Morphy Richards - refund issue

alisonf30

Having a returns/refund issue with Morphy Richards.

Back in March 2008 I purchased one of their food processors. In Feb 2009 it suddenly stopped working. I contacted them and they sent a new one without any issues. Last week this replacement item also stopped working.

I just contacted them and have been told they cannot replace it because they no longer make that model or indeed any similar food processor. My options are:

- Choose another product from the site up to the value of £118.99 (what I originally paid)
OR
- A refund BUT the figure I would receive would only be £59.50 as they have deducted for a year's use (is under a 2 year warranty)

I said I didn't want another product and as Morphy Richards cannot replace the item they should give me the means to replace it myself, i.e. a full refund for me to purchase another food processor elsewhere. They don't see it this way and said my only option now if I don't want the £59.50 refund or another product I will need to contact Trading Standards (!).

Any advise anyone can offer on how I can get a full refund??!!

BIG thanks in advance

Alison

Anihilator

You can't

a 50% refund on something you have had for 2 years use is perfectly reasonable.

Esqui

Anihilator wrote: »

You can't

a 50% refund on something you have had for 2 years use is perfectly reasonable.

Don't know about that - it shouldn't last for the length of the guarantee and then go wrong, which is what is implied by the offer. But, hey, it's under their guarantee and they can do that if they want.

I guess there are two options. Press MR for a bigger refund (after all, if they want to admit you only get two years' usage from their products, that's their lookout).

The other, slightly more underhand and risky way, is to order something on the site, then return it under DSR for refund - but I don't know if that would be allowed, someone would probably have to clarify that.

bingo_bango

Esqui,

Just noticed the promotion. Gratz! :beer:

I hope you are using your now not inconsiderable power to ensure full SoGA rights for all your customers now.

OlliesDad

Esqui wrote: »

Don't know about that - it shouldn't last for the length of the guarantee and then go wrong, which is what is implied by the offer. But, hey, it's under their guarantee and they can do that if they want.

I guess there are two options. Press MR for a bigger refund (after all, if they want to admit you only get two years' usage from their products, that's their lookout).

The other, slightly more underhand and risky way, is to order something on the site, then return it under DSR for refund - but I don't know if that would be allowed, someone would probably have to clarify that.

They would be advising their products have a life of 4 years which is quite good (he bought it in March 08 and are offering a 50% refund).

OP, SoGA does allow a retailer to make a discount based on the usage you have had. If i were you, i would accept their offer.

Esqui

bingo_bango wrote: »

Esqui,

Just noticed the promotion. Gratz! :beer:

I hope you are using your now not inconsiderable power to ensure full SoGA rights for all your customers now.

Thank you, and yes I do (Did anyway as far as I was able to before though)

OlliesDad: Thank you, I misread the post and thought OP had only had it one year! Doesn't seem such a bad offer now

Equaliser123

Anihilator wrote: »

You can't

a 50% refund on something you have had for 2 years use is perfectly reasonable.

No it isn't reasonable at all. Absolutely no way a food processor should conk out after 2 years.

OP - go for the replacement. Is the same item available within 'budget'?

Equaliser123

OlliesDad wrote: »

OP, SoGA does allow a retailer to make a discount based on the usage you have had. If i were you, i would accept their offer.

SoGA doesn't say this.

It is based on the contractual theory that damages are designed to put you in the position you would have been in had the contract been performed correctly (i.e. with a working item) but that benefit has been derived.

Unless an item is totally time-limited in its use, I don't support the view that retailers should make other than a nominal deduction.

somethingcorporate

Equaliser123 wrote: »

SoGA doesn't say this.

It is based on the contractual theory that damages are designed to put you in the position you would have been in had the contract been performed correctly (i.e. with a working item) but that benefit has been derived.

Unless an item is totally time-limited in its use, I don't support the view that retailers should make other than a nominal deduction.

Useful information as always Eq, good to have an experts opinion.

Quick question though; if damages are designed to put you in the position that the contract been performed (i.e. with a 1 year old food processor) then surely giving you the monetary equivalent of a 1 year old food processor is precisely fulfilling this requirement under SOGA?

On what basis do you think this should be a nominal value rather than a a 'current' replacement value?

The_Pedant

If the original goods are covered by a 2 year warranty, then I would say it is reasonable to expect goods to be FULLY covered within that period.

If the goods failed at any point within that warranty period and they were able to repair them; you would have a fully working item for a minimum of 2 years (subject to any wear and tear considerations).

Therefore, if they are unable to repair/replace the item (with an equivalent) then I would expect a FULL refund, to allow me to get an equivalent (working) item, as they are unable to meet the warranty terms you have agreed.

If they offer a 2 year warranty then if this formed part of the original reason why the product was purchased, then (subject to the terms of the warranty contract) I would expect them to honour it.

I would only consider any reduction in the refund if there were any clear signs of wear and tear that would warrant such a reduction. Again, if there is no obvious signs of any cause for a fault, then I would expect them to honour a full repair/replacement/refund.

somethingcorporate

The_Pedant wrote: »

If the original goods are covered by a 2 year warranty, then I would say it is reasonable to expect goods to be FULLY covered within that period.

If the goods failed at any point within that warranty period and they were able to repair them; you would have a fully working item for a minimum of 2 years (subject to any wear and tear considerations).

Therefore, if they are unable to repair/replace the item (with an equivalent) then I would expect a FULL refund, to allow me to get an equivalent (working) item, as they are unable to meet the warranty terms you have agreed.

If they offer a 2 year warranty then if this formed part of the original reason why the product was purchased, then (subject to the terms of the warranty contract) I would expect them to honour it.

I would only consider any reduction in the refund if there were any clear signs of wear and tear that would warrant such a reduction. Again, if there is no obvious signs of any cause for a fault, then I would expect them to honour a full repair/replacement/refund.

But something that is 22 months into a 24 month warranty is not equivalent to a brand new item.

You have had 22 months worth of working benefit from it and also you have a 22 month old item and not a brand new one - therefore all you are entitled to under the SOGA is the damages required to put you in the place that the contract had performed correctly, which would be with a 22 month old item!
Whether you expect it or not the SOGA suggests otherwise. If you persist retailers will probably give you a new one just to go away but this is (from my interpretation of the law) not what you are entitled to.

If every warranty was new for old you would expect millions of people to just cycle items when they approach the end of their life. This is probably why most places offer repairs in the place as I assume it's much more cost effective!