 Poster: A snowHead
|
I have seen a number of people talking about Satski and problems they are having. I am not well versed on what this means but there has been a notice placed in the London Gazette (6th Jan 2009) with intention to strike the Satski Ltd. off the companies house register for non compliance.
Does this mean the company is in trouble?
I'm not sure I would buy from them without using a credit card. In fact given some of the reported problems by some of you guys in this forum...........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Don't get me started! I believe I have a faulty unit, Satski has offered to replace it but I believe I am entitled to a refund under the sales of goods act. They don't think they should. Have had some "interesting" emails from their CEO as well- which I won't go into.
There web site even says:-
"We will replace genuine faulty items and in some cases may offer a full refund, including delivery costs."- really? Guess the term "may" is up for interpretation!
I bought using a credit card and am pursuing satski through trading standards and also with my credit card company under the consumer credit act.
Useful to know you have an opportunity to recover costs when you use a credit card!
I personally will stick to piste maps although I do recognise that there is a place for GPS- just not with the faulty unit I received! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
If you read the London Gazette, you're better versed than most.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
yeah- must be a legal eagle or something! Welcome to the forums!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I am a company secretary- the Gazette gives weekly Company Law Official Notifications- it's best known for striking off and dissolutions.
We check to make sure our suppliers and contractors are not listed!
Satski were just above SA Tudor International Transport- we used to use them, guess it's a sign of the times
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Sorry - but i would have thought that a company secretary would know what it means !
after all my first reaction would be to ask a company secretary ( and i will )
if i find out more i will post it here !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non compliance can mean a number of things, most commonly it is something like failure to log accounts, that doesn't always mean that the company is in financial difficulty it could simply mean that someone screwed up. However it might be wise to investigate further before purchasing something from them
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the Companies House web site:
| Quote: |
Name & Registered Office:
SATSKI LIMITED
MANSION HOUSE
54-58 PRINCES STREET
YEOVIL
BA20 1EP
Company No. 06235582
Status: Active - Proposal to Strike off
Date of Incorporation: 02/05/2007
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
None Supplied
Accounting Reference Date: 31/05
Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 02/03/2009
Last Return Made Up To:
Next Return Due: 30/05/2008 OVERDUE
|
It appears that they failed to file their accounts for 2007-08, so given that they were incorporated in May 2007, it looks like they've never filed anything. That's not a good sign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Ouch - also, looking at their filing history, we get:
| Quote: |
Company Filing History Include Allotment of Shares
Type Date Description Order
GAZ1 06/01/2009 First Gazette
AUD 01/12/2008 AUDITOR'S RESIGNATION
288b 20/11/2008 SECRETARY RESIGNED BATTENS SECRETARIAL SERVICES LTD
288b 10/03/2008 DIRECTOR RESIGNED MARK STRACHAN
288a 25/07/2007 NEW DIRECTOR APPOINTED
NEWINC 02/05/2007 INCORPORATION DOCUMENTS
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
STATEMENT OF DIRECTORS & REGISTERED OFFICE
DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE
MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION
ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION
|
Resignation of the auditors could of course be for any reason, including deciding that the job just wasn't profitable, but it could also mean that they had an issue with the 2007-08 accounts which they couldn't resolve with the company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| tbanting wrote: |
Don't get me started! I believe I have a faulty unit, Satski has offered to replace it but I believe I am entitled to a refund under the sales of goods act. They don't think they should. Have had some "interesting" emails from their CEO as well- which I won't go into.
There web site even says:-
"We will replace genuine faulty items and in some cases may offer a full refund, including delivery costs."- really? Guess the term "may" is up for interpretation!
|
Many people think that SOGA gives a right to a refund for faulty goods, but the circumstances where that applies are actually very limited.
Normally SOGA gives you a right to replacement or repair (at your choice unless one is disproportionate to the other), or a partial refund taking account of how long you have had the goods, only if neither of those is practical..
It only gives you a right to a full refund if you have not yet "accepted" the goods. And you are deemed to have "accepted" the goods as defined in section 35 of SOGA:
| Quote: |
35. Acceptance.— (1) The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods [F1subject to subsection (2) below—
(a) when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or
(b) when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller.
(2) Where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he has not previously examined them, he is not deemed to have accepted them under subsection (1) above until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose—
(a) of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract, and
(b) in the case of a contract for sale by sample, of comparing the bulk with the sample.
(3) Where the buyer deals as consumer or (in Scotland) the contract of sale is a consumer contract, the buyer cannot lose his right to rely on subsection (2) above by agreement, waiver or otherwise.
(4) The buyer is also deemed to have accepted the goods when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them.
(5) The questions that are material in determining for the purposes of subsection (4) above whether a reasonable time has elapsed include whether the buyer has had a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2) above.
(6) The buyer is not by virtue of this section deemed to have accepted the goods merely because—
(a) he asks for, or agrees to, their repair by or under an arrangement with the seller, or
(b) the goods are delivered to another under a sub-sale or other disposition.
(7) Where the contract is for the sale of goods making one or more commercial units, a buyer accepting any goods included in a unit is deemed to have accepted all the goods making the unit; and in this subsection “commercial unit” means a unit division of which would materially impair the value of the goods or the character of the unit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
It could of course also mean that the Auditors resigned because they had failed to do their job properly, I find the close proximity of the Secretaries and Auditors resignations interesting though
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
The accounts are not overdue. They would normally have to be filed by 2 March 2009 for the first period since incorporation.
It looks to me as if the company does not have any appointed officers since the resignation of the director and secretary and this has triggered the non-compliance point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Hi, I am Nicola, and I have worked for Satski for 18 months and I would like to set the record straight.
The Satski company you are talking about above as registed at Companies House and listed in the London Gazette has no ties with the brand name Satski other than that the name was taken over by a company trading as Satski International whose holding company is based in Switzerland.
With regards to tbanting, I am familiar with this case. Following fair trading standards tbanting was offered a replacement for what the company thought based on his comments was a factory defective unit. To this date tbanting has refused to return the unit to be checked. He has insisteted on a refund because the company is prepared to only replace the unit at this stage with a pefectly working one he has taken it upon himself to start an assassination by online means.
I can assure you that the Satski software and 99% of Satski GPS units work. The system has been tried and tested over 4 years by independents. The fact that from time to time defective units will be delivered from the factory is sad but it is a reality that we as a company are doing everything we can to minimise.
I think it most unfair that such a biased discussion is taken place and is in fact causing damage to a very good product, and customer orientated company. Many people have worked very hard to get this product into the market place. I really enjoy working here and would love to have the opportunity to show you all the wonderful emails we have received from happy Satski skiers.
Also, with regards to comments about the Channel 5 Gadget Show. The show tested last years model. Satski kindly offered tbanting either last years model or to wait for the new version knowing that there would be a delay for the new version.
tbanting I am very sorry you received a defective unit. please feel free to contact Satski as I know the customer support staff will want to assist you if they can. The company does follow fair trading standards.
To everyone else, I hope this clears up a few things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
tbanting, Remind us, what is it about the unit that you found not working? I may be in a similar situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Nicola, welcome to Snowheads, and thanks for taking the time to reply.
However, I'm still a little confused - your company operates from http://satski.com/, and a WHOIS lookup on this domain shows it as being registered to Mark Strachan, of Sherborne in Dorset. The Companies House register for Satski shows that a Mark Strachan resigned as a director of the company in March 08, and your contact number on the website is in the Bournemouth/Sherborne area, so saying that there is no link between the two is a little disingenious. If it is the case the there is currently no link due to a parting of the ways, that needs to be made clear by someone, and you might like to ensure that your domain name is owned by the company rather than by an ex-director.
Also, your site is in contravention of The Electronic Commerce Regulations (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 and the Companies Act 2006 and Business Names Act 1985 in that it does not state who operates it. See http://www.website-law.co.uk/blog/internet-law/website-legal-information-basic-requirements/ for details, but basically your site needs to have the company name, registered office address, company registration number and VAT number displayed prominently, such as in a footer to the main page or every page, or in the case of sole traders or partnerships, the name(s) of the people concerned. Then it would be clear whether you were connected to Satski Ltd or not...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
without prejudice
Nicola- thanks for clearing this up. As you can imagine in today's climate we are seeing companies disappear and go under.
A question for you:
If your website states that you "may offer a refund" under what conditions will you do so? I would have thought if tbanting is out to "assassinate" (very strong word there!) your company surely a refund would have avoided all this? I would have thought he has a strong case under the sales of goods act. He does not have to "accept the fault" and can reject the product. Perhaps you would like the opportunity to respond here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Nichola
Many thanks for your "adult" response. I can assure you your CEO's emotive responses such as "get a life", "be a man about it" and "It was only a matter of time before you slipped up" are less than the professional response I would have expected from a man in his position.
A bit of history.
I was an advocate of your product and praised its customer service- if you look back at previous posts. However,
1. money was deducted from my account at point of sale
2. you (Satski) did, indeed offer me a replacement new device after I chased up my order 3 times. It finally arrived 1 month after I was billed- the day before my first skiing trip of the year. The custoemr service was good- your CEO ensured next day delivery and indeed phoned me to explain the features. (I am glad he did- the instructions are quite pitiful.)
3. the day I returned I notified you of my faulty unit- again it took a couple of follow ups before I got a respone which was to give me a replacement. I believe that I am entitled to a refund under the sales of goods act. The unit, I hope is faulty- quite frankly anything that clocks me skiing at 68 kph whilst stationary is not fit for purpose if it is working. Nor is the fact my position jumps all over the screen and incorrectly records my days skiing by jumping around the screen.
4. Your web site clearly states that you may offer a refund or replacement. You only offered me a replacement- I need an accurate GPS system that works. If I had gone to Amazon or a high street shop they will offer a full refund if goods are faulty. Not once has your CEO in my emails to him (and I believe they were quite civil) addressed my claim under the sales of goods act. He has been adamant that the unit appeared faulty- not once has he considered a refund, and has implied a number of things that I will not bother this forum with.
5. My grievances are:-
as a consumer that has spend £206.50 on a unit that may be faulty- the burden of proof lies with me to prove its faulty and therefore do not want to return the unit else I have no proof to offer trading standards. Why should I accept the fault and run the risk (small risk if you believe 1% are faulty- if you have sold many thousands there may be a few hundred faulty units then!) of receiving another faulty unit and have no redress under law. (as I would have accepted the fault)
I believe the internet offers an opportunity to respond to what has been, in my personal opinion, a disregard for the law (sales of goods act) poor customer service- post sale, and an obviously angry CEO that disagrees with my personal opinions and sends me some very "colourful" and "strong" emails.
Believe me if I had been delighted I would have been adding my praise all over the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Wow!
Well my personal opinion tbanting?
That sounds disgraceful! From your account- terrible service, a faulty product and an obviously upset CEO! Perhaps they are more worried about people having an opinion during this important time of year for them! Wonder if they will be about when the snow melts?!
I for one appriciate people's opinions on goods and services. That is why I like companies like Amazon that allow customers to rate and comment on their purchases.
I wish you every success in persuing your claim- I doubt you are going to get anything from this company. If you purcahsed with a credit card persue a claim via them. They can send out a dispute form.
If you pay for goods worth over £100 even partially on a credit card the credit card company is equally liable with the retailer; this gives you a alternate means of recovering your costs. This does not work with debit cards though (as this stems from Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tbanting, you have to act reasonably too. If you didn't give it back, you can't expect them to give you another. If you get another, and it doesn't work, you are in the same position you're in now.
Or am I missing something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Faulty goods- I rejected the goods requested a refund. If they offered me my money back I would return it. I wanted the goods for a ski trip for the family to use. I dont have to accept a replacement.
I have also been told that returning faulty items can be seen as accepting the fault- then I have no grounds at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| tbanting wrote: |
| I dont have to accept a replacement. |
Says who?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
| Chapter and verse on acceptance of goods according to SOGA |
But the points you're missing is that under the SOGA;
> The goods must be of merchantable quality
> The goods must be fit for purpose
Therefore, if a unit poorly made and breaks within a reasonable time then the buyer is covered under the SOGA (merchantable) and must work (Fit for purpose)
A "Reasonable time" has no legal definition but must be deemed reasonable by the common man.
ALso in this instance did the buyer actually see and inspect the unit when they bought it......... if not don't the distance purchase acts apply too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| tbanting wrote: |
Faulty goods- I rejected the goods requested a refund. If they offered me my money back I would return it. I wanted the goods for a ski trip for the family to use. I dont have to accept a replacement.
