Bought faulty TV from Currys, need help

Alan_M_2

How does the fact the item was marked down as clearance effect the legal standing of the sale?

Somewhere in my mind I have a feeling that sale or clearance goods are not subject to the same legal requirements? Or am I wrong?

Steve_xx

Alan_M wrote: »

How does the fact the item was marked down as clearance effect the legal standing of the sale?

Somewhere in my mind I have a feeling that sale or clearance goods are not subject to the same legal requirements? Or am I wrong?

In this case it has the same legal standing as any other goods sold at Currty's. Being marked as a 'clearance' or 'sale' item does not avoid the liability on Curry's to supply an item fit for its defined purpose.

marmite2011

Steve_xx wrote: »

I think that you ought to accept the refund from Curry's and move on. You knew exactly what you were buying and you were of course hoping that your gamble would pay off. In the event it didn't. Curry's have met their legal requirement to reimburse you.


You could have bought your remote control for as little as £6.19 from Argos. Had you done so you would have been able to return it to them and then obtain a refund for it.

I havent taken any kind of gamble as buying a TV from a reputable high street store should not be a gamble. So exactly what gamble i was hoping would pay off that you refer to is beyond me??? Are you suggesting something?


I cannot buy the exact remote control for this TV from Argos. I could have bought one of those remote that works on many TV's from Argos but i wanted the original correct remote not tat

Innys

If you had bought a car from, say, Arthur Daley's showroom, and the engine had given up when you drove it off the forecourt, the most you could have expected was for them to give you a refund. There's no way they would have repaired it for you because if the car had a new engine in it in the first place, that would have been reflected in the (higher) price.

Look at it this way - how much have you spent? £69.99. They have offered you £69.99 so you are no worse off.

You chose to get a new remote, so that doesn't come into the calculation. The television should, presumably, have worked without the remote.

I honestly don't think you are being reasonable in expecting a repair to something when it is uneconomic to do so.

macman

You've 'gambled' on buying a very cheap TV which was a ex-display model and presuambly end of line too. Now it's broken and they've offered you a full refund, as it's no longer in stock and not economically repairable.
That really is the best you will get.
PS: what is 'reputable' about DSG? They're one of the worst retail chains around.

marmite2011

Innys wrote: »

If you had bought a car from, say, Arthur Daley's showroom, and the engine had given up when you drove it off the forecourt, the most you could have expected was for them to give you a refund. There's no way they would have repaired it for you because if the car had a new engine in it in the first place, that would have been reflected in the (higher) price.

Look at it this way - how much have you spent? £69.99. They have offered you £69.99 so you are no worse off.

You chose to get a new remote, so that doesn't come into the calculation. The television should, presumably, have worked without the remote.

I honestly don't think you are being reasonable in expecting a repair to something when it is uneconomic to do so.

Currys and Arthur Daleys showroom are not a fair comparison. I think what you meant was if i had bought a brand new car from a main dealer and the engine blew up as i was driving it away under the terms of the warranty i would have had the engine replaced free of charge. Equally if i bought a brand new telly and when i got home it didnt work i should be able to return it and ask for it to be repaired.

marleyboy

The item is sold as seen, (unless you purchased it with a warranty), the company offered you a refund, should you want a replacement set, I am not sure the store would have any other television sets on offer at such a low price. This being the case, a refund is the next best thing they can offer. Unless you see a cheap £70 television in their store, you have no choice but to take a refund.

macman

marmite2011 wrote: »

Currys and Arthur Daleys showroom are not a fair comparison. I think what you meant was if i had bought a brand new car from a main dealer and the engine blew up as i was driving it away under the terms of the warranty i would have had the engine replaced free of charge. Equally if i bought a brand new telly and when i got home it didnt work i should be able to return it and ask for it to be repaired.

Quite right, it is an unfair comparison. Unfair to Arthur Daley that is...;)
What brand is this TV? If it's a Korean badged-up job-lot, then the parts will not even be available even if they wanted to repair it.
Just be glad that it broke while still in warranty.

Ionkontrol

Take the refund, buy a better TV from a better store.

purple_haze

I think people are being a little overhasty in saying the OP is only entitled to a refund.


Leaving aside the statutory rights, the OP entered into a contract with the shop and has contractual rights at common law. The shop breached the contract by supplying a TV which did not work (nothing to do with the lack of remote control.)The OP is entitled to damages for breach of contract.


Damages for breach of contract are assessed as the amount needed to put the injured party in the position he would have been in had the contract been performed (not, as an earlier poster said, to put the injured party back to his pre-contractual position). Here it would be damages for the loss of bargain.


So I believe the OP has a claim against the shop for the extra amount on top of what he has already paid that it would cost to buy the same or similar TV elsewhere(perhaps less a nominal discount for the missing remote).


But I strongly suspect he'll have to go to the small claims court before the shop will accept this.