Waterstones 3 for 2 refunds

fluffnutter

This is a situation that was actually satisfactorily resolved but I thought it was quite an interesting one and wondered what people's views were.

Some time ago I bought three books for the price of two in Waterstones. Half way through reading one of them I discovered that 50 or 60 pages were repeated later on in the book (a binding mistake) hence leaving me skipping the actual pages.

I took it back hoping for a replacement but there were none in stock. Because I was in the middle of the book and keen to keep reading, I asked for a refund. I was initially told that they couldn't refund full price (or indeed anything) on 3 for 2 offers because the full price hadn't been paid. I whinged a bit and looked pathetic and the guy spoke to the manager who agreed to refund me the full price but it made me wonder generally about 3 for 2 offers and the like.

If refunding you should they be obliged to refund full price even if you didn't pay full price? How do they calculate what a reasonable refund would be? Or was I right to ask for a full refund so that I could buy the book elsewhere?

andy_c_2

I'd say you'd need to return all 3 items in a 3 for 2 offer in order to get a full refund.

Having worked at a well known music and video store in the past, people would often knowingly purchase 3 for 2 offers with the intention of trying to return one of the products in order to get a proportional refund, hence reducing the price of the items they wanted to keep.

vyle

fluffnutter wrote: »

This is a situation that was actually satisfactorily resolved but I thought it was quite an interesting one and wondered what people's views were.

Some time ago I bought three books for the price of two in Waterstones. Half way through reading one of them I discovered that 50 or 60 pages were repeated later on in the book (a binding mistake) hence leaving me skipping the actual pages.

I took it back hoping for a replacement but there were none in stock. Because I was in the middle of the book and keen to keep reading, I asked for a refund. I was initially told that they couldn't refund full price (or indeed anything) on 3 for 2 offers because the full price hadn't been paid. I whinged a bit and looked pathetic and the guy spoke to the manager who agreed to refund me the full price but it made me wonder generally about 3 for 2 offers and the like.

If refunding you should they be obliged to refund full price even if you didn't pay full price? How do they calculate what a reasonable refund would be? Or was I right to ask for a full refund so that I could buy the book elsewhere?

If you paid, say, £6 for all three, and you wanted a refund on a third of your purchase, then imo you should only get back a third of what you paid.

If you wanted a full refund, you should have to return everything.

Even though the item is faulty, the retailer has the option to repair, refund or replace. As they couldn't replace or repair, then they should give a refund, but it doesn't have to be for the full retail value of the item, especially if you didn't pay that in the first place.

paddyrg

Sold as a package, returned as a package. Even if you buy an x with a free y, and you want the x refunded, you have to return the y as well.

maginot

I think if the item is actually faulty and you wanted a replacement, but they were unable to do this, then a full refund should be given.
I bought radley items on a 3 for 2 offer and they wanted me to return all 3 items even though only one was faulty. I stated that I had given the other 2 as gifts and that it was impractical to return all items. Eventually customer services refunded the single item as they were unable to replace it.
But I suppose if you were just returning an item because you didn't want it, then they may expect all items or only give 1/3 of the total price, otherwise as Andy says, some people will take advantage and get bogof instead of btgtf.

antrobus

Under the Sale of Goods Act the faulty book was clearly not fit for purpose. So there's no question about Waterstone's obligation to either replace or refund. Since they were unable to replace, the only question would be about the amount of the refund, and I'd argue that they were obliged to refund the OP the amount necessary to unable them to buy another copy somewhere else. Which would be the RRP of said book, in the absence of any information to the contrary.

tomwakefield

vyle wrote: »

If you paid, say, £6 for all three, and you wanted a refund on a third of your purchase, then imo you should only get back a third of what you paid.

If you wanted a full refund, you should have to return everything.

Even though the item is faulty, the retailer has the option to repair, refund or replace. As they couldn't replace or repair, then they should give a refund, but it doesn't have to be for the full retail value of the item, especially if you didn't pay that in the first place.

The problem with this solution is that, should the purchaser want to buy it again, they'd have to pay full price which, although legal, is pretty poor customer service.

I think the best option is, as paddyrg said, to refund on the full deal, and accept they'll have to take a bit of a hit if you've already read one of the books and so won't be buying it again.

I wonder what they would have done if it was bogof - effectively meaning you got a free book out of it

tomwakefield

antrobus wrote: »

Since they were unable to replace, the only question would be about the amount of the refund, and I'd argue that they were obliged to refund the OP the amount necessary to unable them to buy another copy somewhere else. Which would be the RRP of said book, in the absence of any information to the contrary.

As far as I know, legally it's only the amount paid, but determining what you paid for one specific item in a bundle of items priced as a whole is difficult. Morally obliged, I'd agree with you.

antrobus

tomwakefield wrote: »

As far as I know, legally it's only the amount paid, but determining what you paid for one specific item in a bundle of items priced as a whole is difficult. Morally obliged, I'd agree with you.

Legally speaking, Watersone's entered into a contract to supply 3 books at an agreed price. If one of the items supplied is defective, and the defendant is unable to supply an alternative, then they are liable for damages for breach of contract. The only question would be the amount of damages, and as counsel for the plaintiff I'd argue that the amount of damages should be sufficient to place them in the position they would have been had the breech not taken place.

No idea if that argument would actually work in court, mind you; but I think it's a pretty good argument.