Slashdot Mirror

Might want to have a look at TUPE... http://www.dti.gov.uk/employment/trade-union-rights/tupe/page16289.html http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/emplaw/tupe/tupe.htm

PC World don't give a crap about publicity - they pull this all the time.. if you've ever watched consumer shows you'll see problems with their stuff showing up all the time (their favourite one is water damage is excluded.. so if you go in with *any* fault what do they find?? water damage!!).

They also know that 99% of customers do not know their rights under the sale of goods act and of the 1% that do half of those won't push it if they stonewall enough.

Favourite common - completely bogus - getout lines are:

"You have to contact the manufacturer" (It's up to the retailer to fix it)
"We don't accept returns on this item" (They must. It's the law)
"We only give a 14 day warranty" (You get 6 months for replacement/refund and retailer is liable for repairs for 6 years.
"Replacement only on production of a valid receipt" (It's illegal to demand this.)
"No refunds" (They *must* give refunds where applicable. Not credit notes or anything else).

Read http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html and memorise the major points.

Trading standards will usually kick them hard enough (they have the power to shut down the store, and do so in some cases) - but if they don't help then small claims are good for up to £5000. The store will lose (they always lose provided you're being reasonable) and will end up paying all the costs.

And if it were not within six months, they sold you the warranty. Which means that the warranty itself has to fulfil reasonable expectations - so they have to provide a service that a 'reasonable individual' would consider satisfactory. There are also ways to complain about unfair contract terms (I think it's Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999).

They have offered a guarantee on top of statutory rights; they may also see fit to sell a warranty, which is basically an insurance policy. Consumer rights on the guarantee are set out in http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023045.htm (see 'Consumer Guarantees'), so you can sue on the basis of their failure to keep to the terms of the contract.

There's a nice example of failure to keep to the terms in the Trading Standards leaflet on the topic. They also suggest some strategies for solving this sort of problem.

IANAL

However.

You're in luck if you're a private customer, there's lots of protection for you when dealing with scummy retailers like PC World.

Have a look at the DTI website for the Sale of Goods Act There's lots of interesting stuff there and "Merchantable Quality" is your key phrase when going head-to-head with a bozo manager. Also have a chat with your local Citizens Advice Bureau - they can often make things much easier.

Slashdot always likes a motoring analogy, so this is MY take. Changing the operating system is like using a different brand of petrol, and that doesn't invalidate the warranty, even on a Kia! (nearest car equivalent to a laptop from PC World I could think of...)

Cheers - I was just about to make the same advice! Saves me typing it all out. UK consumer protections for physical goods are reasonably strong, if you're prepared to fight about it.

I'll just add a couple of things. The Sale of Goods Act (and the Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulation which amends it) are written such that most of your rights of resolution are against the retailer, not the manufacturer. If PC World try to fob you off into talking to the laptop maker, and you start to deal with the manufacturer directly, you may actually weaken your eventual case against PC World against whom you have most of the regulations in your favour.

A laptop hinge failing after 5 months is clearly not of satisfactory quality, or fit for purpose. A hardware fault is not affected by software, so it's certainly not capable of voiding the guarantee - and even if it did, you'd STILL have the right of repair as you did not cause the fault - the retailer is generally on the hook for 6 years for physical goods.

Following through a small claims court action is fairly simple, and they know it (no solicitors required). Talk to the CAB about it. Trading Standards may also be helpful. A formal written complaint to PC World's head office is probably going to be the first step if the manager doesn't back down when you go in armed with your rights under the Sale of Goods Act; be prepared for the long haul, it takes a while for the gears to grind, but if they don't resolve your problems in a reasonable timeframe (usually 6 weeks, iirc) you're entitled to a full refund.

Some reference material:
buying goods, your rights - http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/calitem.cgi?file=ADV0050-1011.txt
how to know when the retailer is lying to you - http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/calitem.cgi?file=ADV0050-1011.txt
how your rights still exist even after the guarantee runs out - http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/calitem.cgi?file=ADV0054-1111.txt
run down of the sale of goods act - http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

Good luck, and stick it to em.

PC World is a part of Dixons, a cheezy retailer which I bought quite a few shoddy electronic gadgets from until I realized that they tended to break down within months about fifteen years ago and I have not bought from them since.

The UK retail laws are considerably more consumer friendly than in the US. The sale of goods act is on the customer's side. Laptops are commonly bought for the purpose of running Linux, end of story.

The DTI has some information that is helpful. Basically you can sue Dixons in small claims court. The threat of doing so is going to cause them to capitulate quickly.

But the best advice is never to by from Dixons, Currys, PCWorld or any of their other fronts. They are not cheap but the goods they sell often are in my experience. Unfortunately that is somewhat difficult in the UK as the Thatcher regime allowed them to establish a virtual high street monopoly by buying Currys.

I reckon you have an open and shut case [if you will excuse the pun]. Write a letter to PC World [make it registered delivery so you know it was received] pointing out that the laptop has a MECHANICAL defect and you require it to be fixed. Be sure to include when and where you bought it, COPY of receipt, the managers response and a picture if you can of the damage. The fact that you have changed the operating system is of no consequence as its a mechanical hinge. Make it polite but also point out that PC World has a reponsibility under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and they are in breach of that. If PC World say take it up with the manufacturer, ignore that, your sale contract is with PC World.

If PC World still refuse [and they probably will] then take them to the small claims court. As long as you have documentation, letters, dates and can prove that you have given them ample opportunity to resolve the matter there is a good chance the Judge will rule in your favour. Collecting your money after that can be a bit of a pain, but you will get it - they are not a 2bit operation after all.

See this link to the DTI, especially Q3 and Q10. Be polite but stick to your guns.

actually I live less then half a mile from a Geothermal system:
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sources/renewables/re newables-schools/case-studies/geothermal/page22986 .html

I feel a dubious sci-fi film about sucking all the heat away from the Earth and the planet breaking up coming along (the Core 2?)... surely there must be some side effects?

Not directly related to this guy, because this is the UK law, but:

Sale of goods act is the law that protects you from goods unfit for their purpose
http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/buying-selling/sal e-supply/sale-of-good-act/page8600.html

And Unfair contracts act is what prevents EULAs from shafting you.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/buying-selling/sal e-supply/unfair-contracts/index.html

You can ignore an EULA as an unfair after sale contract.

Not directly related to this guy, because this is the UK law, but:

Sale of goods act is the law that protects you from goods unfit for their purpose
http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/buying-selling/sal e-supply/sale-of-good-act/page8600.html

And Unfair contracts act is what prevents EULAs from shafting you.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/buying-selling/sal e-supply/unfair-contracts/index.html

You can ignore an EULA as an unfair after sale contract.

Doesn't seem to apply to software unfortunately, see Q6 in: http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/fact-sheets/page38 608.html

In the UK we have the unfair contracts act also, to protect us from pseudo contracts like this that try to stick it to us. So even if they managed to argue that not returning the product constitutes acceptance of the terms, you can point to the unfair contract act, which entitled you to ignore the lousy terms and keep the product anyway.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/buying-selling/sal e-supply/unfair-contracts/index.html

"The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 limits the use of exclusion clauses in contracts.

"The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 2083) provide that a term which has not been individually negotiated in a consumer contract is unfair (and hence non-binding on the consumer) if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer."

The previously planned levels of funding are here. Page 6 suggests EPSRC are seing one of the biggest increases in absolute terms from around £500 million in 2004-05 to £720 million in 2007-08. So it is hardly a cut - just a slower rise this year follwed by a bigger rise next, both for individual research councils and in total.

I submit that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Everything I can find says that wind farms eventually create between 20 and 40 times the energy needed to build them. 40 times over, 50 times over, 17-39 times over.

Your sources?

Believe it or not, there are actually some benefits from being part of the biggest trading-block in the world. Yes, there are pitfalls too (red-tape etc), but I sir, would rather be part of an imperfect Europe than an irrelevant Britain.

The customers needn't have been pissed off, they should have been grateful that the company was sending them gifts. This sort of fraud used to not be that uncommon until laws were passed in the early 1970's that make it illegal to send a bill for unsolicited goods.

The UK and the US both have laws that say that unsolicited goods are gifts and that there is no obligation to pay for them.

Th UK law is called "Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971". In the US, the law was passed in 1970 and it is in Title 39, United States Code, Section 3009. This specific section of the US Code deals with mail sent via the US Post Office, but I understand that it applies to other delivery methods as well.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/buying-selling/uns olicited/index.html
http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/fraud/merch.h tm
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/products/unord erd.htm

1000 is a bit steep according to this report http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file10663.pdf average team size is around 20 people.

Not strictly true - the company is not allowed to hire someone else to do your job in the same location. From the DTI website:

"It is not redundancy if your employer immediately takes on a direct replacement for you. But it will not matter if your employer is recruiting more workers for work of a different kind, or in another location (unless you were required by contract to move to the new location)."

The DTI disagrees with you:

http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/bankfaq.htm

  Does the Government have any plans to ensure that employers do not include bank holidays as part of the 20 days statutory annual leave entitlement?

The Government proposed in its 2005 election manifesto that during its third term in office it would extend the entitlement to 4 weeks annual leave making it additional to time equivalent to bank holidays. As with the existing entitlement this would be on a pro-rata basis for those working part time. As a first step, the Government has taken an enabling power in the Work and Families Bill 2005. A full and extensive consultation with stakeholders, in line with better regulation principles, will be undertaken before any detailed changes are proposed in order to ensure proposals take full account of all the issues involved including the wide variety of flexible and non-standard working patterns that exist.

Tim.

No, it's you that are wrong. There is no statutory entitlement to take the day off on a bank holiday. You are only entitled to 20 days holiday per year. It is common for employers to allow bank holidays off in addition to those 20 days, but it's not universal, and some employers insist that if you take a bank holiday off, it comes out of your annual holiday entitlement. There are plans to change that, but they're not yet law in the UK.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/bankfaq.htm

What you've put may be what Apple have chosen to offer. Strange how they don't offer the same thing in every region.

But by selling stuff in the UK you're subject to the Sale Of Goods Act 1979, which says nothing about any "guarantee" or "warranty" but instead states that the goods you sell must be of reasonable quality and fit for the purpose intended (amongst other things). In fact you have a claim for a refund, free replacement or repair for up to 6 years after the date of purchase.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/facts/salegoodsa ct.htm

I guess thats the...ahem..."experience" Apple provide - not breaking the law in countries they deal in! Aren't they great!

The UK burns 50-60 million tonnes of coal every year. That 3ppm has to go somewhere.

From the article: "Research by the SDC suggests that even if the UK's existing nuclear capacity was doubled, it would only provide an 8% cut on CO2 emissions by 2035 (and nothing before 2010)."

So if the nuclear capacity was doubled, it would indeed cut CO2 emissions. What if it were quadrupled? Increased tenfold? (There are 12 operational reactor sites, each with multiple nuclear units)

With this added nuclear power, CO2 emissions may be reduced 8% by 2035. And there is a forecast that the UK will exceed by 8% its 2010 goal.

So is it better to reduce CO2 emissions or not? Does the study mention how much radioactive material must be released by coal plants in order to equal the power which could be created by nuclear plants?

Here's a link hinting at 1.4MV transmission in the US. They seem to be the only ones mentioning it, so it may be bogous.

I also have trouble finding any "definitive" numbers for the transmission losses. Numbers range from 2% (probably only the high Voltage part) over 5% to the 7.something above.

Comparing total energy consumption doesn't mean anything

True, at least on a certain level. I did, as the parent post did just that.

Compare energy use per pasenger and compare airplanes to car traffic and i'd imagine it'd look quite different

Yes, road passenger traffic is 40 tonnes of oil equivalent per 1 billion passenger kilometers. For air passenger traffic it's 1456 tonnes per billion passenger kilometers. I'm not sure, whether that's the direction you expected. (2003 prov; http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/energy_consump tion/table2_5.xls)

Planes also give off less pollution per passenger than most cars

To a certain extent planes give of different types of pollution than cars, so for some select emissions your statement may even be true. In general this is dead wrong. Planes give off much more pollution than cars, even per passenger.

Don't know, whether you have any specific emissions in mind, but I'd call this statement plain wrong. Currently total airflight energy use is about a quarter of total car traffic energy use (but admittedly airflight is growing at an alarming rate). Airplanes produce more emissions per distance, and also some particularily nasty types of pollution (water vapor in high altitudes, for instance, is a greenhouse factor), but it's not anywhere near surpassing car traffic in total, yet. (energy consumption in the UK. See page 14)

On standy: Yes, in many cases it makes life easier. However there is no wrong at all in 1) informing people that standby power usage is non-zero. Note that in some cases of bad design it's even quite considerable. Some inkjet printers use 15 Watts in standby - what for? 2) Pressure manufactures to make full-power-off reasonably easy.

Yes, there are areas other than standby, where (greater) amounts of energy can be saved. But also in many, many, many cases, summing up to hundreds or even thousands of megawatts, standby is just plain useless. Standby for a TV - ok, nice feature to have, if you like. Standby for a PC / printer / CD-/DVD-player? Heck, I'm typically right in front of those, when I want to start using them. What do I need standby for? Provide me with the option, fine, but give me an easy opportunity to switch them off fully, if only to reduce the risk of fire, or the damage done if lightning strikes nearby.

Why not let him know how you feel? Took me some time but his email address is nigel.hickson@dti.gsi.gov.uk

(email address was on http://www.dti.gov.uk/industries/ecommunications/3 5_Yahoo.DOC)

Why not let him know how you feel?

Took me some time but his email address is nigel.hickson@dti.gsi.gov.uk

(email address from http://www.dti.gov.uk/industries/ecommunications/3 5_Yahoo.DOC)

The UK Data Protection Act gives people certain rights - this from the UK DTI site (emphasis mine):

The Act gives certain rights to individuals (called Data Subjects). It allows them to:

• find out what information a Data Controller holds about them;
• find out why the Data Controller holds the information (the purpose of the processing);
• have any inaccuracies corrected or erased;
• know who has access to their personal information and to whom the Data Controller may disclose their personal information;
  and (with certain key exceptions)
• object to the processing of their personal data where the processing is likely to cause damage or distress, or is for the purposes of direct marketing.

I'm glad I'm in the UK, but these rights are pretty fundamental for data protection. If the USA doesn't have them, it's a real shame.

oh - and you're not allowed to charge a fee for correcting inaccurate information. sounds like a recipe for blackmail and extortion.

Sure the U.S. pollutes a great deal; we also use something like 1/6 of all of the world's resources. But to my understanding (and I may be wrong), we put out a lot less pollution than China or India.

Total carbon dioxide emission 2002 (million tonnes):

• India: 1,017
• China: 3,271
• USA: 5,652

Source: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/environment/energy_im pact/seib2005ch5a.pdf

The law is "The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2003". A rather good guide can be found at http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/guide/saleslong. pdf

When I buy quality brands this is a useful stick to beat the company with. For example I have a Bosch Jigsaw which died (the thing that holds the blade in had failed). I was getting static from them until I pointed out this act, and that they advertise themselves as a durable brand, and it was unreasonable to expect the product to fail in this time. Result: new jigsaw. I got my coffee maker (Dualit) repaired for free after two years for the same reasons (don't know if our US cousins are familiar with Dualit but they make a big, big play about how rugged their appliances are).

I quite like how this act has brought about "truth in advertising" in at least a small section of the market.

Your contract, you'll find, is with the shop you bought it from. But generally customer service departments are wise to the fact that it is better for them to fix it rather than you having to go back to your vendor. The end result is that you'll have a working product, and direct will probably be cheaper for them.

Antec, however, are unusual in that they don't have representation in the UK. But I still think that this will cost them more than the 25GBP they were trying to save by making things awkward for me. Probably on average they find that it saves money in the long run, but it will hurt their reputation (as word gets out that their warranty outside NL in Europe is essentially useless).

they are allowed to sell them with a certain amount of dead pixels by law

No they are not! That is not what the law says. Shops may claim otherwise, but that is all they are claim. They have absolutely no right remove consumers statutory rights.

Departments of Trade and Industry Guide lines on Sale of Goods Act

  Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and f satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).

    Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.

    Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.

    It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.

  If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)

  For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).

  A purchaser who is a consumer, i.e. is not buying in the course of a business, can alternatively request a repair or replacement.

  If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit

  In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).

  If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)

  After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity.

As far as I can remember (from a similar incident with a laptop) according to the sale of goods act you are entitled to expect any item you purchase to be free from minor defects - not just fit for purporse.

There are many other regulations around that are interesting to people buying things from the manafacturer (like retiailers), but I don't think any of them affect your statutory rights as a customer. They might, however, affect the shop's ability to return the item to Sony, so they are going to try to convince you otherwise.

