Full refund on Half Price TV?

custardy

Zippy123 wrote: »

That would be everyone that doesn't listen, doesn't respect other posters, doesn't make sensible contributions or doesn't understand contract law.

Oh sorry, because you can make funny posts you "must" be right!

so you are saying the OP has a right to a £500 refund?
yes or no?

totallyrandom

custardy wrote: »

so you are saying the OP has a right to a £500 refund?
yes or no?

He has the right to the same spec tv. If the shop does not have one then he has the right to get the money to buy one. There is a difference between a right and what actually happens - shops may be unwilling to budge on the issue for example.

To simplify it as an example - where goods have a specific specification such as a tv.

40" TV bought for £250
TV dies
Shop cannot repair - if they could no problem
Shop offers new similar 40" TV - no problem.
Shop no longer sells any TVs so shop offers £250 back.

OP should refuse as new 40" TV would cost say £399 from John Lewis today.
Shop should refund £399 less an amount for usage of current TV (but probably would not deduct anything)

OP would need to explain rights to shop. Admittedly in reality this is going to be a pain. Most store managers would not have the authority to do this I suspect so would need to go via head office and if they were intransigent then take legal action - which probably would not be worth it over a £200 difference, but that is not the point.

OP bought a 40" TV, the premise is that £250 would not cover that and the OP is still entitled to a 40" TV.

The same thing applies to goods where a deposit is paid.

For example.

Deposit paid on car for £2000 / deposit was £200.
Dealer sells car to someone else.
Customer wants that car for £2000. Customer can buy the same spec car from another dealer and if it is more than £2000 charge the extra to the original dealer and I acknowledge that it would probably involve a court case.
This is not one sided. If the customer pays a deposit and then decides not to by the car the dealer can sue for lost profit if it is in excess of the deposit.

custardy

so what precedence have you got, for someone getting an item replaced under the scenario you have laid out in such detail.
what you are saying, is that any item bought on sale entitles the buyer to a replacement at full value if it develops an issue

vyle

totallyrandom wrote: »

He has the right to the same spec tv. If the shop does not have one then he has the right to get the money to buy one. There is a difference between a right and what actually happens - shops may be unwilling to budge on the issue for example.

To simplify it as an example - where goods have a specific specification such as a tv.

40" TV bought for £250
TV dies
Shop cannot repair - if they could no problem
Shop offers new similar 40" TV - no problem.
Shop no longer sells any TVs so shop offers £250 back.

OP should refuse as new 40" TV would cost say £399 from John Lewis today.
Shop should refund £399 less an amount for usage of current TV (but probably would not deduct anything)

OP would need to explain rights to shop. Admittedly in reality this is going to be a pain. Most store managers would not have the authority to do this I suspect so would need to go via head office and if they were intransigent then take legal action - which probably would not be worth it over a £200 difference, but that is not the point.

OP bought a 40" TV, the premise is that £250 would not cover that and the OP is still entitled to a 40" TV.

The same thing applies to goods where a deposit is paid.

For example.

Deposit paid on car for £2000 / deposit was £200.
Dealer sells car to someone else.
Customer wants that car for £2000. Customer can buy the same spec car from another dealer and if it is more than £2000 charge the extra to the original dealer and I acknowledge that it would probably involve a court case.
This is not one sided. If the customer pays a deposit and then decides not to by the car the dealer can sue for lost profit if it is in excess of the deposit.

Are we forgetting OP also has a warranty which would give them a raplacement TV anyway?

Really?

Does everyone just resort to court cases and thumping on about rights instead of taking the simple option?

Also, OP never specified what TV it is. It's 40" and has network connectivity, so that could be anything from a Samsung 9000 (it so isn't though) to a sony or perhaps even an obscure brand that's started to offer such facilities.

Not all TVs of the same size are equal, so saying what should replace it is a very hit and miss.

Also, don't forget the retailer can take the least costly route, which could be a refund. It isn't OP's choice.

totallyrandom

custardy wrote: »

so what precedence have you got, for someone getting an item replaced under the scenario you have laid out in such detail.
what you are saying, is that any item bought on sale entitles the buyer to a replacement at full value if it develops an issue

No, only if the shop cannot repair or replace and it is still within guarantee.

It is case law and comes under contracts and consequential loss and was explained in detail by our company's solicitor when we took a supplier to court when goods he supplied failed and he could not fix them. We were able to go to a second supplier who charged more and then sued the original supplier for the extra cost of the replacement goods and won.

italiastar

custardy wrote: »

so what precedence have you got, for someone getting an item replaced under the scenario you have laid out in such detail.
what you are saying, is that any item bought on sale entitles the buyer to a replacement at full value if it develops an issue

Why shouldn't they? Aren't we forgetting that the item should be repairable?

italiastar

custardy wrote: »

so you are saying the OP has a right to a £500 refund?
yes or no?

Absolutely NOT - they are only entitled to a refund of what they paid, although there may be a case for consequential loss, but I'm not going to comment on that as I'm not qualified to do so. They are however entitled to an equivalent specification - NOT value TV as a replacement, or dare I say again, a repair - why can't people fix things anymore?

custardy

italiastar wrote: »

Why shouldn't they? Aren't we forgetting that the item should be repairable?

The OP never asked about repair

dfh

I bought a half price sofa from DFS four years ago and it has started to sag. I went to DFS and they have the cheek not to refund me the full price. I am going to BBC Watchdog to report them. Hope Ann Robinson will be able to issue an arrest warrant.

italiastar

dfh wrote: »

I bought a half price sofa from DFS four years ago and it has started to sag. I went to DFS and they have the cheek not to refund me the full price. I am going to BBC Watchdog to report them. Hope Ann Robinson will be able to issue an arrest warrant.

Why should they - seriously though, your lucky it lasted 4 years - still you've only got another year an it'll be paid off:D