We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Entitled To Refund ?
Comments
-
halibut2209 wrote: »Replacing IS fixing the problem
It's not how I read it but if that's what it means I guess I will have to accept it.
So, under what circumstances would you be entitled to ask for a refund?0 -
Your contract is with JL but it sometimes pays to go direct to the manf and apprently in this case it seems you could have gone straight to apple but its a little late0
-
You are entitled to a remedy.DontWorryBeHappy wrote: »It's not how I read it but if that's what it means I guess I will have to accept it.
So, under what circumstances would you be entitled to ask for a refund?
That remedy may be either a replacement, repair or refund.
The seller may not cause significant inconvenience when providing the remedy.
You can choose the remedy, but the seller can refuse that remedy if it is too costly.
The seller can offer a partial refund which takes account the use you have had of the product.
All that boils down to...
They can offer a replacement if they want to.
And that is perfectly reasonable in my opinion.0 -
Your contract is with JL but it sometimes pays to go direct to the manf and apprently in this case it seems you could have gone straight to apple but its a little late
That is contrary to the advice given on here which makes a case of reminding the consumer that his contract is with the retailer. To be honest JL did advise me that I might be better going directly to Apple but, in line with the impression I got here, I refused because I thought they were just trying to "fob me off" !!0 -
But it is extremely unlikely that you would've got any sort of refund from Apple.DontWorryBeHappy wrote: »That is contrary to the advice given on here which makes a case of reminding the consumer that his contract is with the retailer. To be honest JL did advise me that I might be better going directly to Apple but, in line with the impression I got here, I refused because I thought they were just trying to "fob me off" !!
After all, they didn't take your money in the first place.0 -
You are entitled to a remedy.
That remedy may be either a replacement, repair or refund.
The seller may not cause significant inconvenience when providing the remedy.
You can choose the remedy, but the seller can refuse that remedy if it is too costly.
The seller can offer a partial refund which takes account the use you have had of the product.
All that boils down to...
They can offer a replacement if they want to.
And that is perfectly reasonable in my opinion.
You say that I can choose the remedy but that the seller can refuse. In my book that means, no matter how you try to pretty it up, the seller gets to choose the remedy, even though they were the seller of the faulty goods. In my opinion that is unreasonable.0 -
Have you simply tried asking JL nicely if, given that if they are going to replace the iPad, can you upgrade to an iPad 2?“That old law about 'an eye for an eye' leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing.”0
-
Your contract is with JL but it sometimes pays to go direct to the manf and apprently in this case it seems you could have gone straight to apple but its a little lateDontWorryBeHappy wrote: »That is contrary to the advice given on here which makes a case of reminding the consumer that his contract is with the retailer. To be honest JL did advise me that I might be better going directly to Apple but, in line with the impression I got here, I refused because I thought they were just trying to "fob me off" !!
Why is that contrary ? your rights dictate that the contract is with the retailer.
Experience, however, is what this forum is about as well...“That old law about 'an eye for an eye' leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing.”0 -
DontWorryBeHappy wrote: »You say that I can choose the remedy but that the seller can refuse. In my book that means, no matter how you try to pretty it up, the seller gets to choose the remedy, even though they were the seller of the faulty goods. In my opinion that is unreasonable.
In my opinion, you only think it's unreasonable because what you really want is a free upgrade to an iPad 2.
What JL are doing is putting you back to a position before the fault occured (which are your rights) - i.e. replacing the faulty item like for like.“That old law about 'an eye for an eye' leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing.”0 -
In my opinion, you only think it's unreasonable because what you really want is a free upgrade to an iPad 2.
What JL are doing is putting you back to a position before the fault occured (which are your rights) - i.e. replacing the faulty item like for like.
I have been sold goods for £400+ that lasted only 3.5 months before developing a fault. I think this is unreasonable.
If I read the content of this website about Consumer Rights it suggests that I should be entitled to either having the goods fixed, replaced or receiving a refund.
I am trying to understand under what circumstances one is entitled to a cash refund?
Do you have an opinion on that ?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards