alt.uk.law

CJM wrote:

>
> "steve robinson" wrote in message
> news:xn0fe4lxghv0o8000@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> >
> > they have and have replaced the board
>
> And here is the most important issue- regardless of any other legal
> niceties, they have accepted the OPs claim whether through legal
> obligation or goodwill. And thus supplying a board that is not fit
> for purpose, they are at fault.
>
> If they didn't feel that they were responsible they could have
> challenged the OPs claim at the start.


The board is fit for the purpose though , i am sure Asus could show
that when it was dispatched it was in full working condition , its not
Asus fault or rsponsiblity to supply the ancillary compnents debbi needs

Offering a goodwill gesture of a replacement board (which is as close
as possible but not the same as the original) does not mean Asus accept
liablity if the op cant get it to fit her system , that unfortunatly is
Debbi problem


If debbi goes into maplins or Rs components its highly likely the parts
she wants will be available off the shelf


--