Overclockers.co.uk - The Saga Continues.

[jack]

soz about the article forgot about Copyright at the time

I think its a love em! hate em situation!

I think this situation is bad and if it was my business (thank god i dont run 1) i wouldn't like this sort off thing happening or even talked about on another website

Like ive said i wish them all the best, my situation was indeed my situation and shouldn't be taken as the way OCUK are it may have just been bad PMT day for some unlucky guy just like me on the other end of them emails obviously that has made me think twice regarding them! just like i would if it was tekheads etc etc

I would have thought that some of the members on OCUK forums are indeed customers past/present of there store not every 1 OCUK get but a good %! would seem strange if they wasnt as ive heard alot of them say they have brought stuff

anyway waste of time talking about it hope all goes well in this unfortunate situation

[Saracen]

S'okay. No harm done.

[Oxide]

Any RMA returned found to be modified, altered, tampered with or not to be defective will incur a £20 +VAT testing charge plus return shipping costs. This will be charged to the credit or debit card used on your order and must be payed before the product is returned to you.

THats quoted from overclockers webpage, if they tested it and it worked they have every right to charge you.

I reckon they will now replace the goods but not refund the £30 charge on your credit card of which again they have every right to do as they were working WHEN overclockers tested them

[jack]

Originally posted by Oxide
Any RMA returned found to be modified, altered, tampered with or not to be defective will incur a £20 +VAT testing charge plus return shipping costs. This will be charged to the credit or debit card used on your order and must be payed before the product is returned to you.

THats quoted from overclockers webpage, if they tested it and it worked they have every right to charge you.

I reckon they will now replace the goods but not refund the £30 charge on your credit card of which again they have every right to do as they were working WHEN overclockers tested them

his rights are that OCUK must prove that the item is in working condition he has 2 sources stating they wasn't, OCUK surely must test them again or show him they work in some way!

I think im right saying this not sure someone pull me up on it if iam

If the mobo graphics card combo is to blame and they dont like being used together his rights also state he can return the item as they arn't doing what they are described to do!

hopefully im getting the right??

[Oxide]

If the graphics and mobo weren't compatible he doesnt have a right to return them no.

Buyers should always check for compatibility when ordering goods

[jack]

An abit NF7-S and a radeon9800pro should work together given any normal situation!

but as stated here

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) says that goods should be:

of a Satisfactory Quality, i.e. of a standard that a reasonable person would consider to be satisfactory - generally free from fault or defect, as well as being fit for their usual purpose, of a reasonable appearance and finish, safe and durable;
fit for the purpose - As well as being fit for the purpose for which they are generally sold, goods should also be fit for any specific or particular purpose made known at the time of the agreement;
as described - Goods should correspond with any description applied to them. This could be verbally, words or pictures on a sign, packaging or an advert

so the usual purpose should be to work together if they dont then they are not up to standards, which gives him the right to return them as they were sold together for the purpose of working together

[Saracen]

Originally posted by jack
An abit NF7-S and a radeon9800pro should work together given any normal situation!

but as stated here

so the usual purpose should be to work together if they dont then they are not up to standards, which gives him the right to return them as they were sold together for the purpose of working together

I think you'll find "usual purpose" relates to what products would normally be expected to do. This comes down to implicit and explicit use. If you buy a raincoat, for instance, and it doesn't keep the rain out, then it is not suitable for it's normal use - even if you didn't explicitly say you wanted it as a raincoat.

Goods must certainly be suitable for any purpose that is implicit in the nature of the goods, or explicitly stated, if you said it was for a given purpose. IF, on buying these items, you stated that they were to be used in a system, together, then you would certainly have a right to reject them if they did not.

However, it's arguable as to whether goods would have to work with each other if you didn't specify that. I've often bought a collection of bits that were NOT intended to work with each other. I suspect, though, that if it came to a court, which is the only way this kind of point will get settled, it is highly LIKELY that a court would regard it as reasonable that a consumer buying two computer components at the same time would probably be expecting them to work together and you'd PROBABLY have a good case for rejecting if they do not.

[jack]

You could also argue the point that OCUK didn't ask if the items were being used together lol

bit extreme in this case but more little legal bits he can put in an email if things dont go his way

But wait, There are no known issue's in regards radeon9800 cards and abit nf7-s mobo's? So even if he didn't state that the items were going to be working together he brought the graphics card to work on his abit motherboard, if to say it didn't work but worked on other motherboards doesn't his rights kick in!???

[Saracen]

Originally posted by jack
You could also argue the point that OCUK didn't ask if the items were being used together lol

But they are under no obligation to ask - merely to ensure that goods suit are suitable for implicit implied and explicitly stated purposes.

Originally posted by jack
But wait, There are no known issue's in regards radeon9800 cards and abit nf7-s mobo's? So even if he didn't state that the items were going to be working together he brought the graphics card to work on his abit motherboard, if to say it didn't work but worked on other motherboards doesn't his rights kick in!???

Yeah, probably. But not because of fitness for purpose, but because they would arguably not be of satisfactory quality.

[Trickle]

Marathon thread. Never seen Saracen post so much. Still interested to know the outcome - I use OCUK myself due to the forums.

Bit of a nightmare scenario. This problem is obviously a rare event. Differences in parcel courier could affect probability, but tbh this could have happened with any online retailer and I dont feel you would have gotten any better 'treatment' elsewhere online.

[Stewart]

Ok then, I think we are home and dry; at least, I hope we are.

Just rang Overclockers again, and told them about the intermittent fault, and why this means that they could have tested it and found it to be working, if they got a few lucky boots out of it.

They have agreed to test it again, throughly, and will replace \ refund my money (not sure which yet), if it is found to be defective, which it will.

So, that should be that. Fingers crossed.

[fraggie]

been following this for a while now and just thought id say best of luck with it, i would have been a bit bummed too if this had happened to me and i think the way you have gone about it has been spot on, hope things work out ok for ya

[Stewart]

Originally posted by fraggie
been following this for a while now and just thought id say best of luck with it

Cheers mate.

i would have been a bit bummed too if this had happened to me and i think the way you have gone about it has been spot on

Yeah; it looks like we wont have to write to Jim'll Fix It now, after all.

[Saracen]

Originally posted by Trickle
Marathon thread. Never seen Saracen post so much.

Try Question Time

I used to post a lot on OcUK. I had about 10,000 posts at the time I left there. Since the relaunch here, though, I don't post anything like as much. There are several reasons :-

1) Admin duties here take up some of my time
2) I run my own forums (on Digital Photography), with Rebel, and that takes some of my time
3) I'm building a Reviews website (on Digital Photography) and that definitely takes time
4) I'm a mod on another VERY large forum, and that takes some of my time.
5) Work and sleep take some of my time too

So I only tend to post in threads that particularly interest me .... and various aspects of the law do.

I also try to keep an eye on GH, and will sometimes step in to correct a misimpression or factual inaccuracy if I can - and assuming I'm not bound by a non-disclosure agreement.

[Saracen]

Originally posted by Vaul
So, that should be that. Fingers crossed.

Glad to hear it.

[Spritzup]

Vaul, just wanted to say that I'm glad things look like they will be sorted for you. Saracen, what digital photography site? I work in a photography store and specialize in the digital end of it. Be interested to see the site. Cheers