On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:29:09 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

Can someone have a go at settling this argument. I bought a TV from
Currys in January, and it now no longer gives a satifactory picture.
Took it back on Monday(Bank Holiday), with receipt expecting refund.
Manager said he could only send it back for repair. I quoted SOG act
and said it was my decision to have a refund. He refused. What should
I have done in the Shop. My wife said if I left the TV on the counter,
went over to the shelves, pick up the same model, and just walked out,
leaving name and address of course. Would I be arrested/
stopped(physically)

Yes, and rightly so.

In the circumstances outlined, SOGA does NOT give you any right to a
refund.

It gives you the right of repair or replacement. Your choice *unless*
one is disproportionate to the other.

So you can't have a £200 replacement TV if the repair would only cost
£10.

Once you have "accepted" the TV (and there would be no doubt you had
in this case), the only time you would be entitled to a refund would
be if neither repair nor replacement were practical, and even then you
will only be legally entitled to a *partial* refund.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
My keyboard has an F1 key. Where is the NASCAR key?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:22:06 GMT, Palindrome wrote:

martin wrote:

snip


If you're going to post with the email address he did (I won't repeat it
just in case spam bots read it) then I would say he breached his own
privacy. He should have used a one-off email address because now his
email at school is totally screwed unless his system admin run a
Barracuda or something similar.



I've been using this unmunged reply address on newsgroups for quite some
time now. I can't remember the last time I got a spam message to it.


But you are not using it as the "from" address, only the "reply to"
address.

For some reason, spam bots don't seem to pick those up often.


Of course it is possible that the spambots are too clever for their own
good - and the poor sod with palindrome dot plus dot com is getting the
*lot*.

No, will be getting it.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I can resist anything but temptation.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

wrote in message
...
Can someone have a go at settling this argument. I bought a TV from
Currys in January, and it now no longer gives a satifactory picture.
Took it back on Monday(Bank Holiday), with receipt expecting refund.
Manager said he could only send it back for repair. I quoted SOG act
and said it was my decision to have a refund. He refused. What should
I have done in the Shop. My wife said if I left the TV on the counter,
went over to the shelves, pick up the same model, and just walked out,
leaving name and address of course. Would I be arrested/
stopped(physically)

Yes no probs with that, just leave it on the counter and say you are
taking one to watch whilst they repair the other, leave your name
and address so they can deliver it and also an estimate of your
costs in bringing back the faulty TV, you can use their delivery
charges as a guide here.

By the way you cannot 'repair' a widescreen TV, they are supposed to
be that shape.

Palindrome wrote:
martin wrote:
The Todal wrote:
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
et...
If you had picked up the same model and walked out, they could
have called
the police and had you prosecuted for theft. You would have
had an arguable
defence that you genuinely believed you had the right to take
the item. But
you might end up in court, trying to argue this and maybe losing.
Would the CPS proceed in such a case? I can't see that someone
with known
name and address taking this set to replace the one that failed
meets the
Ghosh test for dishonesty. Sounds like a slam-dunk civil matter
to me.

In practice the staff would be *very* likely to try and stop him
which would likely end in a scuffle and smashed TV followed by
police arrival

It would be interesting to see what their reaction would be to the
culprit being a teacher from a local school. Hardly a good example
to the pupils! Always assuming the OP's address is genuine.
It would seem to be so ...

inetnum: 193.62.43.0 - 193.62.43.63
netname: DCC-LLNW
descr: Denbighshire County Council

address: Harwell Science and Innovation Campus

Looking at the name used and the school website shows there is a
science teacher called S N Devereux. Perhaps a hoax by a disaffected
pupil.

Or maybe a genuine enquiry from a genuine teacher,

Maybe

who is now surprised

possibly

and dismayed

only if it's in breach of the ToCs at his establishment

to find that his privacy has been breached in this way for no very
good reason.

If you're going to post with the email address he did (I won't repeat
it just in case spam bots read it) then I would say he breached his
own privacy. He should have used a one-off email address because now
his email at school is totally screwed unless his system admin run a
Barracuda or something similar.



I've been using this unmunged reply address on newsgroups for quite some
time now. I can't remember the last time I got a spam message to it.

Of course it is possible that the spambots are too clever for their own
good - and the poor sod with palindrome dot plus dot com is getting the
*lot*.

I route everything, I get some genuine email and the barracuda takes
care of the rest - sorry to anyone who emailed me a genuine email and
didn't hear back


--
Sue

Bazzer Smith wrote:

Yes no probs with that, just leave it on the counter and say you are
taking one to watch whilst they repair the other, leave your name
and address so they can deliver it and also an estimate of your
costs in bringing back the faulty TV, you can use their delivery
charges as a guide here.

By the way you cannot 'repair' a widescreen TV, they are supposed to
be that shape.

