Can I get a replacement?

Esqui

Thanks for explaining, smcaul, you're right. Although I guess that has, in effect, the retailer choosing a remedy.

smcaul

Esqui wrote: »

Thanks for explaining, smcaul, you're right. Although I guess that has, in effect, the retailer choosing a remedy.

All it really gives is the retailer the right to refuse the remedy the customer has requested, which is very different from them getting to choose.

Also, disproportionate is not quantified, it does not say the remedy must be cheaper, it states disproportionate.

Something like an IPOD I would say is far cheaper to replace then to repair, they cost a lot less to produce in a production line then it would cost to repair one on a test bench. Obviously this changes with the product, so a car would normally cost less to repair then to replace.

Blacksheep1979

smcaul wrote: »

Also, disproportionate is not quantified, it does not say the remedy must be cheaper, it states disproportionate.

And I think this shows this guy is talking rubbish/isn't actually trying to interpret what is written down in law but how he thinks it should be - see my quote that is actually from the legislation where it says 'costs' I think pretty much anyone will accept that means cheaper.

smcaul

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

And I think this shows this guy is talking rubbish/isn't actually trying to interpret what is written down in law but how he thinks it should be - see my quote that is actually from the legislation where it says 'costs' I think pretty much anyone will accept that means cheaper.

Your quite correct I am trying to interpret, just as any reasonable person would do, which is how a court would decide.

And costs does not in any way mean cheaper, it simply means a financial amount, which again does not mean cheaper, if they had meant cheaper they would have written cheaper, they didn't, so it can not be assumed, interpreted or otherwise suggested that cost = cheaper - would suggest you go and look up "cost" in the dictionary, no where does it say "cheaper".

lanie_cakes

Esqui wrote: »

No, you're entitled to a remedy at the retailer's discretion: repair, replacement, refund (full or partial). It's almost certain that HMV will elect to give you a repair, which is done via Apple's service centre.

Please...can anyone help me? i went to argos yesterday and bought a bush 24 in tv......it was for my mum today...and when i got home it was the totaly wrong tv in the box,the box had been opened a few times from the looks of it, so i took it straight back,and was confronted with a manager from hell, he insinuated that i had put this t.v. in the box for some stupid reason,he said he cannot do anything until monday when his security are avallible,so i left the t.v. with them,and now dont have a mothers day prezzie for today,he said it was not their fault,and made me feel like a criminal,when i no 100% it was not my fault,could someone have swaped the t.v. before me and have taken it back, and i got that item,i have been so upset all night.....is there anything i can do on monday when i go back to the shop,as i am not verry assertive,i get upset really easy and dont know what to say PLEASE HELP:mad:

neilmcl

lanie_cakes wrote: »

Please...can anyone help me? i went to argos yesterday and bought a bush 24 in tv......it was for my mum today...and when i got home it was the totaly wrong tv in the box,the box had been opened a few times from the looks of it, so i took it straight back,and was confronted with a manager from hell, he insinuated that i had put this t.v. in the box for some stupid reason,he said he cannot do anything until monday when his security are avallible,so i left the t.v. with them,and now dont have a mothers day prezzie for today,he said it was not their fault,and made me feel like a criminal,when i no 100% it was not my fault,could someone have swaped the t.v. before me and have taken it back, and i got that item,i have been so upset all night.....is there anything i can do on monday when i go back to the shop,as i am not verry assertive,i get upset really easy and dont know what to say PLEASE HELP:mad:

Please start your own thread, this is the second one you've hijacked with this.

Blacksheep1979

smcaul wrote: »

Your quite correct I am trying to interpret, just as any reasonable person would do, which is how a court would decide.

And costs does not in any way mean cheaper, it simply means a financial amount, which again does not mean cheaper, if they had meant cheaper they would have written cheaper, they didn't, so it can not be assumed, interpreted or otherwise suggested that cost = cheaper - would suggest you go and look up "cost" in the dictionary, no where does it say "cheaper".

I think a course in learning to read is necessary - I said:

isn't actually trying to interpret what is written down in law

and financially disproportionate would mean to, I'd guess, 99% of people on here more expensive/not costing the same to the detriment of one party.

UK2010

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

I think a course in learning to read is necessary - I said:



and financially disproportionate would mean to, I'd guess, 99% of people on here more expensive/not costing the same to the detriment of one party.

Basically isn't it just saying that the buyer can ask the retailer to do something then retailer can choose the cheapest option for them that isn't going to cost them an arm and a leg? Then in that case it would be a choice in what they can do?

smcaul

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

I think a course in learning to read is necessary - I said:



and financially disproportionate would mean to, I'd guess, 99% of people on here more expensive/not costing the same to the detriment of one party.

Well maybe stop guessing would be a start!!!!! And certainly stop pre-purposing what others may think, you may end up getting a big shock when you are wrong!

markybaby

smcaul wrote: »

All it really gives is the retailer the right to refuse the remedy the customer has requested, which is very different from them getting to choose.

Also, disproportionate is not quantified, it does not say the remedy must be cheaper, it states disproportionate.

Something like an IPOD I would say is far cheaper to replace then to repair, they cost a lot less to produce in a production line then it would cost to repair one on a test bench. Obviously this changes with the product, so a car would normally cost less to repair then to replace.

I don't want to get involved in any arguments here but you seem to know what you are talking about so I have a query. It states disproportionate. As we are dealing with the retailer in these cases surely it is disproportionate for a retailer to replace a product at their cost rather than send it away to be repaired at the manufacturers cost. If the manufacturer states no returns after, say, 28 days the retailer will not be able to get credit for the returned product. I agree that if the retailer was paying for shipping, labour, parts and return shipping then the overall cost to them may be more. But they don't pay that, the manufacturer does. That would make exchanging the item significantly more expensive than having it repaired. If I am in this situation how to I tackle that information?