"Rick Hughes" wrote in message
...
On 21/04/2013 19:28, Rick Hughes wrote:
You might remember I posted details of an item I bought from Machine
Mart (combined magnifier & Fl light) it was useless, quality of
magnifier lens was so poor everything was out of focus.

Took it back the next day ... as I had 'opened the box' they would only
give a Credit Note.

Next time I went to buy (£50 ) took Credit note to pay ... to be told
credit note expired.
In the very small print there was a date limit ... certainly not
mentioned by the shop at the time.


I tried multiple approaches to MM ... all rejected, so followed
suggestions here and submitted a Small Claims Court write ... for value
of goods.


Their defence is the terms of credit note were written on it, and they
therefore dispute the claim.
They have issued a counter claim ... where they are claiming £380
damages for "Transport to and from court, & time away from the office"


OK ... Small claims court hearing was today ...

Judge ruled simply on point of Law that as I had accepted the Credit note
I therefore accepted the T&C's for them.
There is no need for them to be explained.

The fact that it was returned as 'Unfit for purpose' entitled me to a
refund, and Judge advised I should have pushed for that, accepting the
Credit note was my undoing.
Therefore he dismissed my claim.

The Judge did however make a statement that Machine Mart could have dealt
with this simply and amicably, and retained me as a customer, for much
less cost that coming to court.

Machine Mart then asked for their Travel Expenses to be awarded (£380) ...
this was rejected in full as they could have sent local branch manager.
Machine Mart were not happy about that.
I feel slightly better that at least they did not get that.


However be warned ...
They have no duty of care to explain time limits on a Credit Note.
The can offer a credit note (even when you are entitled to refund) if you
accept it, you accept conditions that go with it.


Machine Mart have lost all future business from myself, and my family.

As I advised you back in April:

"You weren't obliged to accept a credit note but having done so you have
waived your rights to compensation or replacement of the original goods.
Lack of knowledge of your rights under law is not the court's problem or in
fact the seller's. As to the small print on the credit note, again you
should have read it carefully first. I'm afraid you therefore don't have a
claim against them.

I suggest they may well succeed for reasonable out of pocket costs against
you although time away from office is not normally something allowed in the
Small Claims track.

I would think carefully about continuing with this. So far all you have lost
is the filing fee if you discontinue the claim."

20 years of experience in county court civil litigation and consumer rights
advice made this a very simple judgement for me. County court judges are in
the law business - not the right and wrong business. They will rule on the
law and not how hard done you felt yourself to be be. The fact that the
judge disallowed costs and made a statement about MM's behaviour showed how
strongly he felt about how you were treated but there was nothing he could
have done in law to help you further.

Unfortunately most of the advice you received on here was based on complete
lack of legal knowledge and just how people felt about the matter which
motivated you to waste even more money on the claim. This is irrelevant
advice and drowned out the correct advice which was to swallow your loss.
Signal to noise ratio etc or to put it another way, free advice from non
experts is generally worth exactly what you paid for it. Sorry you lost the
filing fee in addition to the cost of the goods. As you say, caveat emptor
and there's no substitute for knowing your rights. A minimal amount of
Googling "before" going back to them to complain would have avoided the
whole mess.
--
Dave Baker