You ARE halfwit AICMFP

martin wrote:
Bazzer Smith wrote:

Yes no probs with that, just leave it on the counter and say you are
taking one to watch whilst they repair the other, leave your name
and address so they can deliver it and also an estimate of your
costs in bringing back the faulty TV, you can use their delivery
charges as a guide here.

By the way you cannot 'repair' a widescreen TV, they are supposed to
be that shape.

You ARE halfwit AICMFP


LOL! ****, I'd forgotten him - is he still around?

At 21:39:37 on 26/08/2008, Alex Heney delighted uk.legal by announcing:

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:22:06 GMT, Palindrome wrote:

martin wrote:

snip


If you're going to post with the email address he did (I won't
repeat it just in case spam bots read it) then I would say he
breached his own privacy. He should have used a one-off email
address because now his email at school is totally screwed unless
his system admin run a Barracuda or something similar.



I've been using this unmunged reply address on newsgroups for quite
some time now. I can't remember the last time I got a spam message
to it.


But you are not using it as the "from" address, only the "reply to"
address.

For some reason, spam bots don't seem to pick those up often.


Of course it is possible that the spambots are too clever for their
own good - and the poor sod with palindrome dot plus dot com is
getting the *lot*.

No, will be getting it.

But since they're specifically set up to deal with spam, it's not a
problem.

http://www.dslreports.com/faq/7319

h.tees wrote:
"Anthony R. Gold" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:56:16 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

If you had picked up the same model and walked out, they could have
called the police and had you prosecuted for theft. You would have had
an
arguable defence that you genuinely believed you had the right to take
the
item. But you might end up in court, trying to argue this and maybe
losing.

Would the CPS proceed in such a case? I can't see that someone with
known name and address taking this set to replace the one that
failed meets the Ghosh test for dishonesty. Sounds like a slam-dunk
civil matter to me.

It doesn't matter about any dispute over whether the person "thought"
he was entitled to the goods. He stole them from a shop so was
guilty.

Your main problem is that you have no understanding of Law, so going
by the way you keep saying silly things in this group,

Oh dear, you really are clueless aren't you.

"Alex Heney" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:22:06 GMT, Palindrome wrote:

martin wrote:

snip


If you're going to post with the email address he did (I won't repeat it
just in case spam bots read it) then I would say he breached his own
privacy. He should have used a one-off email address because now his
email at school is totally screwed unless his system admin run a
Barracuda or something similar.



I've been using this unmunged reply address on newsgroups for quite some
time now. I can't remember the last time I got a spam message to it.


But you are not using it as the "from" address, only the "reply to"
address.

For some reason, spam bots don't seem to pick those up often.


Of course it is possible that the spambots are too clever for their own
good - and the poor sod with palindrome dot plus dot com is getting the
*lot*.

No, will be getting it.

Actually he won't because the @privacy.net address is just one large sink
hole. The only active address in that domain is but sending
an e-mail to that address just gets an automated reply telling you not to
send any more.

"Palindrome" wrote in message
m...
martin wrote:
The Todal wrote:
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
et...
If you had picked up the same model and walked out, they could
have called
the police and had you prosecuted for theft. You would have had
an arguable
defence that you genuinely believed you had the right to take the
item. But
you might end up in court, trying to argue this and maybe losing.
Would the CPS proceed in such a case? I can't see that someone
with known
name and address taking this set to replace the one that failed
meets the
Ghosh test for dishonesty. Sounds like a slam-dunk civil matter to
me.

In practice the staff would be *very* likely to try and stop him
which would likely end in a scuffle and smashed TV followed by
police arrival

It would be interesting to see what their reaction would be to the
culprit being a teacher from a local school. Hardly a good example to
the pupils! Always assuming the OP's address is genuine.
It would seem to be so ...

inetnum: 193.62.43.0 - 193.62.43.63
netname: DCC-LLNW
descr: Denbighshire County Council

address: Harwell Science and Innovation Campus

Looking at the name used and the school website shows there is a
science teacher called S N Devereux. Perhaps a hoax by a disaffected
pupil.

Or maybe a genuine enquiry from a genuine teacher,

Maybe

who is now surprised

possibly

and dismayed

only if it's in breach of the ToCs at his establishment

to find that his privacy has been breached in this way for no very
good reason.

If you're going to post with the email address he did (I won't repeat it
just in case spam bots read it) then I would say he breached his own
privacy. He should have used a one-off email address because now his
email at school is totally screwed unless his system admin run a
Barracuda or something similar.



I've been using this unmunged reply address on newsgroups for quite some
time now. I can't remember the last time I got a spam message to it.


That's because is one sinlk hole.

Of course it is possible that the spambots are too clever for their own
good - and the poor sod with palindrome dot plus dot com is getting the
*lot*.


They would have to very clever to get 'palindrome dot plus dot com' out of
.