LOL Dixons web page
Aloysious Cholmondeley-Smythe
Mike
at 23:54:44 on Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Aloysious Cholmondeley-Smythe
<m...@privacy.net> wroteLOL. Clever advertising apparently
--
Mike News
IanT
"Aloysious Cholmondeley-Smythe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:7pag6i...@mid.individual.net...They have done a "Ratners"!
Niel J Humphreys
"IanT" <noe...@email.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hgq4km$7gb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
They have removed it now (but I got a screen grab)
http://www.snowdoncomputers.co.uk/Dixons.JPG
--
Ian F.
message news:hgq8pu$efj$1...@energise.enta.net...
> They have removed it now (but I got a screen grab)
Ian
Brian Gaff
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Aloysious Cholmondeley-Smythe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:7pag6i...@mid.individual.net...
johannes
LOL, they probably meant to say: "Look no further" or something.
Someone at Dixons must have got some red ears.
Mike
at 18:05:28 on Sat, 26 Dec 2009, johannes
<jo...@siz82442582548524542efitter.com> wrote
--
Mike News
DubDriver
news:4B365068...@siz82442582548524542efitter.com...
http://www.bitterwallet.com/dixons-marketing-fail-no-longer-the-last-place-you-want-to-go/23288
johannes
Thank you for your reply, and can I sell you a three year 'no worry' insurance,
only �188.89 ?
:-)
MatSav
A few years ago, I bought a new microwave oven from Dixons for
about �45. They offered me a 3-year policy for �90 - per annum!
--
MatSav
johannes
And you now have 3 years functioning by default, as the microwave can
reasonable be expected to last for three years. It is no longer just
one year and then nothing; it depends on what you can reasonable expect
from the item.
Phil
No he doesn't.
> as the microwave can reasonable be expected to last for three years.
By whose reasonable expectation? The buyer? the seller? a court?
> It is no longer just one year and then nothing;
It has never been just one year and then nothing, that's just a myth
that shops have perpetuated because it works in their favour. It's
amazing how many people still believe it though.
The problem is of course, that - at three years old (or the maximum of 6
years) - how are you going to prove that it has failed because of a
defect in production that was present at the time of manufacture?
--
Phil
MatSav
I happen to work for the National Measurement Office,
http://www.nmo.gov.uk, and whilst I'm not actively involved with
local authority Trading Standards Departments, I do have a
certain amount of knowledge of consumer rights :-)
What Phil wrote is correct, consumers have *up to* six years to
try and claim from a vendor. The buyer should have reasonable
expectation of 'durability' - and that is dependant on the value
of the goods. In case of dispute, a court would need to decide on
whether the goods were defective - not the purchaser or the
vendor. There is also a concept of a reasonable period to
discover a defect - that is, if you purchase something but leave
it in its packaging for six months, then try to use it and find
it is defective, can a claim against the vendor be made? Again,
that is for a court to decide, in each individual case.
--
MatSav
Rob Morley
"MatSav" <matthew | dot | savage | at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot | com>
wrote:
> What Phil wrote is correct, consumers have *up to* six years to
> try and claim from a vendor. The buyer should have reasonable
> expectation of 'durability' - and that is dependant on the value
> of the goods.
And nowhere does Phil's "3 years functioning by default" appear in the
legislation or in case law - instead it's totally dependant on what
might reasonably be expected given the nature and price of the goods
and the use to which they have been put. The 6 year limit is the limit
on making a claim, and in no way defines how long something should last.
DubDriver
news:20091227210755.2df462ed@bluemoon...
Trouble is, after 6 months the onus is on the buyer to prove an inherent
defect at time of purchase. Bit difficult to prove a 3 year old microwave
with a broken magnetron was inherently faulty by design or manufacture at
time of purchase without going to all the trouble of organising an
independent experts report. Perhaps in practice, the likes of Dixons, don't
respond to court and you end up winning that way!?
johannes
1. It wasn't Phill, it was me.
2. The 3 years functioning was not a quote of law! It was to emphasize
that the 3 years warranty was largely unnecessary, as it would be possible
to argue that a microwave should reasonable last that long and that there
is no longer a one year time limit for any claim. Ok, there will be the
odd ifs and buts to sort out, but that's for the nitpicking lawyers.
johannes
Phil wrote:
>
> > And nowhere does Phil's "3 years functioning by default" appear in
> > the legislation or in case law
>
> That's because "Phil's "3 years functioning by default"" supposition
> doesn't exist at all.
>
> HTH :)
>
> --
> Phil
I think Rob Morley put up a straw man, as he usually does in ngs.
HTH.
Rob Morley
johannes <jo...@sizefitt996854343335576er.com> wrote:
>
>
> Rob Morley wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:59:09 -0000
> > "MatSav" <matthew | dot | savage | at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot |
> > com> wrote:
> >
> > > What Phil wrote is correct, consumers have *up to* six years to
> > > try and claim from a vendor. The buyer should have reasonable
> > > expectation of 'durability' - and that is dependant on the value
> > > of the goods.
> >
> > And nowhere does Phil's "3 years functioning by default" appear in
> > the legislation or in case law - instead it's totally dependant on
> > what might reasonably be expected given the nature and price of the
> > goods and the use to which they have been put. The 6 year limit is
> > the limit on making a claim, and in no way defines how long
> > something should last.
>
> 1. It wasn't Phill, it was me.
Blame Mat for being careless with his attributions.
Rob Morley
johannes <jo...@sizefi22542552535353tter.com> wrote:
>
>
> Phil wrote:
> >
> > > And nowhere does Phil's "3 years functioning by default" appear in
> > > the legislation or in case law
> >
> > That's because "Phil's "3 years functioning by default"" supposition
> > doesn't exist at all.
> >
> I think Rob Morley put up a straw man, as he usually does in ngs.
>
In all fairness I don't think my believing the attributions quoted in
the post to which I responded really counts as putting up a straw
man. In fact I think that you're a twat for suggesting this.
Brian Gaff
another year is here and its down to the daily grind again..
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"johannes" <jo...@siz82442582548524542efitter.com> wrote in message
news:4B365068...@siz82442582548524542efitter.com...
>
>