Asus Eee 1000H Netbook in black. 10" screen, 160GB HDD, 2GB RAM. 5 1/2 
months old, boxed as new. 18 months of Asus Collect & Return warranty 
left. Comes provided with original receipt.

£229 inc free next working day delivery

email conor@gmx.co.uk

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either - Scott Adams

Conor wrote:
> Asus Eee 1000H Netbook in black. 10" screen, 160GB HDD, 2GB RAM. 5 1/2 
> months old, boxed as new. 18 months of Asus Collect & Return warranty 
> left. Comes provided with original receipt.
> 
> £229 inc free next working day delivery
> 
> email conor@gmx.co.uk
> 

You've been on this newsgroup for some time now. 
Surely you, of all people, should know that in 
line with the Charter commercial sales should 
carry COMM: in the header?

In article , LP says...

> You've been on this newsgroup for some time now. 
> Surely you, of all people, should know that in 
> line with the Charter commercial sales should 
> carry COMM: in the header?

You're assuming its a commercial sale. It may or may not be.

And perhaps you'd like to share why you complained about me when there's 
been rafts of other people posting who happen to have IT businesses and 
haven't put COMM.

In fact, I can't recall having ever seen that.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either - Scott Adams

>
> In fact, I can't recall having ever seen that.

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups/search?hl=en&q=comm+group:uk.adverts.COMPUTER&sitesearch=&scoring=d

CFS also a commonly used TLA

> You're assuming its a commercial sale. It may or may not be.

When you put the website of your (your company's?) trade in the 
signature I'd be interested to know what your arguments would be for it 
not being a trade sale (unless of course you propose to make this clear 
before concluding a contract with a purchaser).

I also see that http://notebooks-r-us.co.uk/shop/page/1?shop_param= 
starts "We are a small company based in Driffield, East Yorkshire 
providing ....".  But I cannot find on the site the company's place of 
registration, registered office address and registration number as 
required for a company carrying out retail sales online.  I also failed 
to find a VAT number so I assume you (the company) is not registered 
which is a drawback for anyone able to reclaim even just part of the VAT 
on such kit.

But I can't pretend I have a pressing need to know, despite my finding 
this thread by searching for an ASUS netbook to buy, as your response 
did not enhance my shopping experience.

-- 
R

neverwas wrote:
> 
> When you put the website of your (your company's?) trade in the 
> signature I'd be interested to know what your arguments would be for it 
> not being a trade sale (unless of course you propose to make this clear 
> before concluding a contract with a purchaser).

I'd be very surprised if the Inland Revenue saw this as anything other 
than a commercial sale.

> I also see that http://notebooks-r-us.co.uk/shop/page/1?shop_param= 
> starts "We are a small company based in Driffield, East Yorkshire 
> providing ....".  But I cannot find on the site the company's place of 
> registration, registered office address and registration number as 
> required for a company carrying out retail sales online.

As far as I know, there's no restriction on sole traders selling goods 
online. Of course, this means that Conor is personally responsible for 
all business debts, but I doubt that's an issue.

The main problem I can see is that both the DSR and SOGA still apply to 
all businesses regardless of whether they're a sole trader or whether 
the goods are second-hand/refurbished. Hence restricting customers to a 
30 day warranty is a violation of statutory requirements. This is 
unfortunately very common.



-- 
John Jordan

>> I also see that http://notebooks-r-us.co.uk/shop/page/1?shop_param= 
>> starts "We are a small company based in Driffield, East Yorkshire 
>> providing ....".  But I cannot find on the site the company's place of 
>> registration, registered office address and registration number as 
>> required for a company carrying out retail sales online.
>
> As far as I know, there's no restriction on sole traders selling goods 
> online. Of course, this means that Conor is personally responsible for all 
> business debts, but I doubt that's an issue.
>
> The main problem I can see is that both the DSR and SOGA still apply to 
> all businesses regardless of whether they're a sole trader or whether the 
> goods are second-hand/refurbished. Hence restricting customers to a 30 day 
> warranty is a violation of statutory requirements. This is unfortunately 
> very common.
>
> -- 
> John Jordan

Conor is a good guy and I'm sure he will be back to defend his reputation. 
Probably just got out of the wrong side of bed and has taken offence that 
someone been picky about his post.

