Aloysious Cholmondeley-Smythe
2009-12-21 23:54:44 UTC
Discussion:
(too old to reply)
Mike
2009-12-22 00:26:27 UTC
In message <***@mid.individual.net>
at 23:54:44 on Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Aloysious Cholmondeley-Smythe
at 23:54:44 on Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Aloysious Cholmondeley-Smythe
Post by Aloysious Cholmondeley-Smythe
"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
LOL. Clever advertising apparently"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
--
Mike News
Mike News
IanT
2009-12-22 09:47:58 UTC
Post by Aloysious Cholmondeley-Smythe
"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
They have done a "Ratners"!"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
Niel J Humphreys
2009-12-22 10:59:07 UTC
Post by IanT
They have removed it now (but I got a screen grab)Post by Aloysious Cholmondeley-Smythe
"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
They have done a "Ratners"!"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
Loading Image...
--
Ian F.
2009-12-22 13:48:25 UTC
http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/970810/Dixonscouk-ad-takes-festive-swipe-high-street-retailers/
Ian
Ian
johannes
2009-12-26 18:05:28 UTC
Post by Niel J Humphreys
http://www.snowdoncomputers.co.uk/Dixons.JPG
--
LOL, they probably meant to say: "Look no further" or something.Post by IanT
They have removed it now (but I got a screen grab)Post by Aloysious Cholmondeley-Smythe
"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
They have done a "Ratners"!"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
http://www.snowdoncomputers.co.uk/Dixons.JPG
--
Someone at Dixons must have got some red ears.
Mike
2009-12-26 20:46:38 UTC
In message <***@siz82442582548524542efitter.com>
at 18:05:28 on Sat, 26 Dec 2009, johannes
at 18:05:28 on Sat, 26 Dec 2009, johannes
Post by johannes
Someone at Dixons must have got some red ears.
Just google it - it was a deliberate ad campaignPost by Niel J Humphreys
http://www.snowdoncomputers.co.uk/Dixons.JPG
--
LOL, they probably meant to say: "Look no further" or something.Post by IanT
They have removed it now (but I got a screen grab)Post by Aloysious Cholmondeley-Smythe
"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
They have done a "Ratners"!"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
http://www.snowdoncomputers.co.uk/Dixons.JPG
--
Someone at Dixons must have got some red ears.
--
Mike News
Mike News
johannes
2009-12-27 08:52:09 UTC
Post by Mike
at 18:05:28 on Sat, 26 Dec 2009, johannes
Thank you for your reply, and can I sell you a three year 'no worry' insurance,at 18:05:28 on Sat, 26 Dec 2009, johannes
Post by johannes
Someone at Dixons must have got some red ears.
Just google it - it was a deliberate ad campaignPost by Niel J Humphreys
http://www.snowdoncomputers.co.uk/Dixons.JPG
--
LOL, they probably meant to say: "Look no further" or something.Post by IanT
They have removed it now (but I got a screen grab)Post by Aloysious Cholmondeley-Smythe
"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
They have done a "Ratners"!"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
http://www.snowdoncomputers.co.uk/Dixons.JPG
--
Someone at Dixons must have got some red ears.
only £188.89 ?
:-)
unknown
2009-12-27 09:32:25 UTC
Post by johannes
worry'
insurance, only £188.89 ?
:-)
A few years ago, I bought a new microwave oven from Dixons forPost by Mike
In message
at 18:05:28 on Sat, 26 Dec 2009, johannes
Thank you for your reply, and can I sell you a three year 'noIn message
at 18:05:28 on Sat, 26 Dec 2009, johannes
Post by johannes
something.
Someone at Dixons must have got some red ears.
Just google it - it was a deliberate ad campaignPost by Niel J Humphreys
http://www.snowdoncomputers.co.uk/Dixons.JPG
--
LOL, they probably meant to say: "Look no further" orPost by IanT
in
They have removed it now (but I got a screen grab)in
Post by Aloysious Cholmondeley-Smythe
"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
They have done a "Ratners"!"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
http://www.snowdoncomputers.co.uk/Dixons.JPG
--
something.
Someone at Dixons must have got some red ears.
worry'
insurance, only £188.89 ?
:-)
about £45. They offered me a 3-year policy for £90 - per annum!
--
MatSav
MatSav
johannes
2009-12-27 13:26:55 UTC
Post by unknown
about £45. They offered me a 3-year policy for £90 - per annum!
--
MatSav
And you now have 3 years functioning by default, as the microwave canPost by johannes
worry'
insurance, only £188.89 ?
:-)
A few years ago, I bought a new microwave oven from Dixons forPost by Mike
In message
at 18:05:28 on Sat, 26 Dec 2009, johannes
Thank you for your reply, and can I sell you a three year 'noIn message
at 18:05:28 on Sat, 26 Dec 2009, johannes
Post by johannes
something.
Someone at Dixons must have got some red ears.
