Right, so not to put words in varispeed mouth. But their claim is that Right-to-repair that doesn't give you the Right to repair what they want the right to repair is deliberately deceptive and, thus, fraudulent.

The damages would be that the product that they wish to repair are irreparable.

I don't know what to tell you apart from that's not what 'fraud' is in practice. Things being not what you want and someone having spent money does not equal fraud. You can't just pick a legal term and interpret it as literal English without any knowledge of the actual precedent around it.

I don't know if you think the entire legislation is the words 'right to repair'? It obviously isn't - it's far more nuanced than that.

> You can't just pick a legal term and interpret it as literal English without any knowledge of the actual precedent around it.

That's exactly what you are doing. You responded to somebody typing literal English with an spurious debate about a legal term no one asked about and is different depending on what jurisdiction you live in.

The jurisdiction is Britain (meaning the UK). It's literally in the title of the thread.

You do realize that words can have both a legal and a colloquial meaning, right?

People say stuff like "he's a fraud" all the time without meaning that in a precise legal sense.