Windsor Chair Purchase – unhappy - advice sought.

[PaulO]

It doesn't look very well made to my untrained Windsor eye.

However, buyer beware. I don't think you should be surprised at the chair you received. You selected the manufacturer purely on the basis of his proximity to the village you used to live in. You sent money half way around the world for a chair you hadn't seen but for some blurry photos. The chair he delivered is in the style you requested, as shown by the fact that you paid for it based on a photo.

When you don't like the result you complain on here, or perhaps "ask for opinions"

What warranties did the maker make to you that he would do a job that would meet your expectations?

I'm afraid you ordered a chair in the style of one you saw in a book from a man on the other side of the world, without checking references. He fulfilled his side of the deal by delivering that chair.

Your posts on this forum would have been better spent if you had asked for recommendations before the purchase. But hindsight is wonderful.

I would also echo what others have said, you should not post this here. Your complaint is with the maker, and you should give him adequate time to respond and make good. Making rude comments on here before he has had a chance to reply is going to harm any future claim you may choose to make.

I hope that the situation gets resolved to your satisfaction.

 

[Digit]

According to the original post the vendor was informed by E-Mail on the 16 of this month and the thread opened on the 22nd, it is now the 23rd, so OK the vendor may have been run over in the intervening period so may have a valid reason for not responding.
If not it might be interesting to hear what he has to say.
I fail to see why ordering a certain style via an image has anything to do with the quality of work though.

Roy.

 

[Rich]

WHERE has the poster been rude? he has merely reported the facts as they are and has given Hollands the opportunity to reply and state their case, it's not as if they are unaware of the situation as the poster has proof they have received his correspondence, anyway the law states that if you are unhappy with your purchase, you can return it and demand a full refund, why the poster has not done this immediately , I don't know.
but he has at least been patient enough to allow Hollands to state their case.

Regards,

Rich.

 

[13eightyfour]

If the maker knows this thread exists and hasnt contacted the admin regarding its removal i cant see a problem with it, On a computer forum im a member of topics like this come up all the time with suppliers messing people about giving wrong products etc.. In some cases the suppliers have even signed up to resolve the problem. I know if it was me who made the chair and i was made aware of this thread i'd have jumped in by now to try and explain what went wrong.

 

[PaulO]

WHERE has the poster been rude?

Ah, I see the the OP has edited his post, very wise.

My order of action in this situation would be:
1) Complain to vendor.
2) If no satisfaction from vendor, threaten legal action.
3) If no satisfaction from vendor, take legal action.
4) If legal action successful then warn others on forum.

I would expect to allow at least 3 - 4 weeks between each of the first three actions.

Performing action 4 early will prejudice the outcome of action 3.

Just IMHO.

 

[neilyweely]

truth is not necessarily a defence with libel; there are certain circumstances when the fact that what you have said is correct matters not. If there are any details that have been written which are disputable then this may cause trouble and compromise your chances of successful recovery.

Interestingly enough, if a case was ever bought about in an issue such as this, then due restriction may come into it, as there are continents involved I am not sure what would happen. I do not know a great deal about this, and would be interested to find out how it was dealt with.
I think I would wait until I had won the case before saying too much though!!! There is also the possibility of 'showing your cards' too early!!

Neil

 

[Jake]

truth is not necessarily a defence with libel

Erm, yes it is.

; there are certain circumstances when the fact that what you have said is correct matters not.

Without wishing to derail the thread, I'd be interested to know what you think those are.

If there are any details that which have been written which are disputable then this may cause trouble.

That's because if they might not be true, then it might be a libel.

 

[neilyweely]

criminal libel is different to civil libel, or at least was, as far as this is concerned.

 

[Woodwould]

You selected the manufacturer purely on the basis of his proximity to the village you used to live in.

No I didn't. I sought recommendations from several sources including former woodworking friends in the UK. I settled on Holland as a result of the recommendations (despite them being, in some cases, 100% more expensive than others I considered), but also because I believe in shopping locally – my family still live a few miles from Martock.

What warranties did the maker make to you that he would do a job that would meet your expectations?

Plenty. I don't want to go into any specific details for obvious reasons.

I'm afraid you ordered a chair in the style of one you saw in a book from a man on the other side of the world, without checking references. He fulfilled his side of the deal by delivering that chair.

Incorrect/Far from it.

Your complaint is with the maker, and you should give him adequate time to respond and make good. Making rude comments on here before he has had a chance to reply is going to harm any future claim you may choose to make.

In all our early dealings, emails were answered by return, but that's not the case since I complained. I have not posted anything rude on this forum, though I did delete some text as it was superfluous, but not libellous or rude. I have spoken to Holland on the phone and I was left in no doubt as to his position on the matter and he has had every opportunity to respond here.[/quote]

 

[PaulO]

I responded based on what I had read here, including your original unedited post. From your replies it is obvious that there is more going on than you have posted.

As I said in my original post, I wish you luck, and I hope that this is resolved to your satisfaction.

Sorry if I offended you.

 

[big soft moose]

truth is not necessarily a defence with libel

Erm, yes it is.

; there are certain circumstances when the fact that what you have said is correct matters not.

.

The only one that comes to mind is when the true fact is used in a defamatory way

for example suppose that you were grossly overweight, and also that you had a relatively low IQ, and i had evidence that this was true

If I wrote "Jake is grossly overweight and has a relatively low IQ" then you could not accuse me of libel as i would demonstrate in court that i had stated the facts correctly.

If however I wrote "jake is a big fat silly person" on the end of a post and by doing so implied that whatever view you had stated was invalid, you would have a case for defamation because although i could demonstrate that you were both overweight and unintelligent I would have stated those facts in a defamatory way designed to bring your other expertise into doubt.


*For the record I would like to be clear that as far as i am aware jake is neither grossly overweight or unintelligent and i am not suggesting overwise - this was an example only*

 

[TrimTheKing]

LOL

Moose, this is just not acceptable, now please go away and stop being a chubby fool! :wink:

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

Jake is grossly overweight and has a relatively low IQ

Ah, don't you love the way quotes can be (ab)used! :wink:

Dave

 

[track821ok]

Good on you woodwould - that looks shockingly sub-standard from what you have posted and described - I wish you all the best in getting this resolved to your satisfaction.

Ps - to all the legal eagles on here too concerned about the libel laws (points taken though), there's an interesting case currently ongoing - link;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... dback.html

Got to say the case linked to and below seems to be on a hiding to nothing - we shall see...

But when the phone arrived a few days later, he was disappointed to find it was the wrong model and appeared to be damaged.
After returning his purchase and receiving a refund from the seller, Joel Jones, he used the online auction website's feedback section - which can be read by other people - to give his honest opinion of the transaction.
'Item was scratched, chipped and not the model advertised on Mr Jones's eBay account,' he wrote, assuming it was the end of the matter...
Chris Read is facing a court battle after leaving negative feedback on eBay for a mobile phone he bought on the auction site
But he has now received an email threatening him with libel action. And it will be a legal first if the case reaches court.
Mr Jones claims the unfavourable comments have damaged his business. The legal missive goes on to warn Mr Read that if he fails to retract his comments he will be dragged to court where he faces costs, lawyers' fees and damages.

 

[Digit]

I saw the report as well, rather surprising as E-Bay invites the feed back, and vendors must know that.

Roy.

 

[CWatters]

Check out..
http://feedback.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI ... terval=180

 

[neilyweely]

I am no legal eagle, just a humble kitchen fitter, and am well out of my depth here when it comes to woodwork skills. And I know it. But I have an 'advisor' (Dad) who is a legal eagle. When he tells me a legal point I tend to take it as gospel.

Regarding the chair as I said in my first post the pic's speak for themselves and showing them could not invite any trouble. I would personally feel distraught if my name had been splashed about like this; the power of the press etc is massive, and can ruin lives. But the chair IS bad.

I'll get my coat.....Sorry if I have ruffled any feathers.

 

[Jake]

If however I wrote "jake is a big fat silly person" on the end of a post and by doing so implied that whatever view you had stated was invalid, you would have a case for defamation because although i could demonstrate that you were both overweight and unintelligent I would have stated those facts in a defamatory way designed to bring your other expertise into doubt.

If you can prove the truth of the proposition that I am a "big fat silly person", you can say it where and how you like, in whaytever context, and it won't be defamatory - it can't be. Fortunately for me, you wouldn't be able to prove one of them, whereas I can say with every justification that you are definitely a big soft moose.

 

[Digit]

:lol: :lol: Like that! Chalk one up to Jake!.
No offence Moose.

Roy.

 

[Pete Howlett]

Over on the ukulele forums where I am active I get adverse psotings and it is really irritating - and my work is never bad. if I make a cock-up it goes on the bonfire - no-one gets a second...

However this was a clear rip-off and if wouldwoods's only recourse to an evaluation on this site then I think he did the right thing. Holland's should have fessed up and replaced the chair immediately.