Feeling Violated

Page 2 - Passionate about caravans & motorhome? Join our community to share that passion with a global audience!
Mar 14, 2005
17,556
3,051
50,935
Visit site
Dustydog said:
Prof.
Almost fully understand the dilemma you illustrate.
Do you think the manufacturers guarantee is an additional protection that should not over ride your basic legal rights in tort or contract against the supplying dealer?
Maybe time for PCv to have a monthly legal page?

Hello Dusty,
In virtually every manufacturer's warranty documentation or printed on the packaging there will be a phrase that says something to the effect that "the manufacturers warranty does not affect your statutory rights" This is one of the foundations of consumer law, and clearly demonstrates the superior position of statute law over commercial interests.

A manufacturer's warranty can never "override" your statutory rights. it can only ever be in addition to. Even if you have work done as part of the manufacturer's warranty, if that does not resolve the fault, you can always ( in theory) revert to your statutory rights against the seller.

I wrote "in theory" becasue the criteria and burden of proof to make a SoGA or CRA claim is different to the criteria in manufacturers warrantee.

However, if a manufacturer has already accepted liability under the terms of its warranty, then that may quite possibly be an important piece of evidence to support a SoGA or CRA claim.
 
May 7, 2012
8,491
1,753
30,935
Visit site
I did find out the Paypal point in a dispute we had. Put simply we used our credit card to make a payment by phone. This was accepted without comment but when things went wrong we found the payment had gone through Paypal. It does turn out that Paypal also offer a traders account to businesses whereby they will process credit and debit card payments for them. Generally but not always this is because the business cannot get an account for this with a bank for these transactions and should be treated with caution. Basically if you know it is going through Paypal you have no claim against the credit card company, but if it is done without your knowledge then you do. The one clue we got was on the statement where the name was preceded by PP although we did not realise the significance of that at the time but by then it was too late. It did need me it do some research to get the credit card to accept the position but once they realised I had done it they just caved in and sent me £100 for their "error".
 
Nov 6, 2006
731
5
18,885
Visit site
Dustydog said:
Didn't know that Ray.
I thought my credit card gave me world wide cover even via PayPal.
So much for trying to protect yourself!
No matter what , surely good old English Law is there to protect the OP?
The rule is that if you pay the seller direct with your CCard, then you have protection. With Paypal, they pay the seller, then recover the monies by charging your debit or credit card. Hence the middleman / no protection situation
 
Mar 8, 2009
1,851
334
19,935
Visit site
(The rule is that if you pay the seller direct with your C Card, then you have protection. With Paypal, they pay the seller, then recover the monies by charging your debit or credit card. Hence the middleman / no protection situation)
In this case then doesn't Pay Pal become the owner/seller of the item/goods? If so then why isn't there still a claim on your credit card, as the card company is still paying/ buying from the seller (proxy) ie Pay Pal.?
 
Mar 14, 2005
17,556
3,051
50,935
Visit site
chrisn7 said:
Dustydog said:
Didn't know that Ray.
I thought my credit card gave me world wide cover even via PayPal.
So much for trying to protect yourself!
No matter what , surely good old English Law is there to protect the OP?
The rule is that if you pay the seller direct with your CCard, then you have protection. With Paypal, they pay the seller, then recover the monies by charging your debit or credit card. Hence the middleman / no protection situation

Hello Chris,
I'm not sure you have the sequence correct, As far as I know Paypal do not pay the the seller before they take your funds, because in doing so they would be providing credit and would expose themselves if your funding stream does not produce the funds. They would be subject to the consumer credit act. I believe they take your funds and only then pass the funds on.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts