Consumer Rights and Clearance Goods

Knighty

Hi,

Hoping someone can advise me as to my legal rights or guide me to someone who can. Any help would be gratefully received.

I bought a TV from Curry's in a clearance sale and took their last one (display model). Very good deal. I inspected it and there were no defects and as such no defects were noted on my receipt. I paid for my TV and asked it be delivered to a store more local to me.

I won't bore you with the story around the shocking service I received in order to track my TV down and collect it so I'll cut straight to the collection....

I went to pick it up and there was a scratch on the front panel (not on the screen) so I asked for a replacement. They refused as they will never have any more of that TV in stock. I asked for an equivalent model (equivalent brand / quality) and they refused. They did offer the options of: a refund; money off the damaged TV; or to use the money towards another TV and pay the difference (but obviously I had a good deal and would not get anywhere near the same TV).

Currys say that the TV works and it's cosmetic damage. They inform me that they need to put me in the same position I was in before I bought the TV via a refund or money-off the damaged TV but are under no obligation to replace the TV with an equivalent.

My position: I want the same TV - and if they can't provide it I want another model of the same quality. I thought that clearance goods were not seen differently under consumer law and that I'd be entitled to this replacement. The fact that Currys damaged the goods in transit to my local store (and by the way I had free insurance) should not impact this.

I phoned Customer Services and a Manager supported the store's decision.

So....am I entitled to a replacement TV? I have not accepted a refund yet.

Judas

No you are not entitled to a replacement. A refund is entirely fair.

Hintza

I would have thought the fact it was clearance would offer you the major clue that stock would be limited.

They have offered you some MORE money off, bite their hand off before they change their mind.

(this is my polite reply)

fozmcfc

Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it and then have someone clear it up afterwards as well.

Don't be so greedy OP, Currys have offered you more than they have too, you get what sounds like a real bargain and they offer you even more of a bargain with more money off and still not satisfied.

There really is no pleasing some people.

4743hudsonj

If you can source the Same (and i mean exact same) model elsewhere, you may be able to claim loss of a bargain due to their inability to complete the contract (for a tv in the condition when inspected).

Im not entirely sure how the fact that it was a display model will affect this however.

gordikin

4743hudsonj wrote: »

If you can source the Same (and i mean exact same) model elsewhere, you may be able to claim loss of a bargain due to their inability to complete the contract (for a tv in the condition when inspected).

Im not entirely sure how the fact that it was a display model will affect this however.

Surely the retailer has offered an even greater bargain (and been refused)by offering to reduce the price even further for what is after all cosmetic damage. I think the retailer is being entirely fair in what they have offered.

Googlewhacker

4743hudsonj wrote: »

If you can source the Same (and i mean exact same) model elsewhere, you may be able to claim loss of a bargain due to their inability to complete the contract (for a tv in the condition when inspected).

Im not entirely sure how the fact that it was a display model will affect this however.

I very much doubt that the OP would even win especially as the company have offered more money off.

I can't believe the OP is even moaning, the company are offering a refund if you don't want it or more money of the TV and as it is cosmetic and not the actual screen I can't see what the problem is

4743hudsonj

Whilst i agree whats been offered is fair, i still think Expectation loss could apply as if the contract had been completed properly, the op wouldnt have more money but a cosmetically sound TV.

On the other hand i do see your point that the fact that there has been a seemingly fair offer, could damage the ops case as it may be seen as not mitigating their losses.

Suppose it all depends how well the op could argue the importance of cosmetic appearance.

Knighty

Sorry guys but I'm a little disappointed with the responses here. Yes, I know it was a clearance TV and I understand the concept of it being limited stock. From my perspective I bought a TV and it was a great deal and in perfect condition - why would I then want a TV with a huge scratch on the front of it that I see every time I watch it? Why should I not be annoyed that the TV is not as I bought it and no longer of satisfactory quality. I appreciate Currys have offered a refund or money off but that was not what I wanted and was under the impression I would be covered by consumer law. It wasn't my fault the TV was bubble-wrapped when they said it would be boxed and they therefore damaged it.

You guys may be happy to accept a damaged TV but I wasn't.

CHR15

I can't see where the above posters said they would be happy to accept a damaged TV.

They offered you a refund, or additional money off, or discount toward another TV.

Why do YOU think you are entitled to a brand new TV of that model for a discounted price? You didn't buy a brand new one.
The one you "purchased" was a shop soiled ex display model which has had no end of people poking and fingering. I'm quite sure the definition of "Ex Display" would state it has cosmetic damage

Sounds like Curry's are bending over backwards to please you but you a stamping your feet to get something more.

OlliesDad

4743hudsonj wrote: »

If you can source the Same (and i mean exact same) model elsewhere, you may be able to claim loss of a bargain due to their inability to complete the contract (for a tv in the condition when inspected).

Im not entirely sure how the fact that it was a display model will affect this however.

The definition of loss of bargain is:

the inability to complete a sale or other business deal, caused by another's breach of contract, intentional interference with one's business, negligence, or some other wrongdoing.

Therefore i do not see how this could relate to this case.