Sale of goods act

Valli

well AFAIK the consideration is key.
so
refund (in whatever form)
choice to buy new goods
new contract

(I have a law qualification so I know what I am talking about)
(Law A level :rotfl:)
but on a serious note - it IS new consideration....

bookworm1363

Can anyone give me a link, please?

I have to tell you, I have been looking further into the consultation I refer to above, and Consumer Focus's reply for example also seems to confirm my views:

The six-month reverse burden of proof

10.17 We provisionally propose that the six-month reverse burden of proof should recommence after goods are redelivered following repair or replacement. (8.163)

55. We agree with this proposal for the reasons given in the Consultation Paper. It would be unfair if the period did not begin to run again following repair or replacement.

So it would seem as if official bodies which are being consulted are all coming from the same angle, and that is that it is the initial date of purchase which counts.

Anyway, back to OP, as I said before, whether the reverse burden of proof applies or not, it's a side point, as the main thing is still contract with retailer, and goods are not of satisfactory quality.

dirtyflannel

I have been having a similar problem. At least the retailer changed the first one for you. I bought a fridgefreezer from Iceland and it didn't seem to be cold. After much messing about getting thermometers etc an engineer put a new thermostat in. I had originally wanted it replacing but got fobbed off with a repair. Still the same and another engineer came out who didn't seem think there was aproblem with it being 11 degrees in the fridge. The last engineer came a couple of weeks ago and decided it was a bad design fault and it has now been written off. It has only taken 12 months for all this in the meantime I could have had botulism and all kinds if I had used it. Iceland rang and told me they were writing the appliance off and asked me to go to the store for a refund or a new appliance. When I arrived they hadn't a clue and told me to come next day. Again the woman hadn't a clue and eventually rang head office. I was then told I couldn't have a refund until they had got the appliance back and I would be sent a cheque. I wonder how long it will be till I get that? Any how thoroughly fed up with the situation so I proceeded to tell anyone looking at the appliances in Iceland to go elsewhere cos the customer service and Icelands policies suck. After two weeks you will not get money back or an exchange you will be fobbed off with a repair until they have been three times then write it off. Personally I would never buy any electrical goods from Iceland ever again. Thjey didn't even have the dececency to offer a few vouchers for a years worth of hassle.

dmg24

OP, call JL head office and ask for the Customer Services Manager there. They will put you through to someone who will be able to sort this for you.

I agree with those that state a new contract was formed when the OP paid extra for the new product. An alternative way to view it is that the OP was given a credit/ refund for the old product, and then bought the new product, putting the credit towards it. Hence, a new contract was formed.

phlogeston

bookworm1363 wrote: »

I have to tell you, I have been looking further into the consultation I refer to above, and Consumer Focus's reply for example also seems to confirm my views:
So it would seem as if official bodies which are being consulted are all coming from the same angle, and that is that it is the initial date of purchase which counts.

We are arguing different points. This was not a repair or replacement.

It was a new contract as an additional fee was paid. In return for a BETTER microwave, the Op provided the credit on his faulty microwave PLUS an additional consideration of the cash difference.

Your point is perfectly valid if there had been a straight swap or repair. However, that is not the situation in this specific case.

Tozer

Yeah, almost like if you part-exchanged your car for a new one and "topped up" the purchase with extra cash.

Leslie45

Many thanks to all who have contributed to this thread.

At first I found myself up against a brick wall with the company unwilling to budge on their original decision, but I persisted with my claim, and followed up with an email to their head office. I am pleased to say they have now relented and agreed to replace the Microwave without charge.

I’m now keeping my fingers crossed that the replacement lasts longer than the previous ones! I have to say I’m both surprised and disappointed with Panasonic. The last Panasonic Microwave I bought back in the late 1980’s served me well for 18 years.

Before this incident, I had been well pleased with John Lewis Direct, but after the initial frustration, the final outcome has gone a long way towards restoring my faith in their customer service.