argos. why havnt you sued them for their aftercare sales leaflets which clearly state. undercertain time store deals with it. after that customer service department does

[gyzmo]

WTF? Are you on drugs? Can I have some? anything that makes reality seem so distorted as suggested by your posts must be bloody good.

 

I suggest you pick up a basic law book and look at the word "sue". TSOs prosecute, not sue. And a general statement that may or may not be enforceable, never mind as part of a contract, is not something that would be "sued" for.

 

Cretin.

[StormWarrior]

Be aware - guarantees cannot be legally used to exclude or limit a shop's or dealer's liability for selling goods that are defective or do not correspond with their description.

The trader must sort out your problem, not the manufacturer

Remember, if you are entitled to a refund, replacement, repair or compensation, it is the trader who must sort out your problem. The trader cannot tell you to go back to the manufacturer.

A free guarantee or warranty offered by a manufacturer or trader is legally binding (with effect from March 2003). It should be written clearly and must be made available for viewing on request. It must also state that it does not affect your legal rights.

All the above were taken from Consumer Direct Website, and I think the first two qualify as

the words a seller cannot use guarantee as a remedy

where do I collect my £100 ???

The third is aimed at the consumer not the reseller.

[voodoo1102]

Just wanted to offer a Currys employee's view on this one.

 

If a customer has a problem with a TV, our first port of call is our help line - the same one we give out to customers. Depending on the make of the TV, this will then direct us to either the manufacturer, or their repair agent. Details of the fault are taken, and then either an engineer is booked, or an exchange authority number is given.

 

In the case of Samsung, we (as staff) have been told Samsung deal with their own products, though why this is, I'm not sure. It's possible we do not have access to specialist Samsung parts, or maybe Samsung prefer to use their own engineers on their products. Whatever the reason, when we advise the customer to contact the manufacturer, it is to speed up the repair or exchange process by removing us from the loop. Or that's the plan, anyways.

 

With regard to the "Whatever Happens" product support/extended warranty/whatever you want to call it, the repairs would still be carried out by the manufacturer if the item is within its manufacturer's warranty - the product support is supposed to entitle you to a priority service through the manufacturer, and binds them to our 21-day exchange policy. Some manufacturers won't exchange a product until 6 weeks or so have passed, which is why we try to sell our product support even though items are covered by manufacturer's warranty at the same time. It's meant to be a better level of service.

 

I'm not trying to defend Currys or anything. I hate the damn place and can't wait to get out of it. I'm just trying to explain why we refer people on to the manufacturer rather than direct them through us. They're not trying to shift responsibility - they're just directing you to the quickest and easiest route to resolve the problem.

 

My advice to the OP, if they haven't had their issue resolved yet, would be to contact Samsung as directed and see what Samsung will do. Cutting Currys out of the loop will save you a lot of time and effort, but by all means go back to the store if you can't get it sorted quickly. Don't forget to take your receipt and SERIAL NUMBER (it's on the back of the TV), coz we can't do anything without a serial number to give to Samsung.

[gyzmo]

The issue of simply referring the customer to the manufacturer has been addressed ad infinitum et ad nauseam. nice to get a view "from the inside" as it were. But where a store to do this, and the customer refused, the store would be held accountable. The buyer may be willing to do as the store says, but need not do if they so wish.

[clavileno]

The issue of simply referring the customer to the manufacturer has been addressed ad infinitum et ad nauseam. nice to get a view "from the inside" as it were. But where a store to do this, and the customer refused, the store would be held accountable. The buyer may be willing to do as the store says, but need not do if they so wish.

 

If i may try to summarise things as they stand, since there are fimly entrenched viewpoints which aren't necessarily contradictory in anything but language!

 

If I buy a TV from ABC Ltd and a fault develops, I have statutory remedies available to me under the Sale of Goods Act (amongst other things). ABC Ltd must procure the remedy in that circumstance. The Courts have ruled that it is reasonable for ABC Ltd to refer to me to the manufacturer in order to have my TV repaired provided that ABC Ltd don't try to hide behind the warranty and deny that I have any other rights. This is not exactly the same as the advice on the Consumer Direct site, but it is fact that Courts have ruled this way.

 

In addition, if I have a manufacturer's warranty and (a) were ABC Ltd to go bust during the time the SOGA (etc) says they're liable, or (b) after that time but when the warranty is still valid, the manufacturer cannot decline to honour the warranty on the basis that I did not purchase anything directly from them and therefore have no contract with them.