So when buying things two things to remember

1) Anything that is not marked "hand made" or "seconds" or something similar can be expected to be free from any minor defects in finish or quality

2) Any contract of purchase is between you and the retailer. Any issues in the contract between the retailer and the manufacturer are none of your concern. So if Sony won't accept returns from the retailer, that doesn't mean that the retailer can refuse returns from you.

And finally:

http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/facts/salegoodsa ct.htm

I strongly suspect that the statements put about to retailers earlier this year (along the lines of "if you haven't installed Chip and Pin kit you're liable for any fraud") were somewhat overhyped.

Actually it would depend on the small print of the Ts and Cs between the bank and merchant, as APACS http://www.chipandpin.co.uk/business/card_payments /ready/shift_liability.html admits:

"If a retailer does not have a chip and PIN acceptance device after January 1, 2005 and the use of such a device could have prevented the fraud from occurring, the retailer may bear the cost of a fraudulent transaction. This will depend upon the terms and conditions between that retailer and its acquiring bank."

Obviously, if the bank can show that the merchant was negligent, they've probably got a case - just the same as they would have in the pre chip-and-pin world.

As to any shift of liability onto the consumer, it's again (notwithstanding applicable laws) down to the agreement between you and your bank. If, in the light of having to effectively disclose your PIN every time you use your card and you're present, you think that you're at risk of getting shafted, it may be time to change your bank (or start paying by cash).

With regard to applicable laws, it's worth mentioning that (in the UK) credit cards are about the safest way to buy stuff remotely thanks to the legal requirements of the distance selling regulations: http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/ecomm.htm

As to whether chip-and-pin is necessarily any more secure than a "signature" I couldn't say. APACS clearly think so, but I'll still be furtively covering my hand while typing a PIN in...

Sorry, the UK is really America's largest nuclear aircraft carrier. "The UK currently has 33 operating reactors which provide 26% of the electricity in the UK." source

I do cycle to work - the majority would not, however, and pay through the nose - also, the victoria embankment is hardly pleasant to cycle down every day (Fulham --> City).

The minimum wage is £4.85 per hour.

Assuming a 40 hour week, that's 40*4.85*52 per annum - £10,088, or £194 a week. A 40 hour week is a generous assumption - for most shift based work at minimum wage, you'll be lucky to get 25 hours a week - £121.25.

The department of leisure and entertainment (DOLE) will give you £112.40 a week, minimum. Taken into account the fact that if you're working you're probably paying at least £2 per shift to get there, you'll be better off on the dole.

Oh yeah, and you don't pay income tax on the dole. On £121.25 a week, you'll only be taking home £94.13 a week post tax. So.. all in all. Yes, it's cheaper to sit on the sofa.

This is hardly an excuse.

Let's imagine for a moment that EULAs are legally-enforceable contracts, which they are in Scotland.

Would you say the same thing about any other legally-enforceable contract such as a credit agreement or an employment contract?

When agreeing to a contract whether by signature of by electronic signature, you should always read all the terms of the contract you are agreeing to otherwise if/when things go "wrong" it is the person who agreed to the contract in the first instance who is at fault and no-one else.

Now, the only way I could theoretically see the inclusion of spyware by EULA being ruled illegal would be by something similar to the UK's Unfair Contract Terms Act - I'm not sure whether there is something similar in the US however it could potentially be argued in a court that the inclusion of such applications would be an unfair contract term, however there is no such rules set in stone as to what is and what isn't an unfair term.

Hmm.

I'm not sure if it's reasonable to yell "Arrogance!"

Nuclear power vs. fossil fuels is considered by many as a false dichotomy, including many who would agree with your suggestion that we should cut down on our need for energy.

Fossil fuels, unless one is of a radically unusual school of thought, are typically considered to be non-renewable. Thus, burning them at all is rather a waste, particularly with oil, which we could otherwise use for all those handy plastics. Additionally, fossil fuels mostly don't burn cleanly, producing all sorts of health hazards and whatnot. With this in mind, there is a case to be made for avoiding their use as far as possible. This is not about avoiding the fact that the West pollutes massively.

Now it is certainly the case that mindlessly promoting nuclear power is stupid, reckless and unacceptable. Although I'm not too sure about that link of yours, which seems a bit sensationalist to me: it's a bit old; american.edu, OK, but they seem to cite the Irish Times more than anything else, which is not quite authoritative; the 30kg is very probably a paper inequality and is, worryingly, in line with industry limits; Sellafield discharges have reduced recently due to improvements in the tech; it's actually the reprocessor, and not a reactor, that causes the discharges that have recently been considered most problematic (Tc-99 I believe)... so in this, Sellafield is not a typical example.

Sellafield has been around since 1952. In the 1950s UK, all sorts of things were considered fair game in government-funded science. Fortunately, things have changed. It is no longer considered acceptable to hide all sensitive information, partly a result of privatisation, one can essentially no longer get away with it (the Freedom of Information Act helped there, as you can see). Sure, in the 50s (all the way up to the 80s) you could get away with murder, particularly when it was classed as Defence. And I mean that literally. These days, there are incentives to check your ass on everything. Middle-management has hit hard and responsibility has become a worry.

Now I don't say that this necessarily means that nuclear reactors are safe. But we don't live in the 50s, either. If the Guardian can invoke the Freedom of Information act and investigate Sellafield, it is at least no longer valid to imagine that the public is kept in forced ignorance of their real danger.

It is entirely valid to concern ourselves with activities concerning nuclear power generation, and the various other methods too, and to use all the channels available to collect as much information as possible. There is, of course, no justification whatsoever to assume that the Chernobyl disaster was due to some fatal "sovietness" in its design and that no analogous accident could occur on a Western system. OTOH, there is no reason to assume that engineers are actually stupid or malicious enough to fail to build safeguards that they believe adequate. We may wish to see their numbers checked and rechecked, of course :-)

It is a little unfair to assume that all the pro-nuclear posters here are simply working from BNFL propaganda cheatsheets. Nuclear power isn't perfect; Britain has accumulated enough radioactive waste to fill five Albert Halls. But there is a lot of alarmist nonsense spoken about it. Many related engineering problems have been solved, though certain remain extant, and today's technology barely resembles historical attempts. So I'd think the posters to which you refer are "frustrated" rather than "arrogant".

Subject: Sale of Goods Rights, Faulty Goods.

Relevant or Related Legislation: Sale of Goods Act 1979. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.

Key Facts

Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).

Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.

Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.

It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.

If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)

For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).

A purchaser who is a consumer, i.e. is not buying in the course of a business, can alternatively request a repair or replacement.

If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit

In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).

If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)

After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. What is an inherent fault?
Q2. Do I only have rights for 30 [or some other number] days after purchase?
Q3. Do all goods have to last six (or five) years?
Q4. I know I can demand my money back within a "reasonable time" but how long is that?
Q5. After the "reasonable time has passed", what can I do?
Q6. Is it true that I have to complain to the manufacturer?
Q7. Do I have to produce a receipt?
Q8. Can I claim a refund on sale items?
Q9. Must I accept a credit note instead of a refund?
Q10. What can I do to claim damages or if the retailer will not honour my rights?
Q11. The retailer has claimed that a repair is "disproportionately costly" and insists I accept a replacement as an alternative. Must I accept this?
Q12. Neither repair nor replacement are possible. What can I do?
Q13. What will the "reversed burden of proof" mean for the consumer

Q1. What is an inherent fault?

A fault present at the time of purchase. Examples are:
an error in design so that a product is manufactured incorrectly
an error in manufacturing where a faulty component was inserted.
The "fault" may not become apparent immediately but it was there at the time of sale and so the product was not of satisfactory standard.

I don't know of anything that compiles data across the 25 Member States.

• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.
• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract. This covers the "go speak to the manufacturer" copout that many retailers give you
• For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement). Protection for 6 years under this act. Better than a warranty IMHO.

exactly, and the retailer is not allowed to back off the obligation to the manufacturer.

A qprime example is a problem I had with a pay-as-you-go (non-contract) mobile phone :

The phone was a few months old and started cutting out, I attempted to return the phone to the retailer who quoted a standard £8 repair charge unless I took out a maintenance contract, alternatively they said they could provide me for free with the manufactuturer details.

I queried this with the local branch of trading standards, they confirmed the following :

Under the Sale of Goods Act, a retailer has a legally binding contract with the customer that cannot be superceded by any warranty supplied by the manufacturer, nor by policy of the retailer.

This contract entitles the customer to expect their goods to function for a 'reasonable period of time' after they are purchased, with no fixed definition of the term reasonable.

For a reasonable period of time (could be years for TVs etc and maybe just a year for stuff like walkmans/phones), the retailer has an obligation to fully repair the item, as the item becomes older a shared obligation is expected, a reasonable period under the act can be up to 6 years after the item has been purchased.

If the retailer refuses to play ball then under the terms of the act the customer is entitled to have the item repaired elsewhere and charge the retailer for the repair cost.

Many UK firms deliberately device store poicy to brief against this as the act leaves so much up to interpretation, thats why you have store managers claiming things like "manufacturers warranty comes into force after 28 days".

As for my phone - After a visit from my local Trading Standards officer the retailer (Orange) capitulated and waived the repair cost.

If you are in the UK then this can be a very powerful act to have on your side, awareness can also save you spending money needlessly on extended warranties for items that should 'reasonably be expected to last more than 12 months'.

a DTI fact sheet can be found here http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/facts/salegoodsa ct.htm/

IANAL

Being on the border between the countryside and middle-class suburbia, while still being within 30 minutes of a major city centre and an international airport are still extremely desirable features of lifestyle living. This has been the major factor which has influenced the growth of most major cities.

The requirement for broadband adds another factor to the equation. It adds another constraint to the choice of purchasing a house, affecting house and adjacent land prices.

Are there studies that demonstrate that broadband access results in economic growth even in rural areas?

Rural Broadband

Don't believe everything you read in "The Sun". It's just not true:

from the dti website:
"It is illegal to weigh or advertise a product by only using imperial measurement." (my italics)

It's fine to sell stuff in Imperial measurements, you just have to show metric measurements as well.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/facts/weights.ht m

I'm well aware of what is going on in some apparently mismanaged corporations but even so, they are only playing the game and their asking and arguing comes under promoting software patentability, not using software patents. The board of directors of Microsoft are not blindly allowing their 'I.P.' department carte blanche to damage their strategic interests though. Theirs is a deliberate policy but it is amoral not immoral - they genuinely believe it's in the best interests of their shareholders - and they'd just shrug their collective shoulders and find some other way to maintain their profitability if only the politicians and legislators had wit, courage and integrity enough to stand up to them and do what is right for society.

Yes. But if you reverse-engineer the specs, you can open up a BMW-servicing shop.

You're soon able to in the EU anyway, as the block exemption is nearing an end. When it's up car manufacturers (importers) in the EU have to provide (basically) everyone with the same servicing information. That includes diagnostic codes and equipment. So not only will they not be able to claim 'DMCA' on those techologies, they'll be prevented by law from doing so.

Today manufacturers license sales and aftermarket affairs (service) to only some 'exclusive' dealers, i.e. the dealers are forbidden by contract to sell other brands, and likewise to let other garages do their service. But thankfully that's coming to an end, all in the name of competition.

If it's the one I think it is, it's part of an EU directive. There's details of it here, the chapter relevant to spam is here , albeit in .doc format. I've only had a chance to skim but the legislation seems to be mostly aimed at legitimate businesses who have over-zealous customer newsletter runs, rather than preventing mass mailing spammers. I have to say, though, that the form linked in the article is completely asinine.

If it's the one I think it is, it's part of an EU directive. There's details of it here, the chapter relevant to spam is here , albeit in .doc format. I've only had a chance to skim but the legislation seems to be mostly aimed at legitimate businesses who have over-zealous customer newsletter runs, rather than preventing mass mailing spammers. I have to say, though, that the form linked in the article is completely asinine.

Well, not so fast.

Both Canada and the United Kingdom have officialised the metric system very recently, and it's in the process of public adoption now...

They're industrialised, adoption isn't easy, but it certainly isn't impossible. Most of Europe just switched to the Euro, after all, and it seems that the advantages of having a standard currency far outweigh a few months of having to calculate. Having a committed government helps.

By the way, the UK changed its entire currency system in 1971 from the old Pound/Shilling/Pence system to decimal.

It's legal in the USA to use the metric system for everything, too. Who can dispute the beauty of a rational, unified standard system of measurement? ^.-

I think these the Distance Selling Regulations which apply to the whole of the EC. They were introduced in the UK in 2000 (France may have had such legislation before this date, I don't know).

It basically gives you a 7 day cooling off period for goods bought over the telephone, internet, mail order, etc. It doesn't apply to "goods made to your specifications" (the customer) or business transactions.