Product Mis-Sold

Jakg

Looking for some advice on this one...

Customer buys a product (A TV) in January.

Customer asks a question ("Does this TV go on the internet"), customer told "yes" buy salesperson.

Customer finds out that the TV doesn't go on the internet so calls the store to ask what they are going to do about it (in August), and claims this is the first time he's tried the feature to find it's absence.


The TV has an ethernet port, but only for updating the firmware over the internet - so while it does go on the internet, it doesn't update do iPlayer etc like the customer expected.

The salesperson is no longer employed by the company.



What would you realistically expect the retailer to do?




My own thoughts - it's an unfortunate situation, but 7 months is a very long time to wait before trying it. It also does go on the internet - it just doesn't do anything useful with it. The retailer also can't make sure the guys not a chancer as they no longer employ the salesperson. Realistically, there's little they need to do.

Opinions?

pendulum

I'd expect the retailer to do a big fat nothing.

Far too much time has passed. The buyer has long since accepted the TV, and there is no proof the customer even asked that question about internet connectivity.

visidigi

there might have been a case if you found out on the day you bought it, but to ask for a feature you want, but then dont use for 7 months....there's nothing I would expect the retailer to do now.

Oliver14

Obviously that feature wasn't very important if it took 7 months to realise it wasn't there

dreamypuma

I doubt the customer has a leg to stand on.

The TV does do what the customer queried and sales guy confirmed. It "goes on the internet."

If the customer wanted to browse the web through the TV, the customer should have asked if the feature was available or been more clear as to what they were querying.

The customer got what they asked for, and didn't miss an feature they now claim to be important to them for over half a year.

I also doubt that they can impartially prove any specifics of a conversation with the store staff at the time of sale.

vyle

What make/model is the tv?

Jakg

vyle wrote: »

What make/model is the tv?

Samsung UE40C5100.

Specifically, the customer wanted Internet@TV, which the TV doesn't have. It does go on the internet to update the firmware, and can stream files over the network. The customer, however, only asked "does it go on the internet".

The retailer decided that 7 months was an unreasonable amount of time to wait before reporting the issue, and has offered the customer an apology but nothing more.

The customer claims he will escalate to head office.

(no, i'm not the customer)

Esqui

Like someone said above, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove what conversations were had. Don't put it beyond someone to make up a conversation that never happened in order to get a better TV.

Assuming that the customer was told it would be able to go on the internet, then the TV did not conform to contract at the time of sale, and the customer is entitled to have that put right. However, in real life, he's unlikely to get much more than the apology given.

arcon5

If the customer was told it could access the internet and it did not, after 7 months could it not simply be considered that he has accepted the goods without?

fthl

yes - but accepting the goods means he can't get a full refund. the 'tier two' rights are still available to him. This said, he'll get absolutely zip unless he can prove what was said.

hcb42

too vague a question in the first place. Why not ask the actual question for the functionality required. these geeky types in stores are usually very willing to blind us all with technology..! Does this tv go on the internet is not a sensible question in the first place!!!