Fit for purpose - opinion?

unholyangel

samdd wrote: »

Ive just posted this on another thread but thought worth mentioning here.

It could be that you are able to demand a refund if you are able to prove the fault is not as a result of misuse

(1999/44/EC) UK legislation

arcon5 wrote: »

Having a scan of that, it says nothing more than whats been said. If op can prove the fault is inherent he would be entitled to a refund, repair or replacement (retailers choice) and a partial-refund is suitable in sme circumstances.

Its that "secret EU law".

The directive was not implemented in the UK as it was deemed the SOGA gives consumers better protection than the directive. A directive is entirely different from regulations. Directives may be implemented as the government in that particular country see fit providing the overall result is more or less the same.

After the initial first 6 months (from purchase) the burden of proof is on the buyer to proof the fault is inherent. However that doesnt seem to be an issue at this precise moment as they have repaired/replaced.

The buyer can request one remedy over another (remedy being repair/replace/refund) but the retailer can refuse if it is disproportionately costly. Also, as noted previously, any refund given can be partial to take into account use you have had of the goods.