Returning a brand new car
Discussion
How much you've used it isn't really the point. It's the time lapsed since you took delivery of it and the fact that you've had all that time to inspect it and haven't rejected in a reasonable time frame. Your conduct suggests you've accepted the car (though not necessarily the faults). Take it to extremes, let's say you took delivery of the car and didn't use it all all for 6 months, discovering a serious flaw when you did. Do you think the dealer should be duty bound to accept your rejection of it then?
Yes, if the product isn't of the quality it should be, the dealer is obliged to rectify that (you will have a warranty and beyond that rights under the Sale of Goods Act). Rejection is a more serious remedy and not as easy to achieve.
Yes, if the product isn't of the quality it should be, the dealer is obliged to rectify that (you will have a warranty and beyond that rights under the Sale of Goods Act). Rejection is a more serious remedy and not as easy to achieve.
Informing them right away and rejecting right away are two different things. If you noticed the problem right away and no longer wanted the car because of it, that was the time to reject it. Sitting on your hands for 6 weeks almost certainly alters your chance of rejection (ignoring any debate over whether panel gaps are sufficient to justify rejection).
Vaud said:
Did they tell you that at Hereford?
I suggest that bashing him on that front should be in response to him making a post that is:A. Blatantly moronic
B. Deriding of someone's actions.
As he's actually made a perfectly sensible post, that is in no way inflammatory. Neither of the above conditions have been met so please refrain from ruining the f
king joke.xxChrisxx said:
I suggest that bashing him on that front should be in response to him making a post that is:
A. Blatantly moronic
B. Deriding of someone's actions.
As he's actually made a perfectly sensible post, that is in no way inflammatory. Neither of the above conditions have been met so please refrain from ruining the f
king joke.
Fair enough. I just tire of Walter Mitty's with multiple profiles. I think they are fair game, but in this instance I shall shut up. A. Blatantly moronic
B. Deriding of someone's actions.
As he's actually made a perfectly sensible post, that is in no way inflammatory. Neither of the above conditions have been met so please refrain from ruining the f
king joke.Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff




