No other supplier is fighting for your right to repair a watch in a way that is even 5% of what Cousins is doing, and yet you describe the company as having contempt for its customers. What more care and concern can Cousins have for its customers than to help keep them in business, and what greater right can it have to their goodwill as a consequence? If you can point out any other knight (regardless of colour) that is coming to your aid, then please let me know.Originally Posted by Padders
I'm quite certain that I do not look at all foolish amongst those who take a holistic view of the survival of our trade. Stop the Cousins bashing and start acting in a unified way. We just proved that the invincible can lose to the minnow, what have you got to support us with in the next round of this battle? Some help would be appreciated. How about a bit of positive support instead of a put down?
Steven, would you say any part of Cousins fight is to secure their own business, or is the action purely to help the watch enthusiasts who will undoubtedly benefit from free supply?
I accept the latter is a welcome consequence, but I remian convinced the former is their prime motivation.
I have no issue with that - they should be trying to protect their business - but I'm not entirely convinced by your portrayal that they're doing it for "us". Makes the whole thing a little wiffy.
Suppliers can't survive without customers, and customers can't survive without suppliers. There is no "them and us", just "us", and there is nothing whiffy about that. If you go out of business because you can't get parts, will that be Cousins fault? If all you have by way of objection is the concept that the bigger motivation is self preservation, then you and I are never going to agree. Like I said, who else is fighting for you?
Whilst it is in the interest of Cousins, winning this case would allow more suppliers to enter the market thus increasing their own competition.
Ultimately it will prevent Cousins from overpricing as other suppliers won't necessarily play ball.
Cousins main business was watch parts . Now they sell jewellery trade and other parts , consumables , watch batteries , tools . In fact almost anything with a watch or jewellery related title and the list grows as they glean products from Amazon / EBay and other online trade platforms adding a high markup in many instances .
Probably the family business is at a crossroads and this Legal issue spells the death knell if it goes the wrong way . I don't think there is another alternative but to fight it in the guise of a capped crusader and promote the fight for the benefit of the watch trade .
Bearing in mind most of forum members are collectors / owners and as knowledgable as they are the Cousins involvement raises eyebrows but doesn't affect them directly . Regardless of what happens watches will always be serviceable , it will just make the end user cost slightly higher .
I think Steve , you are beating the wrong Drum in the wrong arena .
I have suggested before the Batton should be held and fought by the BHI , as they are overall the custodians of the watchmaker in U.K. , not Cousins .
If Cousins had such a sympathetic stance to the future of watchmaking and to the ease of parts supply then surely they would of adopted more transparent ordering processes and more importantly faulty goods returns systems themselves rather than hide behind a very much convoluted and purposefully difficult one.
The latest step forward is a small step and I think that ultimately wether a final decision down the line is a positive one for the supply of parts or a restricted one I feel Cousins won't be a part of the final equation .
I do hope that sense prevails though and the correct path is identified to allow the industry to continue .
Email this to the BHI .
Or advise Anthony Cousins to only sell to bona fide watchmakers , whose credentials can be checked , their training and competence levels evaluated and the parts supplied to them are safe in their hands will be fitted in accordance with manufacturers guidelines and then maybe their fight might be taken seriously !
You've said a dozen times now "no-one else is fighting for you" this implies the fight is for our benefit alone - it isn't. You belittle your own position (and Cousins position) by suggesting otherwise, in my opinion.
If you had come on here and said,
"Cousins are taking Swatch to court, because they do well out of selling these parts, and if they win then the supply of parts should be secured for enthusiasts like yourselves, and private watch makers",
I think you would have got more support than you've received thus far, even setting aside the obvious reservations about Cousins themselves.
Personally, I don't like someone claiming to do me a favour when the reality is that it's in their own interests and they wouldn't be doing it otherwise. I prefer a spade to be called a spade.
To turn this on its head slightly, can I ask this:- if the profit in the Swatch parts had dwindled off for Cousins over the past 4/5 years to the point they were just breaking even with them and were considering removing them from sale and then they received the Swatch letter saying they were stopping supply, would they still be taking this action for "us"?
That could still happen, even if Cousins win.
Unless the courts set the pricing structure, parts could be sold as expensive as Swatch like to independent suppliers, while being sold at cost to in-house repair centres.
Absolutely correct. Free and open competition on fair terms prevents suppliers from abusing consumers. That is what Cousins wants.
The current parts crisis exists because the trade organisations failed to understand competition law and have it applied in our industry. In some cases they colluded with manufacturers to help impose the restrictions. The BHI does not describe itself as a trade organisation. It calls itself a members organisation. I challenge you to contact them, ask them why they are not leading this fight, ask them for details of their arrangement with Rolex, and then report back to the forum.
Two points in reply.
Firstly I have already said that the supplier / customer relationship is mutual. One can't exists without the other and both have an equal interest in making a profit. So in a circumstance where that relationship is under threat from outside forces acting illegally, I maintain there is only "us", and I am not going to shift from that position, even if you think it is some sort of PR posture. I have been banging the drum for unity and mutual respect in the trade for years. I have spent a lot of time on forums like this trying to pass on what I know. For me, helping other people with any form of learning is the best way to show respect for them because it demonstrates that you think they are of value. The best reward is when someone teaches you something in return. Cousins is fighting to save its customers because without customers it would have no business. Customers need to be fighting to save their suppliers, because without suppliers they have no business. Mutual respect is the key.
Secondly, the reply to your final question depends upon perspective. If there is no demand for a product from the market, then Cousins would stop selling it, and if the supplier to Cousins then refused to supply them, then of course they would not fight to retain that product. If there was a demand for that product, but the profit margins were very thin, then a decision on whether or not to fight to maintain supply would depend on what impact the loss of that product would have. Cousins value as a supplier is that it stocks and offers the full range of parts and equipment that its customers need to run their businesses. It offers a one stop shop with fast delivery. If a product with thin margins is essential to the survival of customers, then Cousins would fight to hang on to it. However, neither of these options is what we are dealing with here. The margins on watch parts are comfortable, and there is a huge demand from customers for them. The refusal to supply is a blatant attempt to manipulate the market, so the fight is on, and it is for the mutual benefit of Cousins and its customers.
The law in relation to dominant market undertakings takes care of this eventuality. They are required to sell on equivalent and reasonable terms to all. What that means is that wholesalers buying in equal volume must be charged equal prices, and if sales are made direct to repairers, then again the price can be varied by volume of sales, but if that volume is less than the wholesalers buy, the price must be such as to allow the wholesalers to compete.
In talking about in house repairers, you have unwittingly jumped from the market for spare parts into the market for servicing and repair. The law regards these as two different markets. If a dominant manufacturer were suspected of supplying its in house repair service with parts at a discount so that they had an unfair market advantage over independent repairers, then the Regulator would demand to see their internal accounts, and take the necessary steps to ensure fair play in the Service market.
Is that really true though? Cousins are fighting to save a profitable part of its business, as they are entitled to.
Surely a more open and honest statement would be to say "Cousins is fighting to save Swatch parts supply, as they make good money selling them and they have customers who rely on the supply"
Profit isn't a dirty word, but tarting it up as "doing us all a favour" doesn't sit well with me.
Anyway, thanks for your reply.
The only difference between your position and mine is I would phrase it as:-
"Cousins is fighting to save Swatch parts supply, as they are a profitable product for both themselves and their customers who rely on open supply to remain in business"
We are not "doing us all a favour". A favour would be a bit of extra discount. This isn't a favour, it is a fight for everyone's survival and the right to conduct business in a free and fair market.
I see that Anthony Cousins now seems to be doing book reviews; I've just received an email with this in the header:
I imagine I'll be listening to him on Front Row by the end of the week.
To be fair both authors seem to have reasonable academic credentials albeit with the caveat that I'm not sure what a strong backround in agricultural economics brings to the party.
The presentation of all of this, however, has about as much credibility as those DPM pyjama bottoms.
Edit: Here's a link to a free download of the paper Cousins is raving about:
http://cousinsuk.us7.list-manage.com...5&e=87e19d6c07
Last edited by Carlton-Browne; 26th July 2017 at 17:45.
I've got beyond the angry/frustrated stage with all this, much as I hope Cousins ends up being successful and the supply of parts is reinstated I suspect it will rumble on and on. I'll never understand why all this legal crap takes so long; the current situation is playing into Swatch Group's hands even if the decision ultimately goes against them.
I really can't see the logic in restricting the supply of ETA parts. Chinese clone movements are available; I've no idea about the interchangability of parts or the quality of the movements (variable I guess) but if The real McCoy ETA parts can't be sourced the repairers will have to be resourceful and use these. Some generic ETA parts are becoming available for the 2824 (sliding clutch and winding pinion, parts 407 & 410 that wear out) but I'm reluctant to use them unless I'm forced. None of this is protecting the brand and quality of ETA movements, it's doing the exact opposite. Parts for these movements were cheap as chips until the supply situation changed, so there was no excuse for not replacing anything that showed the slightest sign of wear. Sellita movements and parts are a better alternative to Chinese or generic, but unfortunately not every part is interchangable (allegedly). Price is another factor, Sellita movements and parts aren't exactly cheap either.
Where will it end?.........when will it end?.........who knows. If enough repairers end up throwing the towel in Swatch Group still get their own way, even if ultimately they lose the case. The one group who definitely lose out is the watch owners.
Paul
All things being equal, if the demand is there (and with the ubiquity of ETA movements, I suspect there will be) China will supply it. So long as the QC is up to snuff, I'd have no problem with Asian-sourced replacement parts.
I see that Anthony Cousins now seems to be doing book reviews; I've just received an email with this in the header:
I imagine I'll be listening to him on Front Row by the end of the week.
To be fair both authors seem to have reasonable academic credentials albeit with the caveat that I'm not sure what a strong backround in agricultural economics brings to the party.
The presentation of all of this, however, has about as much credibility as those DPM pyjama bottoms.
Edit: Here's a link to a free download of the paper Cousins is raving about:
http://cousinsuk.us7.list-manage.com...5&e=87e19d6c07
And still your best response is to mock. You mock Cousins, you mock the background of the authors, and you mock the credibility of their work. How constructive of you.
If you track down this thread just a short way you will see that it was a member of this forum that found this book, and if you look at the News section of the Cousins website you will see that they get due credit for their effort in helping with the cause. Help is what is needed, not your brand of scepticism. Cousins has demonstrated that David can win battles against Goliath. Why don't you join the ranks of the helpers and portray this new information in a positive light?
Hi walkerwek1958,
I wish I could tell you why the legal process takes so long. The system does not favour the little guy in the way it is constructed, but we have to use what there is, and when we do, it seems to work so far. I understand your final paragraph, but if Cousins win, those same repairers will find all those restrictive clauses in their contracts to be unenforceable, and the watch owning public will reap the benefits.
The issue with the Chinese clones is that unfortunately the parts are not interchangeable, and it is not just movement parts that customers need for their repairs. There are a limited range of pattern parts available, and there probably will be more, but watch repairers need access to the full range of parts to deliver a proper repair to every customer on every occasion, so that has to be the goal.
Stick with it. The end game is one step closer.
Regards
Steve Domb
I reserve the right to mock anybody who sends out an emailed link to what may well be an interesting academic paper with all the finesse of the next penny dreadful. I wish Cousins every success in this action even though I have a number of reservations about their own business practices and the sooner you accept criticism rather than round on anybody who doesn't rally unquestionably behind the Cousins banner the better. Your credibility is already suspect in this thread, in my view, since you were called out by one of the forum's resident practicing lawyers and, quite frankly, your attitude stinks. Good luck.
TZ's a tough crowd, Steve. Whilst I don`t agree with the robustness of the above response I can see where he's coming from. Cousins don`t go out of their way to win friends or favour and their brusque attitude towards customers (quite right) attracts criticism. It would be naïve to expect everyone to give their unequivocal support to Cousins, criticism is inevitable and I think you have to accept this.
This is a fight, Cousins are 'our' dog in the fight, therefore Cousins get support from most quarters. Hopefully our dog will have a bite that's just as potent as his bark..........we hope he wins but we still won`t warm to him like a pet Labrador.
Paul
My credibility is of no consequence. Your credibility is of no consequence. Cousins credibility is of no consequence. What matters is that the independent repair trade survives to provide the watch owning consumer with the competitive service that it deserves, and that we prevent monopolies from breaking the law and abusing their position in the market to the detriment of those same consumers.
When it comes to criticism, frankly I couldn't care two hoots if you think I'm a superstar or a total waste of space. All that matters is ensuring the consumer gets the best deal, and that will only happen if we get parts for the independent trade. My reaction to the abuse of the consumer is to work full time to correct it. Your reaction is to sit back and denigrate anyone else's efforts. I'm calling you out for not fighting to protect the trade. It ain't my attitude that stinks, try sniffing closer to home!
Each is entitled to choose who he does business with, and if they don't like the terms and conditions, or the service level, then in a competitive market they are free to trade elsewhere. I've said it multiple times, if you have a complaint about service, contact Cousins.
As to the what type of dog we need fighting for us, do you fancy a cuddly Labrador, or would you rather have a Rottweiler with teeth, guts, and a machine gun?????
Regards
Steve
The legal process often takes so long because it is intentional. Keep things going in circles until the little guys resources are shot and they give in. To quote a former employer of mine "I'm worth £58,000,000 I'll have you in court for the next 5 years".
And there you go again. You're not really cut out for this game, are you?
And we're back to credibility. I do hope you have a sharper crease on your pyjama bottoms than Anthony has.
Exactly. It's one reason I'm going to give this thread a wide berth from now on. It's like a broken record. We get it! But for goodness sake just accept that some people might agree with taking on Swatch but haven't had the best of service from Cousins - that's just life. At times some of the responses have made me feel like I couldn't give a stuff about the outcome, and that's not the way to glean support for a cause.
It's just a matter of time...
There was an update today from Cousins
Swatch. A Watch Company that Wastes Time...
“Forum Running” is a term that describes an attempt to avoid legal action threatened in one Court, by dragging it to another that has no real reason to deal with it. It is a rather unlawful practice that is sometimes used by big companies to frighten off smaller opponents by wasting their time and money. When the Judge in Bern dismissed Swatch’s claim against Cousins, he made it tolerably clear that Forum Running was not going to be allowed in his Court.
Wasting time and money in the hope Cousins will go away seems to be one of Swatch’s tactics, and the fact that they have now, as we expected, appealed against the Bern Court ruling seems to demonstrate that they still haven’t learned that Cousins will not be frightened off, and will see this through to the end.
What particularly demonstrates the time wasting nature of the appeal is that the Bern decision was based on a ruling from the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, and it is this very same body that the appeal has been made to. Our Swiss lawyers are currently studying the details of the appeal, which arrived with them recently, however, it seems on first reading that Swatch are trying to argue, amongst other things, that the Supreme Court has it wrong, and needs to change its practice. It’s hard to say what the consequences of that would be for the Swiss legal system. The appeal process is likely to run for less than ten months. For now, Cousins is still here, still not frightened, and still fighting.
Some companies like to waste time, Cousins likes to save time ….. along with the independent repair industry that keeps it ticking.
Kind Regards
Anthony Cousins
Managing Director, Cousins Material House Ltd.
I have over nearly 50 years dealt with watch material suppliers in the UK , USA and of course Switzerland.
Cousins keep an absolutely huge stock of parts, tools and equipment. Better than any in CH or USA.
Cousins strict returns policy upsets many but I think it mostly upsets amateur watch repairers who either buy the wrong parts or damage the parts supplied.
There was a Company in Bristol which accepted returns without question. It cost them their business finally.
Anyone who sells stuff on ebay will know how dishonest and ignorant buyers can be.
Most professional watch repairers know exactly what they want and buy carefully.
This is not to say that Cousins never accept returns. They have done from me when there was a mistake in the listing or the part had been in stock a long time and looked worn.
If Cousins offered no questions returns they would only encourage poor workmen to buy from them.
On the Swatch matter. Even Swiss independents are anxious for Cousins to win their case.
And they of course admire the British resolve absent from their home parts suppliers (perhaps through fear of accounts being closed).
I know many indies in CH who are also suddenly confronted by Swatch policy, having worked untroubled in this trade most of their lives.
They too see this as pure greed on the part of the industry.
The original idea was to make sure all repairs came back to Switzerland. But now they can't recruit enough young watch repairers because this job has no real status.
A lot of the lads I have met working in the factories are stoned all day. They hate the battery hen environment and repetitive work. Listening to piped 'radio 1' all day too.
Many Swiss indies get their spares via the back doors from these factory staff.
I know that the blind eye is turned for them.
I don't believe that Swatch have thought this through.
Some CH factory repair waiting times are now absurd and can be several months with no guarantee that the watch has been serviced correctly.
If the independent is wiped out, repair prices will make servicing pointless.
Now wouldn't Swatch and others just love that !
No repair staff.
No polishers.
No quality control.
Just a bunch of half trained assemblers like Timex.
And lots more highly profitable watch sales.
A simple Timex style repair or replace policy.
At their option.
New for old.
Don't expect your original to come back.
Whichever is quickest and cheapest for the factory.
Last edited by Webwatchmaker; 22nd September 2017 at 21:19. Reason: Grammar
Thoughtful post Brendan, thanks.
Thanks for your post,Brendan.
It's always good to learn from someone within the industry who has a real stake in this dispute.
If what you say comes to pass then I fear many will decline to buy some Swiss mechanical watches due to the servicing costs/problems you foresee.
What will happen to the gold Zenith my wife bought me 10 years ago if the Swiss all follow suit?
Japanese or Chinese anyone?
Not all the companies will follow suit.
Zenith are in Le Locle. As are Tissot, Ulysse Nardin, and jobs with watches have been a long tradition in that town.
The last thing they want is unemployment.
I think the local Councillors will get involved to defuse this ridiculous potential monopoly.
There isn't much else bar watches in the Vallee Joux either and it's kind of in the middle of nowhere. Many employed watchmakers and indies there.
JleC, AP, Lemania, Breguet, F. Piguet to name a few.
Cousins are doing a much greater service than just trying to retain their UK customer Base.
Taking on a country with a long tradition of avoiding physical involvement in international disputes and batting for all sides at the same time is extremely brave.
I really admire them.
Brendan
Last edited by Webwatchmaker; 23rd September 2017 at 17:35.
Hi Brendan,
Your analysis of why Cousins operates on Business to Business trading terms, and is therefore so strict about returns, is accurate in all but one respect. It was not just amateurs who would abuse an open returns policy, there were far too many professional repairers who, having bought replacement parts, thought it was fair game to clean up the more expensive broken parts they had removed from a customer's watch, and then send them back for a refund claiming they were faulty when supplied.
As a general rule, companies that operate a 'no questions asked' returns policy (either by choice, or because they retail to consumers and are therefore obliged to by the Distance Selling Regulations) need to charge about three times the price of a business to business supplier in order to cope with people who abuse the returns system. They do not tend to last very long.
You are also correct in your analysis of the Swiss independent repairers hoping that we win, and the difficulties that the Swiss wholesalers face in complaining, but don't assume they are doing nothing. ComCo, the Swiss Competition Regulator, is coming under increasing internal pressure to act.
In my view, the root cause of the problem lies deep in the organisational culture within Swatch. The manner in which they were brought into existence involved some serious ignoring of rules and regulations, and I think breaking the rules has become a norm in the behaviour of that organisation. If you haven't already seen it, I do recommend you read the book written by two senior figures at the University of Zurich Centre for Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability. You can buy a paper copy or have a free download here:-
https://www.cousinsuk.com/product/wh...watch-industry
When large dominant corporations start abusively manipulating markets, they are generally chasing short term profits to appease shareholder demands. The downside is that this does enormous damage to the core values of their products, and eventually consumers wake up to the reality that they are being fleeced, and stop buying. This outcome is even more true when dealing with non essential products. If you go back 100 years, a watch was an essential because people needed to carry the accurate time with them. Nobody needs a watch for that any more. The time is available on mobile phones, tablets, computers, TVs, Sat Navs, etc.. Addicts like us principally buy watches for the pleasure of wearing them, the style statement, and the engineering intrigue. If we begin to associate that with feeling like we are being ripped off, then the pleasure of ownership goes, and we will spend our money elsewhere.
The Swiss brands are catastrophically endangering the core values of their products. They are turning watches at even the highest price points from being a treasured purchase into a disposable commodity, and that just won't work in the long term. Apple are the masters of getting consumers to accept the idea of disposing of expensive items in ridiculously short timescales, and even they are now finding that consumers are waking up to this strategy and refusing to 'upgrade' as quickly as they might have previously.
