Any advice on easiest printer to re-fill

[newsreaderx]

Did this problem with the Epson printer occur while it was still >under ? If so, where did they tell you the "user instructions" were

that explained how you violated them? What was their >solution to this?

Yes it did occur under warranty and Epson told me i was not getting a
refund or replacement, as i had in fact requested a refund as i
believed the durability of the product had not been proven. Epson
stated by not using the printer for some 5 weeks i was not using it in
accordance with the user guidelines despite having never read any info
to this effect in the instructions. The printer was a C66 Durabrite i
had only used it to print some 70-80 pages what a waste of £60 a heap
of ****.

MR C

 

[Arthur Entlich]

This strikes me as bordering on breach of contract. I don't know UK law
well, but I think they violated it in this situation.

Perhaps they should advertise this "if you plan on using the printer
intermittently, you violate the user service agreement and invalidate
the warranty agreement."

Art

 

[TJ]

This strikes me as bordering on breach of contract. I don't know UK law
well, but I think they violated it in this situation.

Perhaps they should advertise this "if you plan on using the printer
intermittently, you violate the user service agreement and invalidate
the warranty agreement."

Even if it is breach of contract, they'll probably get away with it.
Most folks would just give up the cost of the printer rather than spend
money on a lawyer(excuse me - solicitor in the UK, I believe) to get
proper satisfaction. Even if legal proceedings were started and Epson
settled by refunding the printer money before the whole thing went to
court, costs to the plaintiff would exceed the benefits. At least,
that's the way it would work in the US. Here in the US this would be a
case for small-claims court, anyway. And small claims courts, here in
the US at least, have no teeth to force collection of judgments.

A consumer advocate group might be able to help, but the individual has
little clout by himself.

TJ

 

[DRS]

[...]

to get proper satisfaction. Even if legal proceedings were started
and Epson settled by refunding the printer money before the whole
thing went to court, costs to the plaintiff would exceed the
benefits. At least, that's the way it would work in the US.

Should Epson lose in the UK it would by default be liable for the
plaintiff's legal costs. Whilst this system is intended to discourage
frivolous lawsuits, it has the side effect of dissuading the ordinary person
from suing companies who might then claim extraordinary costs should they
win.

 

[ato_zee]

Here in the US this would be a
case for small-claims court, anyway. And small claims courts, here in
the US at least, have no teeth to force collection of judgments.

Same in the UK, we have Small Claims in the County Court.
You can "Do it yourself" and win.
I took on a large plc and the multinational manufacturer
of a defective mobile phone, of about the same value as
a printer. Their tame barrister in their legal dept. phoned
and said their aim is customer satisfaction, how about
a new, just released, top of the range product, plus costs,
and a small sum in compensation, to withdraw the action.
I was just pis***d of at getting the run-around of call
centres at national call rates.
The finance director of the plc said we know nothing
about mobile phones, we're passing it over to the mfr.
Of course he might have added "Sort it, or we
won't stock them any more" plc's do have buying clout.
The action was against the vendor and one other
(legal jargon) the mfr.
I thought if the vendor and the mfr are arguing over
the warranty, go for both, and let the court decide.
The big advantage of an action is it sets a time
limit.
Of course a large multinational has funds and in the
UK there are means for enforcing judgement, but
we do have the saying "It's no good suing a man of
straw" that means without assets.

 

[ato_zee]

Should Epson lose in the UK it would by default be liable for the
plaintiff's legal costs. Whilst this system is intended to discourage
frivolous lawsuits, it has the side effect of dissuading the ordinary person
from suing companies who might then claim extraordinary costs should they
win.

My understanding of UK Small Claims is, you make your claim, the
defendant(s) has a limited time to repond.
The response can be, admitting the claim, and settling in the
amount claimed.
Making an offer.
Defending the claim, where all parties have to appear and give
testimony on oath.

The risk is primarily if you refuse the offer, it then goes to court,
and if you lose you become liable for all or part of the defendants
costs, because your refusal of the offer caused them to incur
the additional costs of defending the action.
So as pointed out you should avoid trivial claims, ideally
need to be knowledgable about what your claim relates
to, and it's inadvisable to refuse any offer. Gaining something
is better than risking a substantial loss.
In the case of the mobile phone I couldn't take it apart and
break the seals in case it needed to be examined.
Subsequently after all was settled I took it apart and found
deposits on the fine tracks under the membrane keypad.
Cleaning things up, it then worked fine.
Having sent it next day signed for, costing an arm and a
leg, the repair/warranty centre should have fixed it.
Still I did get a top of the range SIM free phone out of it,
and the claim was justified, it was faulty.

 

[DRS]

My understanding of UK Small Claims is, you make your claim, the

I wasn't talking about Small Claims. I was talking about civil lawsuits.
By default the loser pays the costs for both sides, although judges have
discretion and in cases where there's some right on both sides may elect to
allocate costs differently. It's intended to discourage frivolous lawsuits,
since if you bring a suit and you lose because you never had a case to begin
with you end up losing your house to pay for the other side's costs. After
all, if they had the law on their side why should they be out of pocket?

 

[Arthur Entlich]

As much as I cringe while typing this, a Class Action is the most
effective way to deal with this type of issue. The problem is the
lawyers get massive returns relative to the member so of the class. But
often it is the only manner to get enough momentum on these types of
problems.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Unfortunately, there is a difficult balance to maintain. In the US,
costs are often not awarded to the winner, and many plaintiff make up
frivolous suits against larger pockets and squeeze money from them,
since they prefer to pay someone, even without legitimate evidence. No
perfect answer, I'm afraid.


Art

[...]

to get proper satisfaction. Even if legal proceedings were started
and Epson settled by refunding the printer money before the whole
thing went to court, costs to the plaintiff would exceed the
benefits. At least, that's the way it would work in the US.

Should Epson lose in the UK it would by default be liable for the
plaintiff's legal costs. Whilst this system is intended to discourage
frivolous lawsuits, it has the side effect of dissuading the ordinary person
from suing companies who might then claim extraordinary costs should they
win.

 

[TJ]

As much as I cringe while typing this, a Class Action is the most
effective way to deal with this type of issue. The problem is the
lawyers get massive returns relative to the member so of the class. But
often it is the only manner to get enough momentum on these types of
problems.

Art

Yes, it's an unfortunate fact that in most legal actions the only ones
who really get rich are the lawyers.

TJ