Do I have to accept a refund?

DVardysShadow

bris wrote: »

Don't ask silly questions to try and start a useless debate, you know as well as anyone that a partial refund is allowed. The 75% was a suggestion, nothing more.

It might have got up your nose, if you thought it was a challenge to the idea of a partial refund. I took it as a reasonable question as to how the value of 75% was derived. As such, a valid and useful question.

System

Flyboy152 wrote: »

And I asked a perfectly valid question, but you decide to turn that into an argument. Great work!

You love an argument! That's why you post, pretty much every comment you make is argumentative:-)

bod1467

Been, gone, done. No need to incite ANOTHER "discussion".

ThumbRemote

bod1467 wrote: »

You can request a specific remedy but the retailer can decline if it is disproportionately costly, whereupon the retailer can choose the remedy (repair, replace or refund, and the refund can take account of usage). Thus their offer of a partial refund complies with SOGA.

Actually, that's not strictly true. The retailer cannot choose the remedy; the SoGA specifically states the buyer chooses what they require of the seller, but the buyer may not require a remedy which is impossible or disproportionate. Disproportionate specifically takes into account the value of the goods if they had conformed to the contract of sale, and whether a remedy causes significant inconvenience to the buyer.

As a result, there are three things to take into account.

1) A refund should be based on the actual value of the hard disk, not the original purchase price. As prices have risen recently, this could even be more than the original purchase price.

2) For the seller to refuse a replacement, they must be able to show that this remedy is disproportionate in value. I do not believe they will be able to do this; just because a disk is more expensive now does not mean it is automatically disproportionate in value to provide a replacement (especially given point 1 above)

3) There is a balancing act between the inconvenience to you and the cost to the seller for a specific remedy. Do not be fobbed off that you have to accept the inconvenience so they can avoid the cost - your rights are protected too.

You may want to contact the seller to state that they have not shown that a replacement would be disproportionatly costly to them, that they have undervalued the disk you do have as they have not taken price rises into account, and that a refund causes you significant inconvenience. As a result of these factors, you still require the remedy to be a replacement disk.

halibut2209

A good post, but 1 and 2 seem to contradict each other. If values have risen, it's pretty easy to show that a replacement is disproportionate.

ThumbRemote

halibut2209 wrote: »

A good post, but 1 and 2 seem to contradict each other. If values have risen, it's pretty easy to show that a replacement is disproportionate.

Any calculation of 'disproportionate' is based on "the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale". This is based on should be the current value of the hard disk, if it were working. So it would be the current cost of an 11 month old hard disk of the same spec.

For the sake of argument, a new disk could have cost £100. At that point an 11 month old disk could have cost £75.

But say hard disk prices have doubled since the disk was bought, and second hand prices have done the same. Today the new disk would be £200 and an 11 month old model would be £150.

In this case the comparison would be £200 (less VAT, manufacturers markup) for a replacement compared to £150, not £75 (I know these are really simplified numbers, but they illustrate the point).

The seller cannot apply the price rise logic to claim that a replacement would be disproportionately costly, while at the same time not applying any price rise calculations to the value of the original disk. Disproportionate applies to the transaction as a whole, not just the sellers side.

timbstoke

You make a very interesting argument, and I'd love to see such an argument win out - indeed, should it come to court, I have a feeling you probably would win. However, in reality, the cost of enforcing such an argument would be difficult to justify.

It's certainly worth asking, but I'm not sure how you'd respond when they inevitably refuse.

withabix

I would have expected a full refund if they would not replace, in this case of early failure.

Which retailer was it? (and which hard drive manufacturer?).

The comments about a refund of more than the purchase price because the price of hard drives has gone up are nonsense by the way, as the retailer's liability under SOGA etc is limited at the original purchase price. I would like to see reference to anywhere that says any different.

ThumbRemote

withabix wrote: »

The comments about a refund of more than the purchase price because the price of hard drives has gone up are nonsense by the way, as the retailer's liability under SOGA etc is limited at the original purchase price. I would like to see reference to anywhere that says any different.

I think I agree, and have edited my post above to make clear that the current price is taken into account only when calculating if something is disproportionate.

dan_l

Hard drive prices have increased quite a lot recently due to floods in Thailand which is possibly why they are wanting to refund and not replace.