I hope that some of the senior executives in the Swiss watch houses are waking up to this reality, and develop the guts to buck the corporate culture and put matters right, but I don't have any real belief that they will do this all on their own. Swatch know they aren't going to win in front of a British judge, which is why they pulled the stunt to drag the case into the Bern Court. The judge there quite rightly recognised that there was no basis for the matter being in his court, and threw it out. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court had long before established that that type of action was not admissible, and as that is the court that Swatch have appealed to, one can only draw the conclusion that they are trying to waste more time in order to do more damage to the independent trade.
I have no doubt that we will win in the end, and that the outcome will be a combination of Court Judgements and regulators finally enforcing the laws as they should. We're keeping fighting on all fronts until that day comes, and we really appreciate your words of support along the way.
Many thanks
Steve
Thank you Steve for your extremely helpful post above.
I intend to bring this matter to the attention of a couple of BBC journalists whom I met through my opinions on Brexit, in the hope that they will give this matter some air time.
I have no figure for the number of independent watch repairers in this country but if anyone knows this could help.
Brendan
''Your analysis of why Cousins operates on Business to Business trading terms, and is therefore so strict about returns, is accurate in all but one respect. It was not just amateurs who would abuse an open returns policy, there were far too many professional repairers who, having bought replacement parts, thought it was fair game to clean up the more expensive broken parts they had removed from a customer's watch, and then send them back for a refund claiming they were faulty when supplied''
FUNNY HOW early in your postings you made a point of telling everybody you weren't here to discuss Cousins returns policies or trading terms but now you have a lone individual siding with this unfair trading term you suddenly know more about it !
If goods arnt fit for purpose then you have a right to return them . End .
I thought you had to specific you were a business to trade with cousins? I didn't think they deal with consumers?
Cousins will deal with anyone, but you have to register and play by their rules.
As I've stated before, there's plenty to criticise Cousins about regarding their attitude towards customers, but they're 'our' dog in the fight and on that basis they should be supported.
Frankly, I`ve long since run out of patience trying to read Steve's lengthy posts, I take one look and think 'too many words', but it's clear where his loyalty lies, he'll support Cousins regardless, so there's no point engaging in the debate.
The longer this legal challenge rumbles on the more damaging it becomes to the repair trade, it's in Swatch Group's better interests to stall and delay as long as possible.......but I think we all know that.
Paul
They say they don't but they don't check anyway , most professional trade only suppliers need IR proof , VAT or limited company status . It's been discussed before .
Cousins do not check and supply anyone but it still remains that they legally cannot get customers to sign their legal rights away in terms of purchasing faulty goods or items wrongly supplied .
I suspect the amount of trade purchasers who try and send back
old swapped parts for the new saying they are faulty are extremely low and it's just another poor justification for Cousins bad policies and their attitude towards customers .
I still believe Cousins motive for this action is largely one of self interest and their fight for the individual watchmaker is a nicely positioned angle which helps their case .
TOMAICH:
"I still believe Cousins motive for this action is largely one of self interest and their fight for the individual watchmaker is a nicely positioned angle which helps their case." .[/QUOTE]
Of course it's self interest but their self interest relies on the watch trade existing !!!!
Brendan
Of course it's self interest but their self interest relies on the watch trade existing !!!!
Brendan[/QUOTE]
Agreed so operate under a fair trading contract and gain more support rather than bite the hand that feeds you that promotes much bad press from customers .
Tomaitch:
"Agreed so operate under a fair trading contract and gain more support rather than bite the hand that feeds you that promotes much bad press from customers" .[/QUOTE]
I think that if you ever ventured into retail you would accept returns policies like Cousins.
I'm not a Lawyer but my understanding is that they don't have to sell to anyone they feel is trying to rip them off and under business regulations can agree terms of sale beforehand.
Brendan
Last edited by Webwatchmaker; 24th September 2017 at 19:02.
Agree with this completely Tom. It wasn't up for discussion when Cousins were taking flak, but it's up for discussion when they're getting praise. Laughable.
I think that if you ever ventured into retail you would accept returns policies like Cousins.
