leszkoss
Junior Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Polish
- Home Country
- Poland
- Current Location
- UK
Thank you for advice and corrections.
Dear Sirs
Re: Charles Tholthorpe
Your allegations of defamatory action
We represent Charles Tholthorpe in relation to an incident that took place at Carmecom Ltd. Store and subsequent allegations of defamatory action on his part. We write to advise that we will represent Mr. Tholthorpe in any further proceedings.
We would like to respond on behalf of our client to the allegations made by your client George Hardy of Carmecom Ltd., that our client Mr. Tholthorpe engaged in defamatory action and made slanderous statements outside your store, allegedly resulting in loss of revenue for Carmecom Ltd. We would like to respond to your description of events which we believe is inaccurate.
Our client denies your allegation that he ever carried a bag from one of Carmecom’s competitors, suggesting that he insisted on receiving a refund from Carmecom because he had found a cheaper deal at the competitor’s store. Mr. Tholthorpe contends that he demanded a replacement of a faulty laptop and not a refund. Our client’s grievance was the product’s defect and he claims he would be satisfied if he had received a new laptop that did not have burnt pixels like the one he had purchased from you.
According to Sales of Goods Act, Carmecom was required to inform the customer of any defects that product possessed prior to purchase, which it failed to do. Our client was therefore entitled to request a refund or a replacement as per his preference.
We would also like to respond to the allegations of purported defamatory conduct on part of Mr. Tholthorpe by way of repeating allegedly slanderous statements outside Carmecom store, which concerned the quality of Carmecom’s products and their business practices. Your client did not inform Mr. Tholthorpe about the product’s defect at time of purchase, and then refused to replace the faulty product upon our client’s request, both actions which were in breach of the Sale of Goods Act, as well as contrary to good business practice. Our client’s conduct cannot reasonably be considered as defamatory since the statements that he made were not in fact slanderous considering your clients dishonest conduct towards him. Our client’s intention was not to make Carmecom loose revenue, but rather to warn potential customers, based on his own experience with Carmecom, that what had happened to him might just as well happen to them.
Our client contends that your allegations are false and we have advised him that the purpose of your letter was to threaten him and stop him from bringing a claim against Carmecom. We hereby inform you that Mr. Tholthorpe will not be coerced into signing a retraction proposed by you, and that we intend to commence proceedings against your client in the County Court.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
…
The Kent Law Clinic
Dear Sirs
Re: Charles Tholthorpe
Your allegations of defamatory action
We represent Charles Tholthorpe in relation to an incident that took place at Carmecom Ltd. Store and subsequent allegations of defamatory action on his part. We write to advise that we will represent Mr. Tholthorpe in any further proceedings.
We would like to respond on behalf of our client to the allegations made by your client George Hardy of Carmecom Ltd., that our client Mr. Tholthorpe engaged in defamatory action and made slanderous statements outside your store, allegedly resulting in loss of revenue for Carmecom Ltd. We would like to respond to your description of events which we believe is inaccurate.
Our client denies your allegation that he ever carried a bag from one of Carmecom’s competitors, suggesting that he insisted on receiving a refund from Carmecom because he had found a cheaper deal at the competitor’s store. Mr. Tholthorpe contends that he demanded a replacement of a faulty laptop and not a refund. Our client’s grievance was the product’s defect and he claims he would be satisfied if he had received a new laptop that did not have burnt pixels like the one he had purchased from you.
According to Sales of Goods Act, Carmecom was required to inform the customer of any defects that product possessed prior to purchase, which it failed to do. Our client was therefore entitled to request a refund or a replacement as per his preference.
We would also like to respond to the allegations of purported defamatory conduct on part of Mr. Tholthorpe by way of repeating allegedly slanderous statements outside Carmecom store, which concerned the quality of Carmecom’s products and their business practices. Your client did not inform Mr. Tholthorpe about the product’s defect at time of purchase, and then refused to replace the faulty product upon our client’s request, both actions which were in breach of the Sale of Goods Act, as well as contrary to good business practice. Our client’s conduct cannot reasonably be considered as defamatory since the statements that he made were not in fact slanderous considering your clients dishonest conduct towards him. Our client’s intention was not to make Carmecom loose revenue, but rather to warn potential customers, based on his own experience with Carmecom, that what had happened to him might just as well happen to them.
Our client contends that your allegations are false and we have advised him that the purpose of your letter was to threaten him and stop him from bringing a claim against Carmecom. We hereby inform you that Mr. Tholthorpe will not be coerced into signing a retraction proposed by you, and that we intend to commence proceedings against your client in the County Court.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
…
The Kent Law Clinic
The point of the letter was to make the other side let it go or settle.
