Can I get a replacement?

UK2010

Esqui wrote: »

but hey, what do I know? I wasn't only wrong, I was wrong three times. In CAPS!

Maybe he's just got a faulty keyboard! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

smcaul

I get fed up reading it, and replying to to it to be honest. There a few threads where I have already posted the relevant information. No where in the SOGA does it give the retailer the right to choose, they can refuse a remedy if it is disproportionate, that is all the legislation allows. It would be quite easy to then take them to court to get them to prove this.

MoneySavingNovice

It worth reading

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange#shop

smcaul is correct, this is not explicate in the SOGA - though for some reason quite widely quoted.

Renya

Thanks for your help

Just another quick question: If I take it back and they offer a repair, but they say the repair could take a while (let's say a month or two) can I refuse this and ask for a replacement instead because I feel the repair will take too long?

KeithP

smcaul wrote: »

I get fed up reading it, and replying to to it to be honest. There a few threads where I have already posted the relevant information. No where in the SOGA does it give the retailer the right to choose, they can refuse a remedy if it is disproportionate, that is all the legislation allows. It would be quite easy to then take them to court to get them to prove this.

Thank you for explaining your view.

If you find it such a chore to reply to that type of post, then why did you?
And why did you reply so offensively?

woody01

Renya wrote: »

Okay thanks

Just out of curiosity, I emailed my Law teacher about it this morning, and her reply was that I could get a replacement as it was still in warranty, but obviously HMV would rather send it somewhere else instead of giving me a new one.

Sorry......she may be a law teacher but she also very wrong.

Renya wrote: »

Thanks for your help

Just another quick question: If I take it back and they offer a repair, but they say the repair could take a while (let's say a month or two) can I refuse this and ask for a replacement instead because I feel the repair will take too long?

Nope.........i cannot remember the 'reasonable' time allowed but it was either 60 or 90 days.

smcaul

KeithP wrote: »

Thank you for explaining your view.

If you find it such a chore to reply to that type of post, then why did you?
And why did you reply so offensively?

It was a very factual reply, not offensive, I did not say to the poster how stupid they were for wrongly quoting the soga did I. I simply told them that that they were wrong, and I purposely did not reply on the other couple of threads that are currently running with the same wrong information being given. I have replied on may posts previously about this very same subject, some going back a couple of years or more. I have spent a fair amount of time typing and researching the relevant parts of the SOGA, and yet, despite all that there are still some posters who seem to think they can keep on misleading people by telling them that the retailer has the choice.

Renya

woody01 wrote: »

Sorry......she may be a law teacher but she also very wrong.

Can I ask why you think that?

Renya

Just a little update if anyone's interested

Took it to HMV today and got a replacement there and then, I was quite surprised that they didn't put up a fight or try and send it off for repair, I even had a "Well, under the Sale of Goods Act...." speech planned in my head if they tried to refuse (as most shops seem to do, seeing as I'm a dippy teenager), but everything went well, thank you everyone for your help

Blacksheep1979

smcaul wrote: »

I get fed up reading it, and replying to to it to be honest. There a few threads where I have already posted the relevant information. No where in the SOGA does it give the retailer the right to choose, they can refuse a remedy if it is disproportionate, that is all the legislation allows. It would be quite easy to then take them to court to get them to prove this.

And you think a couple hours of labour is more expensive than say a new TV? I think it's very easy for a retailer to prove that one - they already employ the person (so wages aren't in consideration) and so it's parts vs new item - you then potentially get landed with their costs.

MoneySavingNovice wrote: »

It worth reading

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange#shop

smcaul is correct, this is not explicate in the SOGA - though for some reason quite widely quoted.

Yes, lets all ready some random text on a consumer website than the law itself:

(1) This section applies if— (a)
the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, there is a consumer contract in which the buyer is a consumer, and

(b)
the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery.


(2) If this section applies, the buyer has the right— (a)
under and in accordance with section 48B below, to require the seller to repair or replace the goods, or

(b)
under and in accordance with section 48C below—
(i) to require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or
(ii) to rescind the contract with regard to the goods in question.


(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.
(4) Subsection (3) above does not apply if— (a)
it is established that the goods did so conform at that date;

(b)
its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F39
Pt. 5A (ss. 48A-48F) inserted (31.3.2003) by S.I. 2002/3045, reg. 5


F40 48B Repair or replacement of the goods
 
(1) If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller— (a)
to repair the goods, or

(b)
to replace the goods.


(2) If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must— (a)
repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;

(b)
bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).


(3) The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is— (a)
impossible, or

(b)
disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or

(c)
disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.


(4) One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account— (a)
the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,

(b)
the significance of the lack of conformity, and

(c)
whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

from

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1837068

The link you posted also doesn't back up what you're saying.

Seriously folks - all this does is drive up costs for everyone and gets retailers backs up so they're less helpful when you have a real gripe.