He is not asking how to proceed. He has already proceeded before seeking advice (which is not in itself a bad thing). He is asking what his rights are as regards the replacement.
So far we agree.
Apologies if I raised the question in the wrong forum. A minor transgression. And irrelevant to the point being discussed.
In effect his question is... if the replacement fails during the first 6 months, does the 6 month rule apply?
So what you are saying is: If I had couched the same question hypothetically, then it would have been a hypothetical question!
Got it.
My question wasn't "in effect": "if the replacement fails during the first 6 months, does the 6 month rule apply?"
My question was "in effect" : "Do I have the same rights with a replacement item as a new one?"
There is no hypothesis in the second question. To introduce one is to second guess the intent of original question, best to stick
to the letter of the law, so to speak.
The facts in this non-case are entirely hypothetical.
On the contrary, the facts in the case are very specific. An item was faulty. I will be receiving a replacement when replacement in stock. That's all. I have not speculated on the replacement being faulty, or indeed anything else.
To question my statuary rights with a replacement, doesn't need receipt, or hypothesis, of an actual faulty item to ask.
@ManxTom (thanks) and others, have effectively addressed the issue. So the question in context was clearly understandable.
I really don't know why this has triggered you so much. At worst this is a pedantic disagreement over language. No need for "utter twaddle" and "I'm not sure whether you are genuinely this obtuse" etc. But this is the internet...
Anyway. No need to answer. There's no point in going over the same grounds again. We've both made our points. T
Have a good day.