Tiger Tim wrote:
>>> I also see that http://notebooks-r-us.co.uk/shop/page/1?shop_param= 
>>> starts "We are a small company based in Driffield, East Yorkshire 
>>> providing ....".  But I cannot find on the site the company's place of 
>>> registration, registered office address and registration number as 
>>> required for a company carrying out retail sales online.
>> As far as I know, there's no restriction on sole traders selling goods 
>> online. Of course, this means that Conor is personally responsible for all 
>> business debts, but I doubt that's an issue.
>>
>> The main problem I can see is that both the DSR and SOGA still apply to 
>> all businesses regardless of whether they're a sole trader or whether the 
>> goods are second-hand/refurbished. Hence restricting customers to a 30 day 
>> warranty is a violation of statutory requirements. This is unfortunately 
>> very common.
>>
>> -- 
>> John Jordan
> 
> Conor is a good guy and I'm sure he will be back to defend his reputation. 
> Probably just got out of the wrong side of bed and has taken offence that 
> someone been picky about his post. 
> 

Far from being picky.  Ever since Henry Law and 
Neil Barker abandoned this group, it's gone to 
pants.  If Conor is the 'good guy' you say he is, 
then why doesn't he follow simple protocol?  Of 
course he can jump on the band wagon - 'everybody 
else does, so why shouldn't I' - but this is just 
one of the reason's this group isn't what it used 
to be.

In article <8O3tm.80729$OO7.68735@text.news.virginmedia.com>, neverwas 
says...

> I also see that http://notebooks-r-us.co.uk/shop/page/1?shop_param= 
> starts "We are a small company based in Driffield, East Yorkshire 
> providing ....".  But I cannot find on the site the company's place of 
> registration, registered office address and registration number as 
> required for a company carrying out retail sales online. 

Because, you clever know it all, you don't need to register a company if 
you're a sole trader.


> I also failed 
> to find a VAT number so I assume you (the company) is not registered 
> which is a drawback for anyone able to reclaim even just part of the VAT 
> on such kit.
> 
When the majority of your customers aren't, there is no value in being 
an unpaid tax collector.


-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either - Scott Adams

In article <Vp8tm.133472$Ne3.7286@newsfe15.ams2>, John Jordan says...

> I'd be very surprised if the Inland Revenue saw this as anything other 
> than a commercial sale.
> 
Considering the sale of it to myself from my company is in my accounts, 
they can't argue the point.

> > I also see that http://notebooks-r-us.co.uk/shop/page/1?shop_param= 
> > starts "We are a small company based in Driffield, East Yorkshire 
> > providing ....".  But I cannot find on the site the company's place of 
> > registration, registered office address and registration number as 
> > required for a company carrying out retail sales online.
> 
> As far as I know, there's no restriction on sole traders selling goods 
> online. Of course, this means that Conor is personally responsible for 
> all business debts, but I doubt that's an issue.
> 
Correct.

> The main problem I can see is that both the DSR and SOGA still apply to 
> all businesses regardless of whether they're a sole trader or whether 
> the goods are second-hand/refurbished. Hence restricting customers to a 
> 30 day warranty is a violation of statutory requirements. This is 
> unfortunately very common.

No it isn't. DSR means the right to return WITHIN A 7 DAY PERIOD. There 
is also nothing in SOGA about the length of warranty that has to be 
given for second hand goods sold by a business, merely that they have to 
meet three criteria:

Satisfactory quality
Fit for purpose
As described

and the level of these taking into account the age of the item and the 
price you pay. I sell some laptops that were £1000+ new for 1/8th that 
price.

It is not illegal to state a 30 day guarantee on second hand goods. If 
anyone feels it is, please feel free to take me to court.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either - Scott Adams

In article , Tiger Tim 
says...

> Conor is a good guy and I'm sure he will be back to defend his reputation. 
> Probably just got out of the wrong side of bed and has taken offence that 
> someone been picky about his post. 

Just pig sick of being the one that gets targetted when many others are 
doing the same.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either - Scott Adams

Conor wrote:
> In article <Vp8tm.133472$Ne3.7286@newsfe15.ams2>, John Jordan says...
> 
>> The main problem I can see is that both the DSR and SOGA still apply to 
>> all businesses regardless of whether they're a sole trader or whether 
>> the goods are second-hand/refurbished. Hence restricting customers to a 
>> 30 day warranty is a violation of statutory requirements. This is 
>> unfortunately very common.
> 
> No it isn't. DSR means the right to return WITHIN A 7 DAY PERIOD.

The DSR means the right to return within a 7 day period *regardless of 
whether the product is faulty or not*. It also requires that you inform 
the customer of this right.

> There 
> is also nothing in SOGA about the length of warranty that has to be 
> given for second hand goods sold by a business

Exactly the same warranty length rules apply as for new goods. This 
means that there is an automatic six month warranty, within which time 
the burden of proof for determining the cause of a fault is on the seller.