Just google it - it was a deliberate ad campaignPost by Niel J Humphreys
http://www.snowdoncomputers.co.uk/Dixons.JPG
--
LOL, they probably meant to say: "Look no further" orPost by IanT
in
They have removed it now (but I got a screen grab)in
Post by Aloysious Cholmondeley-Smythe
"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
They have done a "Ratners"!"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
http://www.snowdoncomputers.co.uk/Dixons.JPG
--
something.
Someone at Dixons must have got some red ears.
worry'
insurance, only £188.89 ?
:-)
about £45. They offered me a 3-year policy for £90 - per annum!
--
MatSav
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
2009-12-27 15:37:02 UTC
No he doesn't.
By whose reasonable expectation? The buyer? the seller? a court?
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?
By whose reasonable expectation? The buyer? the seller? a court?
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
Phil
unknown
2009-12-27 16:59:09 UTC
Post by Phil
No he doesn't.
By whose reasonable expectation? The buyer? the seller? a
court?
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?
I happen to work for the National Measurement Office,No he doesn't.
By whose reasonable expectation? The buyer? the seller? a
court?
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?
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
MatSav
Rob Morley
2009-12-27 21:07:55 UTC
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:59:09 -0000
"MatSav" <matthew | dot | savage | at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot | com>
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.
"MatSav" <matthew | dot | savage | at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot | com>
Post by unknown
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 theWhat 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.
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
2009-12-27 22:44:33 UTC
Post by Rob Morley
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:59:09 -0000
"MatSav" <matthew | dot | savage | at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot | com>
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.
Trouble is, after 6 months the onus is on the buyer to prove an inherentOn Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:59:09 -0000
"MatSav" <matthew | dot | savage | at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot | com>
Post by unknown
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 theWhat 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.
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.
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
2009-12-28 10:38:22 UTC
Post by Rob Morley
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:59:09 -0000
"MatSav" <matthew | dot | savage | at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot | com>
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.On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:59:09 -0000
"MatSav" <matthew | dot | savage | at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot | com>
Post by unknown
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 theWhat 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.
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.
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.
Rob Morley
2009-12-30 04:30:42 UTC
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:38:22 +0000
Post by johannes
Blame Mat for being careless with his attributions.Post by Rob Morley
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:59:09 -0000
"MatSav" <matthew | dot | savage | at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot |
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.On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:59:09 -0000
"MatSav" <matthew | dot | savage | at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot |
Post by unknown
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 inWhat 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.
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.
Phil
2009-12-29 15:06:14 UTC
Post by Rob Morley
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"" suppositionAnd nowhere does Phil's "3 years functioning by default" appear in
the legislation or in case law
doesn't exist at all.
HTH :)
--
Phil
Phil
johannes
2009-12-29 17:04:58 UTC
Post by Phil
doesn't exist at all.
HTH :)
--
Phil
I think Rob Morley put up a straw man, as he usually does in ngs.Post by Rob Morley
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"" suppositionAnd nowhere does Phil's "3 years functioning by default" appear in
the legislation or in case law
doesn't exist at all.
HTH :)
--
Phil
HTH.
Rob Morley
2009-12-30 04:30:52 UTC
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:04:58 +0000
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.
Post by johannes
In all fairness I don't think my believing the attributions quoted inPost by Phil
doesn't exist at all.
I think Rob Morley put up a straw man, as he usually does in ngs.Post by Rob Morley
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"" suppositionAnd nowhere does Phil's "3 years functioning by default" appear in
the legislation or in case law
doesn't exist at all.
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.
DubDriver
2009-12-26 22:48:52 UTC
Post by johannes
Someone at Dixons must have got some red ears.
http://www.bitterwallet.com/dixons-marketing-fail-no-longer-the-last-place-you-want-to-go/23288Post by Niel J Humphreys
http://www.snowdoncomputers.co.uk/Dixons.JPG
--
LOL, they probably meant to say: "Look no further" or something.Post by IanT
They have removed it now (but I got a screen grab)Post by Aloysious Cholmondeley-Smythe
"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
They have done a "Ratners"!"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
http://www.snowdoncomputers.co.uk/Dixons.JPG
--
Someone at Dixons must have got some red ears.
Brian Gaff
2010-01-02 08:17:06 UTC
I thought it might have been a bit of a pun, but now the harsh reality of
another year is here and its down to the daily grind again..
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - ***@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!
another year is here and its down to the daily grind again..
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - ***@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!
Post by johannes
Someone at Dixons must have got some red ears.
Post by Niel J Humphreys
http://www.snowdoncomputers.co.uk/Dixons.JPG
--
LOL, they probably meant to say: "Look no further" or something.Post by IanT
They have removed it now (but I got a screen grab)Post by Aloysious Cholmondeley-Smythe
"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
They have done a "Ratners"!"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
http://www.snowdoncomputers.co.uk/Dixons.JPG
--
Someone at Dixons must have got some red ears.
Brian Gaff
2009-12-23 11:26:05 UTC
Gawd, bring back the Rumblows I say...
Brian
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - ***@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!
Brian Gaff - ***@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!
Post by Aloysious Cholmondeley-Smythe
"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.
"The last place you want to go"
http://www.dixons.co.uk/
They said it, not me.