Quote:
Originally Posted by farnz
WW,
...If TCC has offered the M8 to you as new but it was initially sold to the dealer in Malta (as officially confirmed by Leica), who presumably sold it to TCC then it must be second-hand, so the vendor has misrepresented the goods.
You are likely to have some rights under one or more of:
The Sale of Goods Act 1979,
The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982,
The Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994,
The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002,
which require by law that wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means among other things that they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality.
If TCC has described the M8 to you as new then it seems to me that it has broken the law.
|
...I'm struggling here, farnz - are you suggesting that if new stock from one dealer is transferred to another in the form of a sale, then it is classified as "second-hand" under English law?
Further, re: misrepresentation, the OP advises that "
We also wanted to know about the Leica passport paperwork but the salesman said that the M8 didn't get the passport. Anyway, slightly confused, we went off with our new camera."
When the camera was sold it was "fit for purpose". The fact that it did not come with the Leica Passport does not affect the state of the camera, particularly as the buyer was apprised of the situation vis-a-vis the Passport.
CC clearly have a lot to work on, and I will not be spending my hard-earned shekels there, unless I had absolutely no option. On this occasion however, I am disinclined to agree that they have misrepresented.
WW, are you able to share the specific grounds upon which the refund request was declined?