seanadams;429442 Wrote: > So I hardly see how it's fair that a retailer, who if they're doing well > has collected perhaps 20-30% on the whole deal, should be liable for the > full value of the product ages after they've sold it. I'm not defending this law, but playing devil's advocate for a moment, perhaps it's an indirect way of weeding out products that routinely fail to give reasonable service. Over time, multiple retailers will notice that they're hurting because of repeated failures of a particular item, and make a business decision to stop selling them. Eventually said item disappears from the marketplace, to everyone's benefit (apart from the manufacturer of said shoddy item). BTW: Let me make it absolutely clear that I'm NOT suggesting the Squeezebox falls into this category!
Back to reality: I reckon the way some people on this thread are interpreting this law is not realistic. It seems that quite a few UK laws are open to unreasonable interpretation by the man in the street, in a way that was never intended when it was written. If this specific dispute went to court, I strongly suspect that DABS would win. Gooner is just unlucky: sometimes sh*t happens. -- cliveb Transporter -> ATC SCM100A ------------------------------------------------------------------------ cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=64114 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
