trousers

FFS! What on God's Earth were you thinking man? Going on holiday instead of the first game of the season? Un. be. lievable.

We could go around in circles here, but consumer law is (or at least was) very simple. When 'person X' buys something from 'company Y' the one and only legally binding contract that exists as a result of the transaction is between 'person X' and 'company Y' It doesn't matter what type of company 'company Y' labels themselves as (retailer, reseller, whatever) THEY sold the item therefore they have the one and only contract with the buyer. The buyer (legally) has no recourse with the manufacturer. Is 15 months a 'reasonable' timeframe for a camera to last before breaking? Debatable I guess. The way I would gauge that is if the 'seller' told you before purchase that "I should warm you sir, it's likely this camera will breakdown within 15 months" how keen would you be to buy it? If, however, the salesman says: "this camera is superbly made and should last you at least 5 years sir" then is it 'reasonable' for it to only last 15 months? Anyway, as I say, going round in circles so I'll duck out now :-)

Football's really really important. Dontcha know?

Those Romans have got a lot to answer for. What did they evr do for us?

Nor any mention of diddling the tax payer out of £30m (or whatever the figure was....I lose track)

To be fair, it's quite a difficult concept to grasp.... ;-)

I've absolutely no idea. I was just putting it out there as a theory..... I know, I know....it's a very foolhardy move in SaintsWeb Forum land to put out a theory without first donning a heavy flax jacket and titanium crash helmet. Those 8,000 "missing" fans is roughly 30%. As a benchmark, take my office, for example. At the moment 3 out of 5 are on holiday, i.e. 60% (twice as many "missing" Saints fans). As it happens, a similar proportion of our customers are on holiday, thus we are able to operate with a skeleton staff. I therefore bravely/foolishly suggest that 30% of Saints fans (who went to the league game against Leeds on March 2010) not being able to go on Saturday due to holidays is not beyond the realms of possibility. I could be wrong. I could be right. Hey ho.

How can stating that a fair percentage of Saints fans will be on holiday on 6th August 2011 be described as "spin"? Isn't that just a matter of fact?

Their ''Terms and Condition" have the following section: http://static.ebuyer.com/customer/help/index.html?action=c2hvd190ZXJtcw==&type=personal "5. Consumer rights 5.4 Details of this statutory right, and an explanation of how to exercise it, are provided in the Acceptance Confirmation. This provision does not affect your statutory rights. 5.5 If you would like further information about your legal rights, please contact your local Trading Standards Department or Citizen Advice Bureau." They can say all they like in their 'Returns' section but, as above, they are duty bound to state "This does not affect your statutory rights"

It's a fair while since I studied consumer law but to my mind anyone selling something to someone falls under the general 'retailer' banner. Just because they are selling something they bought off someone else doesn't alter the relationship between the 'buyer' and 'seller'. The only dynamic I can see changing with someone labelling themselves as a "reseller" is that they should clearly declare that the goods they are selling are less likely to last for a "reasonable" length of time, at which point we enter 'caveat emptor' territory in that the buyer knowingly takes on an element of the risk. But, as I say, it's a while since I studied consumer law, so I may well be out-of-date and wide of the mark on all this, but I definately recall that "second hand goods" fall under the same 'merchantable quality' requirements UNLESS any flaws are clearly highlighted.

Or, from the glass half full camp, 2/3rds full during the most popular period for going on holiday is pretty good going....

Rhetorical question alert.... What percentage of Saints fan will be on their annual family holiday on Saturday? HTH

His contract is with the retailer, not the manufacturer. If an item doesn't last for a "reasonable" length of time then the purchaser's recourse is with the retailer, not the manufacturer. Retailers are always trying to palm people off to the manufacturer in an attempt to abdicate their responsbilities. The length of time between purchase and the defect coming to light doesn't alter the responsibility that the ratailer has (in law).

Fonte

Well, yes, they serve a purpose in that it's a 'token' to admit you to the ground. But, all I'm venturing is that the club knows that anyone turning up with a 9-23 game book will be entiteld to enter for games 1-8 too, so they will let them in on that basis. Perhaps they'll issue a temporary replacement ticket at the turnstyle just to comply with any heath and safety regulations that insist on you having a piece of paper as proof of entry. At the end of the day I've no idea, just having an educated guess at why the club haven't deemed it necessary to contact everyone who has one of these rogue ST books. That is all.

Why would any season ticket holder want to recirculate his/her "spare" tickets? Wouldn't they be shooting themselves in the foot if they did that?

Maybe the club's policy will be to simply let people in who turn up at 'Game 1' with these ST books? Afterall, they will know that some people won't have checked and will know that they have the same seats paid for (for games 1- Perhaps people are looking for a problem that doesn't actually exist which is why the club don't feel the need to make a song and dance about it, preferring to issue a simple explanation to each individual as they get waved through on the day?

^This A lot of retailers try and hide behind 'manufacturers warranty' periods but you'll note they are duty bound to state "this does not affect your statutory rights" whenever they talk about arbitrary warranty dates. As BTF mentions, in law there is no fixed expiry date for a retailer to hide behind - any goods supplied simply have to last for a 'reasonable' amount of time. Just over a year for a camera is not 'reasonable'. What's the nature of the fault by the way?

In other words... They. Just. Don't. Get. It.

jordansibley: Adkins also revealed Lee Barnard has had a slight issue with his ankle but "should be there or thereabouts for Saturday" #saintsfc

jordansibley: Adkins admits post match he expects some movement regarding transfers in this week #saintsfc

Lol

Agree. Although WBA only played a few 'first XI' starters

De Ridder? Flash in the pan on Wednesday night perhaps?