UREGENT Macbook Pro out of warrenty problem

somethingcorporate

smcaul wrote: »

Right, so let me get this straight then, the part you have quoted does not say that the retailer can choose then does it. It basically says that the buyer can not require the seller to repair or replace if the repair or replacement would be disproportionate, which would require the seller to prove this would it not.

Then there would only be one option left open to the seller which would be, all together now on the count of 3, one, two, three - yes thats right a refund!!!!

But, absolutely, 100%, nowhere in the legislation does it give the seller the choice outright, they have to prove that the remedy the purchaser requires would be disproportionate. That is what the legislation states.

But your point doesn't seem to suggest that the buyer can choose, which is what you were intimating.

If legally the buyer cannot enforce a choice (due to the above point) and the buyer cannot reject a suggestion (as per the website I linked) then who gets to decide?

smcaul

The buyer can ask for any remedy they wish, it would then be down to the seller to either go along with remedy or to show why they can not.

As for who decides - the court would decide in the end, should it go that far.

But as I stated, it is not the retailers choice, which is what keeps getting misquoted, over and over again (normally by the same couple of posters!!!).

Anihilator

smcaul wrote: »

The buyer can ask for any remedy they wish, it would then be down to the seller to either go along with remedy or to show why they can not.

As for who decides - the court would decide in the end, should it go that far.

But as I stated, it is not the retailers choice, which is what keeps getting misquoted, over and over again (normally by the same couple of posters!!!).

It is so the retailers choice.
If a consumer turned down a refund and took it to court on this basis they would lose unless the retailers choice was grossly unfair.

somethingcorporate

smcaul wrote: »

The buyer can ask for any remedy they wish, it would then be down to the seller to either go along with remedy or to show why they can not.

As for who decides - the court would decide in the end, should it go that far.

The retailer would only have to demonstrate in court why the remedy they rejected was disproportionately costly. I wouldn't expect many companies to have to hand the associated costs for fixing/replacing each individual product etc

So for all intents the only resolution you could get with avoiding arguing the toss in court would be the one that the retailer agrees on...ergo... unless you want to go to court (and you have proof that the resolution you requested is not disproportionately costly), the retailer holds all the cards.

I agree, your point is 100% valid. In reality, unless you are prepared to go to court to argue about the details of internal costs of a company etc then you have little choice but to tow the line that the retailer offers.

smcaul

But the whole point of there being laws such as the SOGA is to protect the consumer, if they need to go to court to sort out an issue then so be it. It would be for the retailer to prove the cost was disproportionate, not for then consumer to prove that is was not!!!

Oh, and the pedant in me would like to point out that it is "TOE the line", not tow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line

somethingcorporate

smcaul wrote: »

But the whole point of there being laws such as the SOGA is to protect the consumer, if they need to go to court to sort out an issue then so be it. It would be for the retailer to prove the cost was disproportionate, not for then consumer to prove that is was not!!!

Oh, and the pedant in me would like to point out that it is "TOE the line", not tow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line

Well it is a day for me to be learning. Glad I got out of bed this morning.

I did mention in my previous post that I 100% agreed with your point, but again stated in reality that unless the consumer was sure that the costs of providing the remedy they requested was not disproportionate then they would more than likely have to accept whichever remedy was offered (leaving all the power in the hands of the retailer). Plus, the average consumer would not want the hassle of enforcing the SOGA through small claims.

It's a grey old world that we live in - but we learn new things every day!

smcaul

We all have to learn, my learning curve on this part of the SOGA was because I have taken more then one retailer to court over it (and won). I would ask Anhiliator ans neilmcl how many times they have gone to court over it!!

smcaul

Anihilator wrote: »

It is so the retailers choice.

Were you stamping your feet at the same time of writing this!!!

somethingcorporate

smcaul wrote: »

We all have to learn, my learning curve on this part of the SOGA was because I have taken more then one retailer to court over it (and won). I would ask Anhiliator ans neilmcl how many times they have gone to court over it!!

Would you care to elaborate on the circumstances? I'm genuinely interested.

neilmcl

smcaul wrote: »

The buyer can ask for any remedy they wish, it would then be down to the seller to either go along with remedy or to show why they can not.

You like playing with semantics, don't you. At the end of the day the buyer can request any remedy they like but they can't insist on one due to the seller deciding which is the least costly, which is what I've said all along, they don't haved to show the buyer anything. The only time they would have to "prove" anything is if it ever got to court.

Plain and simple the buyer cannot insist on the remedy, if they don't like what they've been offered then take it to the small claims court and let a judge decide.