Sale of Goods Act/ Consumer rights question...

somethingcorporate

A full refund would never be seen as significantly inconvenient.

steve1873

somethingcorporate wrote: »

As well the retailer was entitled to give you a partial refund with a deduction for your use so a full refund could be considered a small win(!), although I am not sure you will see it this way (or would I if I were in your position).

They did initially give me a full refund. My continual complaints caused them to issue a further £5 odds refund yesterday taking it to the full £41.99.

TBF, if hard drive prices hadn't increased so drastically - they are still over 200% more expensive - I wouldn't really care. I would take the money and replace it. However, it is the feeling of being effectively robbed of ~£50 which is the sicken-er. In that respect, their refund is fair and proportional to what I paid. I am certainly not disputing that. But it is more the fact that they issued the refund and disposed of my drive without offering me the right to refuse the refund and make my own arrangements to have the drive repaired or replaced.

I may have actually gone down the route of having the drive inspected independently to ascertain if the fault could have been present at time of sale - but this has again been taken out of my hands.

I think I will still talk to CAB and see what they have to say. But I appreciate all of your comments and I can actually see it from both points of view.

fiddiwebb

steve1873 wrote: »

Of course I have got the money, but that is besides the point. I am being effectively left £50 out of pocket since I have the need to replace the drive!

But you got your refund, you received back the amount you paid for the item.

You can't expect them to refund you more than the original price because an item has risen in price.

Anyway even at last years prices a Samsung 1TB hard drive at £41.99 seems cheap did you get it in a sale?

steve1873

somethingcorporate wrote: »

A full refund would never be seen as significantly inconvenient.

But why not? I still require a replacement and the refund does not allow me to even purchase 50% of a replacement - how can that not be seen to be significantly inconvenient?

somethingcorporate

By giving you a full refund it was tantamount to the admission that the goods were inherently faulty.

What is the best you hope to get out of this? Do you expect a court to make a shop refund £90 for something you paid £40 for?

If that is the case then you are going to be in for a big disappointment.

You have everything back you paid for it, this is not inconvenient. The fact prices have changed is completely irrelevant. If prices were now lower you would still be entitled to a refund based on the amount you paid and not a deduction based on the new lower price.

steve1873

fiddiwebb wrote: »

But you got your refund, you received back the amount you paid for the item.

You can't expect them to refund you more than the original price because an item has risen in price.

Anyway even at last years prices a Samsung 1TB hard drive at £41.99 seems cheap did you get it in a sale?

I'm not requesting them to refund me more than the original price. I requested a repair or a replacement. They didn't want to do either, which is their right, and ISSUED me with refund without inquiring whether I found this acceptable.

I then requested my drive be sent back to me so that I may make my own arrangements to have the drive repaired under warranty. I was initially led to believe arrangements were being made to have drive returned. I then got told my drive had been "disposed of".

No it was not purchased in a sale.

real1314

OP bought a hard drive, paid for it. A contract was formed.

The OP met their requirements under the contract by paying the agreed amount.

The retailer has to supply the required goods. A satisfactory hard drive.


The key issue for the OP is "Loss of bargain". By supplying a faulty HD the retailer has put the OP into a position of loss of bargain.
The OP could have bought a non-faulty HD for a similar payment, but as this retailer supplied a faulty one, they need to re-instate the OP on the basis of the contract.

"Loss of bargain" is the mechanism which stops suppliers putting any old crap on the market and offering a refund if it fails.

:cool:

steve1873

somethingcorporate wrote: »

By giving you a full refund it was tantamount to the admission that the goods were inherently faulty.

What is the best you hope to get out of this? Do you expect a court to make a shop refund £90 for something you paid £40 for?

If that is the case then you are going to be in for a big disappointment.

You have everything back you paid for it, this is not inconvenient. The fact prices have changed is completely irrelevant. If prices were now lower you would still be entitled to a refund based on the amount you paid and not a deduction based on the new lower price.

No, I would expect them to repair or replace.

Do you agree with the retailers assertion that repair or replacement is proportionately too costly, even though the cost of said repair or replacement would be covered by the manufacturers warranty (which still has nearly 30 months remaining) ?

The cost to the retailer is merely the cost of shipping to the manufacturer.

wealdroam

steve1873 wrote: »

Here is my problem - the drive cost me £41.99 in April last year. To replace the drive today will cost me £84.99 due to the increase in hard drive prices towards the end of 2011 (neither the retailers nor my fault I accept). Therefore their partial refund leaves me in the situation where I cannot afford to replace the drive, which is required. This is of significant inconvenience to me. To replace a drive which is still under a full manufacturer warranty for a further 27 months I am being forced to spend approximately ~£50 in addition to the ~£40 I have been refunded.

So you paid £41.99 for the drive 10 months ago.
They have refunded you '~£40'.
Around £2 for ten months use doesn't sound too bad, does it?

Now, you say you are being 'forced to spend approximately £50' extra to replace the drive.
But that is replacing the drive with a brand new one.
You need to look at the cost of a drive that is ten months old.
Yes, they may be difficult to find, so it is only fair that the retailer pay a proportion of the cost of you replacement... which is what they have done.
If the retailer replaced you drive with a brand new one, that could be considered betterment.

You chose to use SOGA rather than manufacturer's warranty, didn't you?

unholyangel

steve1873 wrote: »

Of course I have got the money, but that is besides the point. I am being effectively left £50 out of pocket since I have the need to replace the drive!

Well you can surely understand my post about not being able to afford it considering you said:

steve1873 wrote: »

Here is my problem - the drive cost me £41.99 in April last year. To replace the drive today will cost me £84.99 due to the increase in hard drive prices towards the end of 2011 (neither the retailers nor my fault I accept). Therefore their partial refund leaves me in the situation where I cannot afford to replace the drive, which is required.