I have also been told that returning faulty items can be seen as accepting the fault- then I have no grounds at all. |
by not accepting a replacement you give the vendor the opportunity to contest your claim by saying "ok the unit he has might be faulty, we've not been allowed to confirm that by the buyers unresonable actions.... but the reality is that the buyer has simply changed their mind m'lud which the SOGA doesn't cover.....................
tbanting if this goes legal you need to be seen to work with the vendor to resolve the issue and that there is really no alternative than to dissolve the contract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
tbanting, technically speaking; if the unit does not perform as designed then it is faulty and the situation should be rectified.
Customer service wise; a company will usually offer a buyers money back as good will.
Impartially here; you've pi$$ed off the vendor who is sticking to their guns legally which will not resolve the situation to your satisfaction.
Sometimes a tempering your frustration might reap rewards.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
tbanting, was you problem in Val Thorens? I had issues with my unit there as well. I'm still waiting on a promised replacement unit after 6 weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
marcellus,
Respectfully, I see from your location you are in France- Not sure UK law really is the same as it is in France?
BMF- if you bought on credit card I suggest you persue it from there- ask for a dispute form. 6 weeks is a silly amount of time to wait for a replacement given that you may not be able to use it til next year.
The problem was in Val Thorens- I'll let you know how I get on in Jackson Hole. Perhaps there is a problem with that resort? I know its not a problem with Sat signal as my brothers Garmin worked a treat- so did the instructor's unit (not sure what that was called)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
marcellus,
Respectfully, I see from your location you are in France- Not sure UK law really is the same as it is in France?
BMF_Skier,
- if you bought on credit card I suggest you persue it from there- ask for a dispute form. 6 weeks is a silly amount of time to wait for a replacement given that you may not be able to use it til next year.
The problem was in Val Thorens- I'll let you know how I get on in Jackson Hole. Perhaps there is a problem with that resort? I know its not a problem with Sat signal as my brothers Garmin worked a treat- so did the instructor's unit (not sure what that was called)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
tbanting, Based on your information that you gave the company, the compay offered a replacement. The replacement was offered in good faith without having seen the unit or seeing a recording of the same. The company believes that most people that aquire a satski for skiing more than one time only and that their intention is to own a satski. for this reason, the company offered a replacement. you chose to oppose this as you felt it was your right to do so. naturally satski would like only to have working units in the market place. i think where things have gone wrong, is because of your frustration at not getting a full refund you took it upon yourseld to visit various different websites stating only part of the story. naturally any company will try to defend themselves. tim, the fact that Satski has already accepted unseen that you have a defective unit, based on your information, offers you protection, i don't see the point in taking it to J-Hole, when both parties accept that you have a defective unit and we could have replaced the unit for you. (i.e. testing it in J-hole). wouldn't it be better to take a replacement unit to j-hole and if then you are not satisfied i am sure that the company will offer you a full refund.
Because skiing is seaonsal and many people only ski once a year, replacements are offered for defective units to protect the company against people using the unit and simply returning it after the benefit and demanding a refund. fair trading standard protect both the seller and the buyer.
R.e. the domain name registeration etc, this is getting updated immediately, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Nicola,
If I am not satisfied now- why does a trip to J Hole with a replacement unit (BMF has been waiting 6 weeks for a replacement!) change anything? Or another ski club holiday back to Val Thorens in early March?
If I wanted to use it once and then return it I would have hired one or I would have used my iPhone or work smartphone with your maps. Of course you only have my word for that-
I shall persue the course that trading standards and consumer advice have recommended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| tbanting wrote: |
marcellus,
Respectfully, I see from your location you are in France- Not sure UK law really is the same as it is in France? |
tbanting , respectfully until November 2007 I was a Purchasing Director in the UK for one of the largest FMCG Companies Europe and Fellow Member of the Chartered Institute of Procurement with a speciality in Contract law and issue resolution mediation..........but with all due respect I know absolutely nothing about the subkject matter in the UK.
With the attitude that you continue to show to even those who are trying to help; in my impartial, unbiased view you will get absolutely no where in the resolution of your issue even if you do go as far as court because the vendor will ackowledge that the unit they supplied you is faulty, but they have taken all reasonable steps to resolve the issue but that you have been unreasonable in not trying to resolve the issue and that the reason why you have not is that reality is that you have simply changed your mind about wanting to buy their unit which is your hard cheese...
but as you respectfully observe I now live in France and know  all!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
tbanting, In Val Thorens I also had a 'proper' GPS, a Garmin GPS60Sx, it worked flawlessly, the SatSki did not.
I received positively worded emails to my queries, but as yet no replacement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I have read these posts with interest and would like to add the following comments;-
1) My partner ordered a Satski unit on the 12th December and it never arrived. He discussed the situation with Satski and their CEO (Jean Claude) Issues appeared to be with delivery via the POst Office so a second unit was offered. He accepted this as we were going to La Rosiere for New Year. Jean Claude personally made this offer but unfortunately the second unit failed to arrive as well.
2) Further discussions with Jean Claude and he promised a loan unit would be delivered to our chalet on arrival. This did not happen. 3 days prior to departure the unit arrived, with a faulty battery terminal connection and only La Rosiere map installed (he had purchased all piste maps and we were skiing for 2 days in other resorts)
3) When we eventually used Satski, the data shown on the screen was dubious to say the least (eg 35kph on a slow drag lift) Unit was collected prior to our departure, and we were told that our files would be sent to our email address. When trying to access these files, we have experienced issues with downloading the information.
4) Eventually have received a Satski unit but have been unable to download any resort information. Jean Claude suggested this was down to a faulty USB cable.
Without going into any further detail regarding Jean Claude's manner, suffice to say he has been argumentative and defensive in a way that we would not expect from a CEO of any organisation.
My partner has now been offered a full refund but due to Paypal delays will need to wait for up to 30 days before this payment is received.
Jean Claude has requested that my unit is returned and offered, and offered a free mobile download in compensation.
All in all, our experience of Satski as a company, and as a product, have been appalling. A situation which could so easily have been avoided if Jean Claude managed the expectations of his customers in a more professional manner. In our opinion, he is obviously inexperienced and has a lot to learn.
we would not buy a product from this company again, which is thoroughly disappointing given this appeared to be such an exciting product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| marcellus wrote: |
| alex_heney wrote: |
| Chapter and verse on acceptance of goods according to SOGA |
But the points you're missing is that under the SOGA;
> The goods must be of merchantable quality
> The goods must be fit for purpose
|
Why on earth did you think I might possibly be missing those?
| Quote: |
Therefore, if a unit poorly made and breaks within a reasonable time then the buyer is covered under the SOGA (merchantable) and must work (Fit for purpose)
A "Reasonable time" has no legal definition but must be deemed reasonable by the common man.
|
For which the remedy as defined by SOGA is repair or replacement. He is only entitled to reject prior to the point where he is deemed to have "accepted" it, and in this case, that is not particularly clear cut.
I think he would have a good chance, but by no means certainty.
| Quote: |
ALso in this instance did the buyer actually see and inspect the unit when they bought it......... if not don't the distance purchase acts apply too? |
Completely irrelevant.
I am sure the DSR would indeed apply, but unless Satski have been exceptionally careless with their T&C, the DSR only gives 7 days from receipt to change your mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| tbanting wrote: |
I shall persue the course that trading standards and consumer advice have recommended. |
I am quite certain that neither of them would recommend the course you have been taking up to now.
Refusal to return the unit will get you nowhere. The company do have the right to check it to determine whether it really is defective, before they take any action to refund/repair/replace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
| marcellus wrote: |
| alex_heney wrote: |
| Chapter and verse on acceptance of goods according to SOGA |
But the points you're missing is that under the SOGA;
> The goods must be of merchantable quality
> The goods must be fit for purpose
|
Why on earth did you think I might possibly be missing those?
|
errm because you make absolutely no mention of these key points!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| marcellus wrote: |
| alex_heney wrote: |
| marcellus wrote: |
| alex_heney wrote: |
| Chapter and verse on acceptance of goods according to SOGA |
But the points you're missing is that under the SOGA;
> The goods must be of merchantable quality
> The goods must be fit for purpose
|
Why on earth did you think I might possibly be missing those?
|
errm because you make absolutely no mention of these key points! |
But they were implicit in what I quoted.
If the goods are of merchantable quality and fit for purpose, then none of what I posted could apply anyhow, since you can't have them repaired/replaced/refunded under SOGA in that case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
) and letting the company know the very first day I landed back in the country (8 days later) is "reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract" and intimating to the seller that I rejected them?
