item not as described - but i've used it - can i get refund?

rinadharris

i bought some gemstone beads from a website - they were advertised as jade but it now turns out that they are quartzite (which isn't really a gemstone and is much cheaper than jade) - the website is only offering a refund for unused beads - i've used mine - what are my rights in terms of compensation? thank you for any help and advice

ShaneUK

When did you receive them? You may be able to return them under DSR (Distance Selling Regulations). My understanding is that you have 7 working days in which to return under this, and day 1 starts the day after you receive them.

ShaneUK

In fact - thinking about it - it may not be 7 working days to return them, but 7 working days in which you have to inform them you want to return them under DSR.

arcon5

In what way have you used them? Are you able to dismantle whatever you have made in order to return them?

DSRs allows you to give them notice of cancellation within 7 working days. But you have a duty of care with the product whilst in your possession.

halibut2209

Their offer of a refund for unused beads is in ADDITION to your rights under SOGA.

The beads are not as described, so SOGA takes over. And that means you can return used them for a refund, repair, or replacement. Realistically that's up to them to decide, but they obviously can't be repaired, so unless they can replace them with what WAS described they must refund you.

rinadharris

I've used them to make jewellery that I gave family and friends as Christmas presents - so I can't return the beads - but I do think I'm entitled to a refund of at least the difference in cost between the price of jade (which I paid) and the price of quartzite (which is what the beads are). I think it counts as misrepresentation but I don't really know the law - just feels wrong that the site can sell something as jade that turns out not to be jade but not refund me because I can't return the beads?

halibut2209

Ah, in that case then no. You would need to return the beads in order to get a refund.

rinadharris

okay - thanks - just one quick question - if i had sold the jewellery as jade and then discovered the beads were not jade presumably my customers would be eligible for some kind of refund? would i then be able to get that back from the website that supplied the beads to me? (luckily this isn't the case as they were gifts not sales - just wondering...)

arcon5

halibut2209 wrote: »

Their offer of a refund for unused beads is in ADDITION to your rights under SOGA.

The beads are not as described, so SOGA takes over. And that means you can return used them for a refund, repair, or replacement. Realistically that's up to them to decide, but they obviously can't be repaired, so unless they can replace them with what WAS described they must refund you.

Hmmm, not sure at what point op would be deemed to have accepted to goods tbh. I suppose it would also depend on how easy it is to determine the fact they are not as described.

rinadharris wrote: »

I've used them to make jewellery that I gave family and friends as Christmas presents - so I can't return the beads - but I do think I'm entitled to a refund of at least the difference in cost between the price of jade (which I paid) and the price of quartzite (which is what the beads are). I think it counts as misrepresentation but I don't really know the law - just feels wrong that the site can sell something as jade that turns out not to be jade but not refund me because I can't return the beads?

You can report them to trading standards.

Have you emailed them yet about it? It only seems fair to me they reimburse the difference in price between what was purchased and what was received.

rinadharris

they are offering a refund only if i return the beads - which i can't do - and they're offering a calendar as 'compensation for the inconvenience' - it is not easy to tell the stones apart so i don't think the customer could be expected to tell the difference - the website has freely admitted that they made the mistake - and i appreciate that mistakes do happen - i just don't think their offer of compensation is adequate - but i don't know the law so i might be wrong

halibut2209

arcon5 wrote: »

Hmmm, not sure at what point op would be deemed to have accepted to goods tbh. I suppose it would also depend on how easy it is to determine the fact they are not as described.

I'd guess this would come under the same category as "fakes". I'm not sure of ANY limitation, except maybe the usual six year thingy.