 

However the Courts have also ruled that it is reasonable for the retailer to require me to provide proof that I purchased that specific TV from that specific retailer on a specific date. It is also reasonable for the manufacturer to require the same thing in order for me to prove I have a valid calim under the warranty. It is also reasonable for the manufacturer to require me to register a purchase using a warranty card in order for the warranty to be valid.

 

Finally, if ABC Ltd is a large company with many branches, the law does not specifically require a specific branch to resolve my problem, only the company as a legal entity. Therefore a customer support line is a reasonable substitute for an in-store service - I don't appear to have a legal right to any remedy in my local ABC Ltd branch, only from ABC Ltd as a whole.

 

I'm sorry if this doesn't agree with everybody's PoV, but I believe it to be a fair summary of the situation as it stands.

[gyzmo]

Could you please provide the citation for these court cases? Specifically the one allowing the seller to refer the consumer to the manufacturer.

[patdavies]

It is also reasonable for the manufacturer to require me to register a purchase using a warranty card in order for the warranty to be valid.

 

 

Whilst I am not in a position to cite the relevant court cases, this is absolutely not true. There is no requirement to register in order to access a manufacturer's warranty - proof of purchase at the point of claiming is all that is required.

[clavileno]

Whilst I am not in a position to cite the relevant court cases, this is absolutely not true. There is no requirement to register in order to access a manufacturer's warranty - proof of purchase at the point of claiming is all that is required.

 

The Office of Fair Trading at their Consumer Direct site disagrees with you (link):

 

With some goods you may have a manufacturer's guarantee. If there is a registration card that needs to be returned to the manufacturer, make sure that the seller has filled in details of the purchase – otherwise the card might not be valid.

For the guarantee to be effective, you might need to ensure that you return the registration card to a stated address. Make sure you keep the documentation supplied with the goods that tells you how to make a claim under the guarantee.

 

So does the Trading Standards Institute (link):

 

A trader or manufacturer is under no obligation to provide a guarantee, and if they do, they can specify any time span, for example six months, twelve months or three years. They can also specify what is to be covered by the guarantee, and exclude certain parts, or wear and tear. They cannot, however, take away any rights you would have under the Sale of Goods Act.

 

A guarantee is whatever the provider of that guarantee wants it to be. Unless the terms of it are unfair (in law, according to the relevant acts) then they can specify whatever they like.

[clavileno]

Could you please provide the citation for these court cases? Specifically the one allowing the seller to refer the consumer to the manufacturer.

 

I'm researching that point further and will get back to you. I know of cases in the lower courts, but I need to find specific (preferably online) cases I can cite for reference. I'll report back either way.

 

In the mean time, the SOGA of course says only that:

48B Repair or replacement of the goods

...

 

(2) If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—

(a) repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;

(b) bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

 

I chose my language carefully in my original post. The effect of this clause is to force the seller to "procure" the remedy. There is no specific requirement for, say, a seller to have a repair department of their own.

 

So, extending this further, what does "repair" mean? It means, to coin a phrase, to "make it so". So let's consider this by examples.

 

1. I buy a TV, I call up the branch of ABC Ltd (the seller) I bought it from and say "it is broken". They tell me they don't have a repair facility there, but that I should call a head office number. Is this unreasonable? Generally, no. My contract is with ABC Ltd, and, whilst I'd prefer it if they transferred me, it isn't unreasonable to ask me to call the right department.

 

2. I buy a TV, I call up the branch of ABC Ltd (the seller) I bought it from and say "it is broken". They tell me they don't have a repair facility there, but that I should call a number for their appointed repairers. Is this unreasonable? Again, no, as they are providing me with the repair, only by paying a contractor to do it.

 

3. I buy a TV, I call up the branch of ABC Ltd (the seller) I bought it from and say "it is broken". They tell me they've appointed the manufacturer as their appointed repairer for this brand of TV, and that I should call a number for their appointed repairers (the manufacturer). Is this unreasonable? Again, no, as it differs not one iota in substance from example 2.

 

All of this is a long way from "seller says can't help, insists only manufacturer's warranty is a valid redress".

 

Anyhow, I will dig out the citations that I can find and post the results here.

[Darren]

clavileno

 

what people are trying to point out here is that, whilst using the manufacturer to repair products is ok, it is the stores/companies responsibility to arrange this, not the consumer.

 

here are details of a court case http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/pcworld/69505-pc-world-there-being-3.html#post880325

[gyzmo]

This point has been argued to death. i cannot believe that there is anything more to say on the matter. It seems that some people are possibilities, like the word "may" as definites ("must"). In law, that is a fatal mistake, and a very good reason why I see no need to post further on this subject.