I'm not a Lawyer but my understanding is that they don't have to sell to anyone they feel is trying to rip them off and under business regulations can agree terms of sale beforehand.
Brendan[/QUOTE]
Yes possibly but their full terms are not easily found as the buying agreement states ' your are agreeing to a business to business transaction ' if I'm not mistaken . It only becomes apparent that their returns policies are awkward when you try to return items and get the run around on the web site and their telephone staff point you to the returns process online which basically indicates it's not possible to return items under most circumstances ?!
Wether it be a commercial or retail transaction certain terms are implied unless items are not new or sold at auction ' as seen' .
You can get buyers to sign their rights as a buyer away but in law it would be unenforceable as goods should be fit for purpose wether sold under trade or retail circumstances .
Last edited by Tomaitch; 24th September 2017 at 20:27.
I accept that this can be a debate for the future.
For the moment I am much more concerned with being able to continue buying the parts I need for my work.
Brendan
Your idea of "discuss" is to hurl mindless abuse at anyone who disagrees with your opinion. I'm not going to waste my time on that, but if someone puts up a thoughtful analysis, then I am more than happy to contribute to it. You have been repeatedly told that if you have issues with Cousins terms and conditions, then write to Anthony Cousins about it, his email address is freely available, and he is the person who has the power to change things, not me. But you refuse to do so, and instead you blather on quoting non existent laws as if you have some divine right to whatever you want, however you want it.
If you want the level of consumer rights that the distance selling regulations offer, then you need to be doing business with a retailer, not a trade supplier, and you should expect to pay three to four times the price for the items you want. If you want trade prices, you need to accept trade terms.
There are no 'implied' terms in a business to business contract, only what the vendor and the purchaser agree on. If you cannot agree terms with a supplier, don't do business with them.
Cousins terms are not hidden, they are clearly laid out here:-
https://www.cousinsuk.com/page/termsconditions
If a contract contains clauses that break UK law, then that contract is void. If you can point out to Anthony any that break specific UK laws that you can clearly reference, I'm sure he wouldn't hesitate to change them if you are correct.
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
Mindless abuse ?
Repeatedly told ? Who do you think you are. ? !!
No Implied terms in a business supply contract ?
All contracts have implied terms and sellers have a duty to provide these when they supply goods or services . It is what is reasonable .
I think you need to look things up before you get back on your Soap box and pretend to be a trainee paralegal .
I can't believe your comments , how do you know I havnt already contacted Cousins in the past about my gripe with this ?
What gives you the right to dictate to me what I can and can't discuss ?
Unbelievable .
Last edited by Tomaitch; 24th September 2017 at 21:38.
I appreciate that you support the cause we are fighting for, however I have no problem defending the length of my posts. There is so much misinformation going around about the parts issue that I long ago stopped trying to communicate in "sound bites". I try to be as clear and as detailed as is necessary for readers to understand the issues, and the laws and processes behind them. Like yourself, I don't like having to work through long answers, but sometimes they are needed in order to gain the knowledge you need.
My loyalty lies with protecting the right of the independent trade to continue to serve the consumer as it has done for almost 400 years. Cousins thinks and acts the same way as me, so you are dead right, I do support them, and I have no problem saying so out loud.
Hi Brendan,
After our win in the Bern Court we had some good coverage in the Swiss business papers, and subsequently the story was picked up by Reuters. This in turn led to it appearing in the Mail Online here in the UK and in the New York Times and CNBC in the USA.
I have a number of press briefing documents that have been prepared, and would obviously be keen to make a warm contact at the BBC. I have sent you a private message with my contact details, please call me to discuss how to progress.
Thanks for the support
Steve
''There are no 'implied' terms in a business to business contract, only what the vendor and the purchaser agree on. If you cannot agree terms with a supplier, don't do business with them.''
Are you suggesting you enter into a fresh contract every time you deal with Cousins ? The link to their terms mentions nothing of their returns policies or the terms by which they accept you as a consumer and or describe the products on their website so it is reasonable to assume that IMPLIED terms are present here.
Or am I being abusive again ?
Tomaitch, do you use Cousins for parts? If so what problem did you have? Just curious.
This calls for my favourite song. This time devoted to Tomaitch:
https://youtu.be/xHash5takWU
Brendan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote