Am i entitled to a refund?

mscales05

Hi Everyone,

New on here so please be kind:) Any help or advice greatly appreciated.
I bought a Fuji camera from an online camera store back in July this year, after about 3 months it became faulty (constantly freezing) The store asked me to post back to them who then sent it on to Fuji which then eventually came back to me with an apology letter saying that the firmware need updated & now it should be fine.
After a week of having it back i began to get the same problems, so i again posted it back with a letter saying i was unhappy and that the camera was not fit for purpose so i would like a full refund. The guy in the store called me to say that itwas Fuji's decision as to weather i could have a refund or not and the camera would have to go back again to them. Today (after 3 weeks) i was called and told that Fuji has rejected the refund and that they had again updated/repaired the camera..
Do i have to accept a camera that has been repaired twice or can i demand a full refund??

Many thanks everyone :santa2::santa2::xmassign:

arcon5

The retailer is entitled to offer a refund, repair or replacement.

You can ask for a particular rememdy, they can reject that.

WhiteHorse

If goods are not fit for the purpose you are entitled to a refund from the seller (the manufacturer has no involvement whatsoever), as the contract is with them. However ... the longer you wait, and the more repairs you allow, the thinner your case gets.

In this case, as it seems that the camera was no good from the very beginning, and Fuji themselves appear unable to repair their own product, then you are entitled to a refund.

Retailers often lie and say that you are not entitled to a refund, or that you can only have a repair or exchange, or that it's the manufacturers problem.

arcon5

WhiteHorse wrote: »

If goods are not fit for the purpose you are entitled to a refund from the seller (the manufacturer has no involvement whatsoever), as the contract is with them. However ... the longer you wait, and the more repairs you allow, the thinner your case gets.

In this case, as it seems that the camera was no good from the very beginning, and Fuji themselves appear unable to repair their own product, then you are entitled to a refund.

Retailers often lie and say that you are not entitled to a refund, or that you can only have a repair or exchange, or that it's the manufacturers problem.

Thats wholely incorrect!!

Under Sales of Goods Act you can reject goods within reasonable time for a full refund -- after which the retailer must offer a remedy. A repair, replacement or refund -- which is effectively the retailers choose.


So YES they can offer a repair
And NO op has no entitlement to a refund

FOXGLOVE_2

If the retailer replaces a faulty item with an identical one, and this item fails also, would the customer then be entitled to a refund? As the retailers remedy (the replacement product) has also failed.

I'm trying to make sense of the SOGA in relation to this.

Kew2u

'Not fit for Purpose' is jumping out at me. Would the retailer have accepted a faulty cheque?

unholyangel

TBH i dont think not fit for purpose applies here. Its a camera if it (for the first three months anyway) took pictures then it is fit for purpose.

What you should be rejecting it under is "not of satisfactory quality".

OP has no right to a full refund. The only time you can reject and demand a full refund is within a "reasonable time". 3 months is more than reasonable for a camera. After that, the OP can request one remedy over another but the retailer can refuse if it is disproportionately costly.

Accepting a repair isnt a bad thing. But imo you'd have to have allowed them to repair it a few (2-3) times before you could reasonably argue loss of faith and that they should give you either a replacement or a refund (which may be partial to take into account use you have had of the goods......bearing in mind its been 6 months, this could be higher than you think as it is not uncommon for electrical goods to devalue by 40% in the first year alone).

WhiteHorse

arcon5 wrote: »

Thats wholely incorrect!!

Try reading it again.

Under Sales of Goods Act you can reject goods within reasonable time for a full refund ...

Reasonable time. Like I said, the longer you wait, the thinner your case gets.

-- after which the retailer must offer a remedy. A repair, replacement or refund -- which is effectively the retailers choose.

Yes, after you are out of time.

So YES they can offer a repair. And NO op has no entitlement to a refund

No. The item was defective from the very beginning.

arcon5

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Try reading it again.

You response is again poor, incorrect and misleading.

As op (dispite what you say) would be deemed to have accepted the goods after 1/4 of a year and therefore not entitled to a refund.

mscales05 wrote: »

Hi Everyone,

New on here so please be kind:) Any help or advice greatly appreciated.
I bought a Fuji camera from an online camera store back in July this year, after about 3 months it became faulty (constantly freezing) The store asked me to post back to them who then sent it on to Fuji which then eventually came back to me with an apology letter saying that the firmware need updated & now it should be fine.
After a week of having it back i began to get the same problems, so i again posted it back with a letter saying i was unhappy and that the camera was not fit for purpose so i would like a full refund. The guy in the store called me to say that itwas Fuji's decision as to weather i could have a refund or not and the camera would have to go back again to them. Today (after 3 weeks) i was called and told that Fuji has rejected the refund and that they had again updated/repaired the camera..
Do i have to accept a camera that has been repaired twice or can i demand a full refund??

Many thanks everyone :santa2::santa2::xmassign:

WhiteHorse wrote: »

[STRIKE]If goods are not fit for the purposeseller you are entitled to a refund[/STRIKE]