Beyond that, and up to six years, burden of proof is on the customer and 
compensation depends on "reasonable expectation" of durability. For 
second hand laptops, meaningful compensation beyond the six month period 
seems unlikely.


> It is not illegal to state a 30 day guarantee on second hand goods. If 
> anyone feels it is, please feel free to take me to court.

As far as I know, there is no requirement in the SOGA for a business to 
inform a customer of their statutory rights, so until you actually deny 
a customer compensation within the six month period, you have done 
nothing wrong on that count. However, there is such a requirement for 
the DSR.


-- 
John Jordan

In article , blahblahblah@blah.blah 
says...

> Far from being picky.  Ever since Henry Law and 
> Neil Barker abandoned this group, it's gone to 
> pants.

Well, I did tell people that, but....

-- 
Neil Barker

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:27:13 +0100, LP  wrote:

>Far from being picky.  Ever since Henry Law and 
>Neil Barker abandoned this group, it's gone to 
>pants.  If Conor is the 'good guy' you say he is, 
>then why doesn't he follow simple protocol?  Of 
>course he can jump on the band wagon - 'everybody 
>else does, so why shouldn't I' - but this is just 
>one of the reason's this group isn't what it used 
>to be.

The newsgroup has always been a place to buy and sell, NB tried to run the thing
on behalf of himself and failed, Henry tried to guide things along where there
was rarely a need.

Most of us here would go by what we know about the seller, and in Conor's case
I'd be happy to buy any time from him, same as Raj Kundra and Niel Humphreys,
they are well know enough not be be targeted by someone who cannot even use his
own identity and name in a post. 

Peter
--
Peter & Rita Forbes
Email: diesel@easynet.co.uk
http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel
http://www.stationary-engine.co.uk
http://www.oldengine.co.uk

In article <CXitm.177000$I35.161692@newsfe24.ams2>, John Jordan says...

> The DSR means the right to return within a 7 day period *regardless of 
> whether the product is faulty or not*. It also requires that you inform 
> the customer of this right.
> 
Correct and I have done and had someone do exactly that. Bought it, 
wasn't happy with it, came back and decided to take something else.


> Exactly the same warranty length rules apply as for new goods. This 
> means that there is an automatic six month warranty, within which time 
> the burden of proof for determining the cause of a fault is on the seller.
> 
WRONG and every single resource I've read on it says nothing about an 
automatic 6 month warranty.

> Beyond that, and up to six years, burden of proof is on the customer and 
> compensation depends on "reasonable expectation" of durability. For 
> second hand laptops, meaningful compensation beyond the six month period 
> seems unlikely.
> 
Wrong...

With second hand goods, the length it is reasonably expected to last is 
based on how old it is, what you paid for it and what condition it was 
in when you bought it. There is no automatic right to 6 months on second 
hand goods.

> > It is not illegal to state a 30 day guarantee on second hand goods. If 
> > anyone feels it is, please feel free to take me to court.
> 
> As far as I know, there is no requirement in the SOGA for a business to 
> inform a customer of their statutory rights, so until you actually deny 
> a customer compensation within the six month period, you have done 
> nothing wrong on that count. However, there is such a requirement for 
> the DSR.

..for the 7 day right to return.

Please feel free to come back and tell me I'm wrong when, like me, 
you've had professional instruction on the matter instead of merely 
interpreting in a biased manner what you read on a website.
 
-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either - Scott Adams

> Because, you clever know it all, you don't need to register a company
> if you're a sole trader.
>

I don't know much at all really but I think do just about still recall
that; and also recall that it is somewhat unusual for a sole trader to
say in his or her T&C ""In no event are our company, its officers,
employees, and representatives liable for special, indirect,
consequential, or punitive damages related to the product(s) sold." A
sole trader can have employees and representatives - but "officers" (not
to mention the use of the Majestic plural)?  I can well understand if,
in the interests of speed, you or your advisers simply reused the T&C
from another, company site but it maybe worth fixing to avoid creating 
the wrong impression.

While on the T&C, it was (and so far as I can see still is) unlawful
under the  Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 to have such a sweeping clause 
to
try to limit your liability. For example you cannot exclude liability 
for death
or injury (not even in business-to-business sales).  Of course your
advisers may know of a loophole but that's why rather a lot of other 
e-tailers (eg Amazon) have T&C
which say explicitly they don't  limit in any way their liability by law 
for death
or personal injury etc.  And also why they have product liability
insurance.  Again, it would appear to require only minor amendments to 
the T&C; and, if you paid for them to be drafted for you, then I'd think 
you had a good case for the amendments being made without further 
charge.


-- 
R

I don't understand why people get thier knickers in a knot when the netkops 
pounce. Why not just ignore them? Especially when it comes to top posting.


"neverwas"  wrote in message 
news:f5mtm.80959$OO7.46863@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Because, you clever know it all, you don't need to register a company
>> if you're a sole trader.
>>
>
> I don't know much at all really but I think do just about still recall
> that; and also recall that it is somewhat unusual for a sole trader to
> say in his or her T&C ""In no event are our company, its officers,
> employees, and representatives liable for special, indirect,
> consequential, or punitive damages related to the product(s) sold." A
> sole trader can have employees and representatives - but "officers" (not
> to mention the use of the Majestic plural)?  I can well understand if,
> in the interests of speed, you or your advisers simply reused the T&C
> from another, company site but it maybe worth fixing to avoid creating the 
> wrong impression.
>
> While on the T&C, it was (and so far as I can see still is) unlawful
> under the  Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 to have such a sweeping clause 
> to
> try to limit your liability. For example you cannot exclude liability for 
> death
> or injury (not even in business-to-business sales).  Of course your
> advisers may know of a loophole but that's why rather a lot of other 
> e-tailers (eg Amazon) have T&C
> which say explicitly they don't  limit in any way their liability by law 
> for death
> or personal injury etc.  And also why they have product liability
> insurance.  Again, it would appear to require only minor amendments to the 
> T&C; and, if you paid for them to be drafted for you, then I'd think you 
> had a good case for the amendments being made without further charge.
>
>
> -- 
> R
>
>
>

Peter A Forbes wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:27:13 +0100, LP  wrote:
> 
>> Far from being picky.  Ever since Henry Law and 
>> Neil Barker abandoned this group, it's gone to 
>> pants.  If Conor is the 'good guy' you say he is, 
>> then why doesn't he follow simple protocol?  Of 
>> course he can jump on the band wagon - 'everybody 
>> else does, so why shouldn't I' - but this is just 
>> one of the reason's this group isn't what it used 
>> to be.
> 
> The newsgroup has always been a place to buy and sell, NB tried to run the thing
> on behalf of himself and failed, Henry tried to guide things along where there
> was rarely a need.
> 
> Most of us here would go by what we know about the seller, and in Conor's case
> I'd be happy to buy any time from him, same as Raj Kundra and Niel Humphreys,
> they are well know enough not be be targeted by someone who cannot even use his
> own identity and name in a post. 
> 

What on earth does my original post have to do 
with whether or not Peter Forbes is happy to buy 
from certain individuals?  As for targeting...are 
you an avid fan of Eastenders by any chance?

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:14:03 +0100, LP  wrote:


>What on earth does my original post have to do 
>with whether or not Peter Forbes is happy to buy 
>from certain individuals?  As for targeting...are 
>you an avid fan of Eastenders by any chance?

Join the kill file, you'll find plenty of the likes of yourself in there.

Peter
--
Peter & Rita Forbes
Email: diesel@easynet.co.uk
http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel
http://www.stationary-engine.co.uk
http://www.oldengine.co.uk

Peter A Forbes wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:14:03 +0100, LP  wrote:

> 
> Join the kill file, you'll find plenty of the likes of yourself in there.
> 


You know, that doesn't really trouble me. 
However,  if by your own actions, they make you 
feel superior, then I'm happy to have contributed 
to that process.

"Footsek"  wrote in message 
news:1fmtm.180291$I35.106801@newsfe24.ams2...
>I don't understand why people get thier knickers in a knot when the netkops 
>pounce. Why not just ignore them? Especially when it comes to top posting.
>
>

And there speaks somebody who thinks 20 years or more, of protocol (look it 
up) should be changed, just because YOU cannot be bothered to move your 
mouse down the mat, and then click a button, before starting to type?

Most people like to read about the question etc, then the answer.

In terms of your post, you didnt snip irrelevant info, and still posted it 
after your answer.

If you dont know how to use newsgroups, and cannot be bothered to learn, my 
best advise is to find somewhere else to post.

There are plenty of other places on the net for people that are, shall we 
say, intellectually challenged?


Maybe, you could try and start your own newsgroup service, without any 
rules, if it annoys you?
After all, its only been 20 years or more that these services have worked 
fine. You are obviously more intelligent than the millions of others that 
have used these services all that time.

NeilR

And yes. It annoys me that people think the rules should be changed, because 
they cannot be bothered to use a mouse, and just click somewhere else before 
typing their drivel.

In article <f5mtm.80959$OO7.46863@text.news.virginmedia.com>, neverwas 
says...
> 
> > Because, you clever know it all, you don't need to register a company
> > if you're a sole trader.
> >
> 
> I don't know much at all really 

I noticed. And you're still wrong.


