Replacing fautly item

newbefactor

So i had to return a faulty dvd player today. Brought it 6 months ago so returned it under warranty. Asked for a replacement only to be charged extra because the price of the dvd player had now gone up. It was the same exact same dvd player that i swapped it for. Surely that isn't right ? i could understand the extra charge if it had been a different brand etc ... but it wasn't. Does this break the sales of good act ? i feel to write a complaint to the company but want to know my rights before i do.

If any one can help i'd be thankful

lateandlive

It's a difficult one.

Effectively, when you buy something your rights cover you for your expenditure on the item. So in other words, the SoGA says (not literally) that you spent £x on a DVD player and therefore it should conform to the terms of the act. if not, you're entitled to your £x back (dependant on certain factors).

The retailer is quite at liberty to raise the price of their stock, and by offering you the money you spent on the player back they're fulfilling their obligation under the SoGA.

If the price had gone down I suspect you wouldn't have offered to give him the difference back to compensate his loss!

mattyprice4004

Did they offer a refund also, or did they say they wouldn't repair or refund and that you MUST pay the extra?

regency_man

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

Did they offer a refund also, or did they say they wouldn't repair or refund and that you MUST pay the extra?

Yes, this is the key - they cannot force you to pay extra for a replacement of the exact same model, but they can decline to give you a replacement and refund only what you paid at their discretion.

If you buy a DVD player heavily discounted in a sale and it breaks and the retailer (who may be in a completely different financial situation now) is selling them at the full price again, then they may quite sensibly conclude that they would rather sell their remaining stock at full price, than give you a replacement when you paid less. So they will just give you your money back.

I has a similar thing with a TV, I bought it heavily discounted because it was end-of-line. When it broke I asked for a repair or replacement, they refused, offered me my money back or I could pay more for the 'new' version of my TV.

I know it seems a little weird, but it is fair.

unholyangel

After a reasonable time has passed, they can in fact offer a partial refund to take into account use you have had of the item.

However, you have the right to request one remedy over another (repair, replace, refund) and they should only refuse if it is disproportionately costly.

So the real question is, is this replacement disproportionately cost for them compared to a repair or rescission of contract? If they have paid more to their suppliers for the item then the answer is possibly yes. However, if they have paid the same price to their supplier, a replacement may not be disproportionately costly.

newbefactor

The dvd player wasn't brought in the sale or anything it's just the price has gone up (like everything else now a days) They didn't tell me i'd have to pay extra until the last minute, even when i rang the electrical hotline they said to me just gone to the shop and it should be replaced.

regency_man

unholyangel wrote: »

However, you have the right to request one remedy over another (repair, replace, refund) and they should only refuse if it is disproportionately costly.

Of course you have the right to request it, you have the right to request that the CEO comes round your house dressed in comedy banana costume and repairs the TV infront of you while singing West End musical numbers - but I'm pretty sure they have the right to select the remedy regardless of your request.

I've seen it advised many, many times on these boards, when someone's TV breaks and the retailer says they are sending it off for repair which will take 6 weeks, everyone always says "thats not fair I want a replacement right now" and the experts on here always say, its up to the retailer to decide on the remedy, provided it is one of the holy trinity (refund, repair, replace).

Is that now not the case?

wealdroam

regency_man wrote: »

Of course you have the right to request it, you have the right to request that the CEO comes round your house dressed in comedy banana costume and repairs the TV infront of you while singing West End musical numbers - but I'm pretty sure they have the right to select the remedy regardless of your request.

I've seen it advised many, many times on these boards, when someone's TV breaks and the retailer says they are sending it off for repair which will take 6 weeks, everyone always says "thats not fair I want a replacement right now" and the experts on here always say, its up to the retailer to decide on the remedy, provided it is one of the holy trinity (refund, repair, replace).

Is that now not the case?

Not sure what your point is Regency_man, but have a read of the legislation.

From the Sale of Goods Act...

48BRepair or replacement of the goods

 
(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller—
(a)to repair the goods, or
(b)to replace the goods.
(2)If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—
(a)repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;
(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).
(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—
(a)impossible, or
(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or
(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.
(4)One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—
(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,
(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and
(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

I am sure you can work out what the case is now.
It has not changed recently.

regency_man

The key point there being (3)(b) - disproportion to the cost of the other remedy. So the seller only has to prove disproportionality - which is why they will always go for the repair option and you can't force them otherwise.

A seller spends £500 on a good and sells it at £550 - they are £50 in profit. The buyer then declares the item to be non-conforming. The seller has three options:
Replacement - £500 for the replacement. Net result: loss of £500
Repair - Lets say the repair costs 50% of the value of the item Net result: Loss of £250
Rescission - Loss of £550

Disproportion - the buyer has the right to request but cannot force the seller to replace the item.

But lets consider that the case of an smaller electronic good that has risen sharply recently and the repair is of a major component which require complete overhaul. It originally cost £100 and was sold for £110 but now costs the seller £120 and they are sold for £130.

Replacement cost: £120
Repair cost: (hypothetical) £80 parts plus £50 labour = £130
Rescission: £110

Again, disproportion, now (3)(c) comes into effect - the buyer does not have the right to force the seller to repair/replace.

unholyangel

regency_man wrote: »

The key point there being (3)(b) - disproportion to the cost of the other remedy. So the seller only has to prove disproportionality - which is why they will always go for the repair option and you can't force them otherwise.

A seller spends £500 on a good and sells it at £550 - they are £50 in profit. The buyer then declares the item to be non-conforming. The seller has three options:
Replacement - £500 for the replacement. Net result: loss of £500
Repair - Lets say the repair costs 50% of the value of the item Net result: Loss of £250
Rescission - Loss of £550

Disproportion - the buyer has the right to request but cannot force the seller to replace the item.

But lets consider that the case of an smaller electronic good that has risen sharply recently and the repair is of a major component which require complete overhaul. It originally cost £100 and was sold for £110 but now costs the seller £120 and they are sold for £130.

Replacement cost: £120
Repair cost: (hypothetical) £80 parts plus £50 labour = £130
Rescission: £110

Again, disproportion, now (3)(c) comes into effect - the buyer does not have the right to force the seller to repair/replace.

Not true. While in most cases a repair is the cheapest option.....a) it is not always possible and b) it is not always cheapest. Also, you are basing your costs on the retailer having no way to recover any loss via the supplier. If it costs £500 to buy and he sells for £550.....if he received £500 back from the manufacturer then for a rescission his loss is £50, but for a replacement his loss is £0.

As for the 2nd example you provide, why on earth do you think I said:

unholyangel wrote: »

So the real question is, is this replacement disproportionately cost for them compared to a repair or rescission of contract? If they have paid more to their suppliers for the item then the answer is possibly yes. However, if they have paid the same price to their supplier, a replacement may not be disproportionately costly.

Plus you need to take into account:
(2)If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—
(a)repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;