Can't get refund on faulty goods

Labmanager

arcon5 wrote: »

It's a Lego set - it doesn't take building it to inspect the goods for damage

Show me how I can have reasonable opportunity to examine 200-300 connecting parts without building them?

If part A1 did not fit ZZ45 and it should, no contract is formed?

Therefore refund?

DD265

You can return the items in any condition you like - or even not at all if you wish. Under the DSR as long as you cancel within those 7 working days (starting the day after you received the goods) then they must refund you within 30 days. Then they can decide to take action against you to recover their losses. Probably wouldn't, but do you want to take that risk?

Personally, I would also be inclined to accept their offer. Under the SOGA - which is where we'd look given you're going down the road of the product being faulty - the retailer can repair, replace or refund in any given order. The choice is theirs, not yours I'm afraid.

I do think that theirs is a fair offer so I'd take it, and then either store the set hoping that he might want to play with it in the future, or stick it on eBay.

Labmanager

SOGA says reasonable opportunity to examine? Is it reasonable to build a building blocks toy before acceptance? I think it is.

unholyangel

Labmanager wrote: »

SOGA says reasonable opportunity to examine? Is it reasonable to build a building blocks toy before acceptance? I think it is.

Really? If a friend was selling the LEGO set, would you open it and start building it before accepting their offer?? No? Why not? Because it belongs to them until you've accepted their offer?

When building a wardrobe, don't you inspect the pieces and make sure you have all the bits necessary and that they are undamaged prior to building? I do. But perhaps I'm a little more methodical in my approach.

Unfortunately, none of our opinions matter, the only opinion that would matter would be that of a judge. However, I have offered up an alternative (store credit) which would be slightly less beneficial to the retailer but much much more beneficial to the OP. While it is arguable whether she is entitled to it or not, there's no harm in asking, especially since the retailer seems keen to resolve the issue.

Labmanager

unholyangel wrote: »

Really? If a friend was selling the LEGO set, would you open it and start building it before accepting their offer?? No? Why not? Because it belongs to them until you've accepted their offer?

When building a wardrobe, don't you inspect the pieces and make sure you have all the bits necessary and that they are undamaged prior to building? I do. But perhaps I'm a little more methodical in my approach.

Unfortunately, none of our opinions matter, the only opinion that would matter would be that of a judge. However, I have offered up an alternative (store credit) which would be slightly less beneficial to the retailer but much much more beneficial to the OP. While it is arguable whether she is entitled to it or not, there's no harm in asking, especially since the retailer seems keen to resolve the issue.

A friend has not sold the OP a Lego set...a business has. Are you suggesting it's the same?

arcon5

Labmanager wrote: »

SOGA says reasonable opportunity to examine? Is it reasonable to build a building blocks toy before acceptance? I think it is.

That's not examine though, is it! Clearly that's using and accepting! Inspecting a Lego set can be done visually.

arcon5

Labmanager wrote: »

Show me how I can have reasonable opportunity to examine 200-300 connecting parts without building them?

If part A1 did not fit ZZ45 and it should, no contract is formed?

Therefore refund?

Of course a contract is formed, damage or not! How do you figure there's no contract?

unholyangel

Labmanager wrote: »

A friend has not sold the OP a Lego set...a business has. Are you suggesting it's the same?

With regards to rights if something goes wrong? No of course not. But the general principle applies, you do not treat something that belongs to someone else as your own. And as I have said a few times, actually building it is (imo) inconsistent with someone else owning it meaning you would have signified acceptance by doing so.

Nor would the OP be entitled to anything at all if the "faults" are not inherent. If the OP becomes awkward, then the retailer is more likely to be awkward also.

So far he seems keen to help, despite indicating the parts have been damaged by the OP.

Labmanager

arcon5 wrote: »

Of course a contract is formed, damage or not! How do you figure there's no contract?

How do you figure a contract has been formed?

Labmanager

arcon5 wrote: »

That's not examine though, is it! Clearly that's using and accepting! Inspecting a Lego set can be done visually.

So you can examine 200-300 pieces visually and ascertain they will fit together and be fit for purpose without assembling them? Can you? How?