Thinking of trading in your old tv for a Sony at Currys..think again, they lost mine!

Storck

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

This leap of logic is, in my opinion, faulty. They will not be able to replace it like for like, so why is the value then £100? As I said, that is a 'trade in' value based on a specific deal offered by a different manufacturer. The compensation value should be the value of the television, which can be established by simply looking at the second hand market. A quick search of Ebay actually reveals a couple of 36" Philips CRT televisions selling for around the £50 mark. That is just research of convenience, but if further evidence was needed on the value of a 36" Philips CRT television it could be obtained in a variety of ways.

The value was set by the contract agreed by both the consumer and the retailer. The retailer inturn has an agreement with the manufacturer. At no time did the consumer go into a contract with the manufacturer. Just like if there was a problem with the TV it would be upto the retailer to sort out so it should be in this case, they have lost the TV not the manufacturer. Return the TV or put the consumer back in a same or better position than they were before the retailers c..k up.

Sandoval

txjockey wrote: »

Purely becuase I am Welsh, that's all, we shared that in common and it helped things along :-)

I'm Welsh as well.

Can I get a mention in your letter?

Crazy_Jamie

kiddy_guy wrote: »

Not at all. To put him back in the same position, would be to give him the TV back, or failing that, to buy one off Ebay then deliver it. £50 to buy the TV, plus I'd estimate approx £50 to deliver it. Which would mean £100, or exactly what the OP is looking for.

Except that would entirely ignore the duty to mitigate loss. Let's face it, we all know that the OP would have no intention of purchasing another television, which makes the £50 delivery costs both exorbitant and profit. An equivalent set could easily be sourced locally in any event if the OP genuinely did want to replace the television.

Storck wrote:

The value was set by the contract agreed by both the consumer and the retailer.

A contract which was ultimately canceled and only set the price of the television as one of trade in against the price of a new television. For both reasons (i.e. the contract being canceled and the price being one based on trade in) that value is irrelevant to the issue of damage.

Storck wrote:

Return the TV or put the consumer back in a same or better position than they were before the retailers c..k up.

I agree entirely. But the position before the contract was not that the OP had a television worth £100. He had a television that was to be traded in for £100 against another purchase, a scenario that is now stale and artificial in any event. The television is actually worth considerably less.

Esqui

Why didn't OP just get them to redeliver the correct TV? Surely that would have been the best outcome?

Storck

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

He had a television that was to be traded in for £100 against another purchase, a scenario that is now stale and artificial in any event. The television is actually worth considerably less.

The whole point is he had a television which he hasn't now, so for him to be put back in the position he was he should have the TV, now lost, returned or a replacement of the similar or better provided or in the final option money so that they can purchase a similar TV. Anyother option would leave the OP in a worse position.

Crazy_Jamie

Storck wrote: »

The whole point is he had a television which he hasn't now, so for him to be put back in the position he was he should have the TV, now lost, returned or a replacement of the similar or better provided or in the final option money so that they can purchase a similar TV. Anyother option would leave the OP in a worse position.

I have only ever agreed with everything that you have put in that post; you seem to think that my position is different to what it actually is. The only thing we disagree on is the amount of money to purchase a similar tv. You maintain it should be £100, I maintain that replacing the tv would not cost that much, and therefore any such settlement could correctly be less. That is the extent of our difference of opinion.

Storck

My point is that the company should do the finding and replacing the TV not the OP, if not then give them £100. If it costs the company less then fair enough.

Crazy_Jamie

Storck wrote: »

My point is that the company should do the finding and replacing the TV not the OP, if not then give them £100. If it costs the company less then fair enough.

I see what you're getting at. And yes, the store replacing it would be an option, though I doubt that's something that would appeal to Currys. If they have lost the tv they will probably just pay up. In which case I still disagree that the correct amount would be £100, but I think we've flogged that horse to hell and back to be fair.

vyle

Esqui wrote: »

Why didn't OP just get them to redeliver the correct TV? Surely that would have been the best outcome?

OP wanted a TV in place for the sky installation... I would wonder if the shop could have leant out a tv for the interim (that's what I would have done if I'd sold the tv).

kiddy_guy

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Except that would entirely ignore the duty to mitigate loss. Let's face it, we all know that the OP would have no intention of purchasing another television, which makes the £50 delivery costs both exorbitant and profit. An equivalent set could easily be sourced locally in any event if the OP genuinely did want to replace the television.

A contract which was ultimately canceled and only set the price of the television as one of trade in against the price of a new television. For both reasons (i.e. the contract being canceled and the price being one based on trade in) that value is irrelevant to the issue of damage.
I agree entirely. But the position before the contract was not that the OP had a television worth £100. He had a television that was to be traded in for £100 against another purchase, a scenario that is now stale and artificial in any event. The television is actually worth considerably less.

But if the onus to mitigate loss were to be burdened on the OP, the same onus is on the supplier. Ergo the time spent resolving this issue means that therefore the supplier needs to actually reimburse more than £100 as they have well and truly failed to deliver a resolution, wasting the OP's time. If they are selling for around £50 fon Ebay, the OP then has to wait for delivery. I would estimate delivery costs would be anywhere between £10 to £50 dependant on weight, plus the fact the OP would have to wait in (days salary).
It may be the case that the TV is worth less than £100 but the fact is that that was deemed the acceptable value to both parties in form of trade in. As an agreed price, that is ultimately the value, and ultimately unless they wish to go to court, the value they will recompense the OP.