Tesco wont refund

Optimist

mikey72 wrote: »

No.
It doesn't have a software licence.
Software does.

I know what your saying and indeed this used to be the general thinking however there was a case in the 90s one I remember well. This set a precedent for the sale of software St. Albans v ICL, and it was actually reinforced at appeal.

The Sale Of Goods Act covers software.

RobertoMoir

mikey72 wrote: »

Google software and the sale of goods act.
The op could take tesco's to court, if you're so convinced though.
It would set a good precedent either way.

So software possibly isn't tangible 'movable goods' to meet the definition in SOGA. Fine. That surely means you can't reject based on quality thusly "The software works but is a pile of (censored) therefore I'm rejecting due to poor quality".

The disk not working, which is the case here, is a whole other thing. The goods supplied are fundamentally not fit for purpose when they simply don't work. And the disk itself meets the definition of a "movable item" does it not.

And most of the discussion about the act not covering software talks about bespoke software (which this is not), because that is apparently a 'service' and digital downloads (no tangible item changed hands) as not being covered. The issue of boxed software seems rather more vague.

jamesb1239

prowla wrote: »

The contract is with the retailer.
They have supplied faulty goods.
The goods comprise the software on a disk in packaging.
A fault in any part (that you could not have been expected to know at the time of purchase) is a fault in the purchased product.
The "you've purchased the software not the disc it's on" angle is baloney, as (a) you have to purchase it on the disc, and (b) you are not legally entitled to copy it off the disc; thus the disc is an integral part of the product purchased.

Actually you are, I cant remember which bit of law it is in, but as a consumer you are allowed to make and use 1 backup copy of any media that you have provided that it is for your own use and is destroyed when you no longer have the original in your possesion. The problem is that people abuse this and give copies/sell copies to their friends. Piracy has been a major issue for a long time, and with the amount of money involved in these industries do you not think that if it was legal for them to do so they would find a medium to use that prevents it from happening? unfortunately they arent allowed to do this and therefore just make it hard to do.

System

jamesb1239 wrote: »

Actually you are, I cant remember which bit of law it is in, but as a consumer you are allowed to make and use 1 backup copy of any media that you have provided that it is for your own use and is destroyed when you no longer have the original in your possesion. .

But to do this you may not circumvent any protection system that has been used. As the majority of games have copy protection this means that you can not copy them LEGALLY.

jamesb1239

But if that was to ever go through court it would be thrown out (providing it was a genuine case of backing up own media) as you could argue that the copy protection should not be there in the first place and is therefore preventing you from exercising your legal right to back up your media. it would just go round and round "You shouldnt have done it, well it shouldnt have been there...... etc"

Tozer

jamesb1239 wrote: »

But if that was to ever go through court it would be thrown out (providing it was a genuine case of backing up own media) as you could argue that the copy protection should not be there in the first place and is therefore preventing you from exercising your legal right to back up your media. it would just go round and round "You shouldnt have done it, well it shouldnt have been there...... etc"

You could argue it but you wouldn't win.

The only exceptions to the exclusive rights of a copyright owner (unless set out in the licence) are to reverse engineer or decompile for the purposes of ensuring interoperability.

Optimist is correct - software is covered by SOGA. There was some debate once about whether software constituted "goods" but that debate was resolved ages ago.

I do not understand the logic of the medium upon which the software is installed (i.e. CD or DVD) is faulty and not the software. It makes no difference. The OP didn't have 2 separate transactions for a CD and the software. I suspect the person putting forward the argument is getting mixed up with B2B contracts where it is common for the medium to have a longer warranty period than the software which often has only 30, 60 or 90 day warranty period.

The OP has the right to a refund assuming that the software fails to comply with SOGA.

System

Has the OP tried asking for a replacement rather than a refund?

It is normal for shops to offer a replacement only for faulty games. regardless of what SOGA states. I would think that that line would be upheld in court as a valid method to prevent/minimise software piracy.

RobertoMoir

!!!!!! wrote: »

Has the OP tried asking for a replacement rather than a refund?

It is normal for shops to offer a replacement only for faulty games. regardless of what SOGA states. I would think that that line would be upheld in court as a valid method to prevent/minimise software piracy.

I hope not - I'd agree that the act might need amending to take into account things like software that were not an issue when it was originally passed into law, and I'd say that both sides need to be treated fairly, but I hate the idea that consumers have greatly reduced rights when buying certain types of goods, which is what you suggest here.

Piracy and the quality of goods being sold are two separate issues.

Interesting point - should what we're saying here also apply to films on DVD? Music? After all they can be copied too.

What about books? After all, there's this thing called the photocopier...

System

But SOGA says refund OR replacement (retailers choice). They will go for replacement every time.

As for the OP rejecting it as not fit for purpose, he has absolutely no rights whatsoever as he is not the purchaser. Also who defines a reasonable time for a refund in this situation. Being bought as a gift does not change the perception of 'reasonable time'. OP has not indicated how long before Xmas it was purchased.

It is not as straightforward as people assume. The words are there but it is all down to interpretation.

Tozer

!!!!!! wrote: »

But SOGA says refund OR replacement (retailers choice). They will go for replacement every time.

As for the OP rejecting it as not fit for purpose, he has absolutely no rights whatsoever as he is not the purchaser. Also who defines a reasonable time for a refund in this situation. Being bought as a gift does not change the perception of 'reasonable time'. OP has not indicated how long before Xmas it was purchased.

It is not as straightforward as people assume. The words are there but it is all down to interpretation.

No - if acceptance has not taken place (i.e. the goods have never worked, there has not been an elapsation of time, etc) then the OP is entitled to a refund.

As for the OP not being purchaser, there are plenty of ways around that.