Aria RMA's - pathetic

"Michael Rodgers" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
I think 3-4 weeks like the original poster mentioned is reasonable
time,
think of it like this..........
1. they have to test the item
2. they may not have a identical replacement in stock and need to order
it
3. they may not be able to get an identical replacement and thus need
to
decide on a suitable replacment
4. they may have sent you return away for repair

I would agree with you for regular faulty items, ie stuff that breaks
after
6 months etc.

But stuff thats faulty on arrival?

Well they would still have to.......
1 test the item
2 they may not have a identical replacement in stock and need to order it
3. they may not be able to get an identical replacement and thus need to
decide on a suitable replacment (especially if what you bought was say a
clearance item)
the only previous mentioned i would say is not applicable to DOA items is
"4. they may have sent you return away for repair" i beleieve that if you
ordered a new item and it arrived faulty, it should be either replaced or
refunded, it shouldnt be repaired as you have not had any life out of the
item which should require it to have a repair. (im not sure about law on
this matter, thats just my opinion)

On 09/01/2005 Dave wrote:

If you don't know enough about English law to know the importance of
case law you really shouldn't be taking part in this discussion. It
is one of the first things you are taught in legal studies.

Many resources are expensive but http://www.bailii.org/ is a free
service, look and learn.

FFS in a case such as this there is no clear definition of how long
is too long to wait! It is totally up to the court what decision is
made, and that can vary on a daily basis.


I am sorry, the link I gave you was probably too advanced at this stage
for your current knowledge of English law.

Try:

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/sls.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onelife/...aw/civil.shtml

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/__121b_o7x...kH3zEtFRmT+HMN


Once you have read and understood those you can go back to the first
link and search for some specific cases.

We are way off topic for this group now.

If you genuinely believe that there is no such thing as case law or
that there is none relevant to the word 'reasonable' under SOGA or that
courts do not decide each case on its merits, taking previous similar
cases into account, and that this is not fundamental to the British
legal system then please post saying so in uk.legal.moderated and I
will follow it up.

This is all very simple, basic stuff and you really should not try and
give advice on matters that you clearly don't understand.

Do look at the links above before you post to u.l.m though. I suggested
something similar to a poster in another group a few days ago and he
clearly did some research first. He must have realised how wrong he
was, or didn't have the courage of his convictions because his post
hasn't appeared.


Apologies to other readers of this group for allowing this to stray OT.


--
Jeff Gaines
Posted with XanaNews 1.17.1.2

Dave wrote:

"Jeff Gaines" wrote in message
...
If you don't know enough about English law to know the importance of
case law you really shouldn't be taking part in this discussion. It is
one of the first things you are taught in legal studies.

Many resources are expensive but http://www.bailii.org/ is a free
service, look and learn.

FFS in a case such as this there is no clear definition of how long is too
long to wait! It is totally up to the court what decision is made, and
that can vary on a daily basis.

That's not really true. There isn't a single act that you can refer to
that will give you an answer, certainly. The courts however certainly
don't have the level of freedom that you assert either though.
--
- The email address used in this message *IS* valid -

"Jeff Gaines" wrote in message
...
On 09/01/2005 Dave wrote:

If you don't know enough about English law to know the importance of
case law you really shouldn't be taking part in this discussion. It
is one of the first things you are taught in legal studies.

Many resources are expensive but http://www.bailii.org/ is a free
service, look and learn.

FFS in a case such as this there is no clear definition of how long
is too long to wait! It is totally up to the court what decision is
made, and that can vary on a daily basis.


I am sorry, the link I gave you was probably too advanced at this stage
for your current knowledge of English law.

Try:

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/sls.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onelife/...aw/civil.shtml

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/__121b_o7x...kH3zEtFRmT+HMN


Once you have read and understood those you can go back to the first
link and search for some specific cases.

Oh FFS there is no clear guideline, jesus christ what do you not understand
with that comment?????


We are way off topic for this group now.

You brought up the law issue.


If you genuinely believe that there is no such thing as case law or

I never said that, i simply stated that there is no clear laid down
definition on what amount of time is too long to wait for a return, of
course the law will look at previous cases, however im sure you will agree,
one week a judge may decide that 4 weeks are too long, where as the
following week he may look at another case and decide its not long enough.
If you cant get that through your mind its not my problem, but that is the
reality of the situation.

that there is none relevant to the word 'reasonable' under SOGA or that
courts do not decide each case on its merits, taking previous similar
cases into account, and that this is not fundamental to the British
legal system then please post saying so in uk.legal.moderated and I
will follow it up.

I have no interst in posting to that group full of book reading, link
reading, wannabe law people.


This is all very simple, basic stuff and you really should not try and
give advice on matters that you clearly don't understand.

The only basic simple thing is that you dont understand there is no strict
laid down time period that is allowed for a return to be dealt with.
its simple defined as "resonable time" what you, I or a judge thinks is
"resonable time" is a totally different topic entirely.


Do look at the links above before you post to u.l.m though. I suggested

Im not gonna post there as already stated.

something similar to a poster in another group a few days ago and he
clearly did some research first. He must have realised how wrong he
was, or didn't have the courage of his convictions because his post
hasn't appeared.

Maybe like me he doesnt want to visit a group that is full of 90% couch
potato wannabe law people and only 10% with real life know what the are
talking about people.



Apologies to other readers of this group for allowing this to stray OT.

You turned it into an OT discussion the moment you said, and i quote you
"The law would not support such long delays but it is rarely economic to
take legal action"
FFS you cant even remember who was first to take the thread OT and into the
realms of legal talk, let alone know WTF you are gibbering about when it
comes to returns and the periods of time that are acceptable.
..

"Paul Womar" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

"Jeff Gaines" wrote in message
...
If you don't know enough about English law to know the importance of
case law you really shouldn't be taking part in this discussion. It
is
one of the first things you are taught in legal studies.

Many resources are expensive but http://www.bailii.org/ is a free
service, look and learn.

FFS in a case such as this there is no clear definition of how long is
too
long to wait! It is totally up to the court what decision is made, and
that can vary on a daily basis.

That's not really true. There isn't a single act that you can refer to
that will give you an answer, certainly. The courts however certainly
don't have the level of freedom that you assert either though.

They would base it on previous similar cases, this shows there is no strict
laid down guide on the amount of time which is considered resonable and
unreasonable for a e-tailor to deal with a returned item.

On 09/01/2005 Dave wrote:

that there is none relevant to the word 'reasonable' under SOGA or
that courts do not decide each case on its merits, taking previous
similar cases into account, and that this is not fundamental to the
British legal system then please post saying so in
uk.legal.moderated and I will follow it up.

I have no interst in posting to that group full of book reading, link
reading, wannabe law people.


Well, I'm sorry you're not up for it, although I'm glad to see you are
beginning to change your arguments and now seem to be accepting what
I've said.


--
Jeff Gaines
Posted with XanaNews 1.17.1.2

On 09/01/2005 Dave wrote:


They would base it on previous similar cases


Well done :-))


--
Jeff Gaines
Posted with XanaNews 1.17.1.2

"Jeff Gaines" wrote in message
...
On 09/01/2005 Dave wrote:

that there is none relevant to the word 'reasonable' under SOGA or
that courts do not decide each case on its merits, taking previous
similar cases into account, and that this is not fundamental to the
British legal system then please post saying so in
uk.legal.moderated and I will follow it up.

I have no interst in posting to that group full of book reading, link
reading, wannabe law people.


Well, I'm sorry you're not up for it, although I'm glad to see you are

Its more a case of cant be bothered, speaking to a group 90% full of a type
of armchair critic, rather then "up for it"

beginning to change your arguments and now seem to be accepting what
I've said.


Dunno where you got that idea.

"Jeff Gaines" wrote in message
...
On 09/01/2005 Dave wrote:


They would base it on previous similar cases


Well done :-))

Yes... This means my original statement of...
"The law im sorry to say does not have a clear definition of what is
"resonable time" and what is not."
is totally true, one case a judge may find 4 weeks an unacceptable amount
of time, another case he/she may not.
There is nothing written to state what is and what is not acceptable time.

"Tx2" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
, a.k.a Dave says...


Yes... This means my original statement of...

It means nothing except that you never, ever admit to being wrong.

FFS man, why can't you make a change in 2005 and just accept that you
can't, and won't, always be right?

1. Run along back to uk.telecom.broadband where you supposedly have
killfiled me... DOH!
and
2. My statement of...
"The law im sorry to say does not have a clear definition of what is
"resonable time" and what is not."
Is perfectly accurate and correct, if you cant accept im right, thats your
problem and perhaps its you that needs to make a change in 2005.