-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either - Scott Adams

Correct


You are obviously more intelligent than the millions of others that
have used these services all that time.

In article ,
Conor  writes

>Just pig sick of being the one that gets targetted when many others are 
>doing the same.

Your general combative attitude doesn't help.

-- 
(\__/)   
(='.'=)  Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(")  http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

"Mike Tomlinson"  wrote in message 
news:whAvcHCcantKFwOV@jasper.org.uk...
> In article ,
> Conor  writes
>
>>Just pig sick of being the one that gets targetted when many others are
>>doing the same.
>
> Your general combative attitude doesn't help.
>

Possibly not, but I don't blame him for his reaction. A perfectly legitimate 
post has now been spoilt by somebody who could have emailed him to ask if it 
was a personal or business transaction, rather that post to the group based 
on an assumption. Had they done that, they would have found out the 
situation and all of these posts wouldn't be necessary.

-- 
Scorpio

Conor wrote:
> 
> Please feel free to come back and tell me I'm wrong when, like me, 
> you've had professional instruction on the matter instead of merely 
> interpreting in a biased manner what you read on a website.

If you'd had any meaningful professional advice on the matter, they'd 
have told you that it was an absolute requirement to state:

a) That the customer's statutory rights are unaffected by your warranty.
b) The customer's rights under the DSR. You can't simply wait until they 
complain.

Points about the application of the SOGA can be reasonably left to the 
small claims court, so I'm not interested in pressing that issue here. 
Suffice to say that customers may have a valid claim against you outside 
your preferred 30 day cut-off.

On the original point of this thread, I would strongly recommend that 
you don't link your business website on sales that you're claiming to be 
personal rather than commercial.


-- 
John Jordan

scorpio18 wrote:
> "Mike Tomlinson"  wrote in message 
> news:whAvcHCcantKFwOV@jasper.org.uk...
>> In article ,
>> Conor  writes
>>
>>> Just pig sick of being the one that gets targetted when many others are
>>> doing the same.
>> Your general combative attitude doesn't help.
>>
> 
> Possibly not, but I don't blame him for his reaction. A perfectly legitimate 
> post has now been spoilt by somebody who could have emailed him to ask if it 
> was a personal or business transaction...


Are you being serious?

"LP"  wrote in message 
news:7hnfc7F2pvgq5U1@mid.individual.net...
> scorpio18 wrote:
>> "Mike Tomlinson"  wrote in message 
>> news:whAvcHCcantKFwOV@jasper.org.uk...
>>> In article ,
>>> Conor  writes
>>>
>>>> Just pig sick of being the one that gets targetted when many others are
>>>> doing the same.
>>> Your general combative attitude doesn't help.
>>>
>>
>> Possibly not, but I don't blame him for his reaction. A perfectly 
>> legitimate post has now been spoilt by somebody who could have emailed 
>> him to ask if it was a personal or business transaction...
>
>
> Are you being serious?
>

Yes

-- 
Scorpio

>
> I noticed. And you're still wrong.

I was indeed wrong to use "unlawful" rather than "automatically 
ineffective".   I am sorry for that.  I'd welcome correction on other 
points.  As it is, I don't see why you are so coy as to whether it is 
you (as a sole trader) or your company (or a "mixed partnership" of both 
or .........) offering goods for sale on the website.  But as John 
Jordan has pointed out you have what are probably more pressing problems 
with other bits of your website.
-- 
R

In article <EcHtm.81277$OO7.75928@text.news.virginmedia.com>, neverwas 
says...
> As it is, I don't see why you are so coy as to whether it is 
> you (as a sole trader) or your company (or a "mixed partnership" of both 
> or .........) offering goods for sale on the website. 

I've not been coy about it at all. OTOH, you demonstrate a complete 
ignorance about businesses and their formation.

FYI, a person can be a sole trader trading under a business name and 
only has to put Mr.X T/A Company Y if they've been bankrupt otherwise it 
is perfectly acceptable for a person to only put their trading name.

Don't bother replying to this thread until you've gone off and learned 
the basics.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either - Scott Adams

"LP"  wrote in message 
news:7hl45qF2tttdkU1@mid.individual.net...
> Far from being picky.  Ever since Henry Law and Neil Barker abandoned this 
> group, it's gone to pants.

It's nothing to do with that.
It's because buyers expect to pay a small fraction of what something is 
worth , that most of the sellers have buggered off elsewhere so they can get 
more money.
Volumes of traffic have fallen through the floor , and it's not that you 
can't see the adverts for off-topic posts.

-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"