Van Halen and more...
When is the last time you listened to Van Halen? Have you ever listened to the 5150 album? It's simply underrated. I think I'm gonna get my hands on some of their other material today. I've had it in the past, but I didn't bring it all to Australia. I think I like Sammy Haggar as a lead singer better than David Lee Roth. And let's not forget that they tried Gary Cherone (ex lead singer from Extreme) for an album. I bought it...it wasn't up to par.
On another note, I have some good news about my legal education...
I bought a mountain bike on ebay - $130 brand new.
I get the bike, it's got warped/buckled wheels. I wasn't happy. So I email the seller and inform them of the defect. They respond by saying that they'll replace the wheels. Only problem now is the shipping cost - which is 35 bucks...and for a stingy student, this is a definite sticking point. So I ask them about this and they email me back saying they'll pay one way and I pay the other way. Well....I already paid one way...and I am not prepared to pay another way. So it gets me to thinking, I am in Obligations Law at the time being. It's a spin-off from Contract Law, which I got a Distinction in last semester. Anyway, in Obligations Law we've been dealing with the Sale of Goods Act. So I respond to the people telling them they have three options - send me the wheels for free, take back the deal altogether with them paying for the cost of returning the bike, or I'll see the bastards in court. But I didn't stop there with the third option...I gave them this blurb...
Dear Heidi (EBS)...Please refer to sections 17(a)&(e) of the Sale of Goods Act (SGA) QLD dealing with selling of goods and fitness for purpose of those goods. To give you a quick rundown, you sold the goods in a retail sense over Ebay dealing goods of description knowing the particular purpose of the item – being a mountain bicycle. The goods had impurities and/or defects. Therefore according to the SGA and relevant case law you are strictly liable for latent + undetectable defects. More specifically, you, as the seller, are responsible for flaws which no amount of skill or judgment could have detected: relevant rule from case law comes from Kendall (Henry) & Sons v. William Lillico & Sons, Ltd., [1969] 2 A.C. 31. Therefore because the bicycle was delivered with warped wheels, it was not reasonably fit for the purpose of riding, the purpose of which a bicycle is most often used for.
Now...I'm not an expert (yet), and I'm not even sure if I was right, but it worked!
They sent me an email back stating that they'd actually come by my house to replace the whole bike.
The dividends are already paying off...I saved 30 bucks. Now I only have to save another $59,970 before I'm even.
posted by The Vitamin's Blog @ 7:12 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home