Seller Refuses to refund/repair/exchange item.

s.j664

neilmcl wrote: »

Jeez, someone's got too much time on their hands.

OP, did you buy the charger via your business or was it a personal purchase as this may effect how much you can rely on SOGA to back you up.

As an aside you might want to lighten up a bit as your posting style is a bit on the negative side and will probably encourage adverse comment.

Thanks; I bought it as a personal purchase, actually.

Yes, I'm well-aware my posting style attracts a lot of harassment. I think the reason behind it is, literally, some deep-seeded part of me very-much hopes that, one day, human beings will stop being so unthoughtful, apathetic, and down-right immoral in their comments.

Yes, Padz just made a simple comment, but I would ask you all this: Did it offer any kind of useful or helpful information to anyone reading this thread now or in the future?

I think it's a pretty obvious "No". I don't mind that he said it; what I mind is that it was said out of a callous, uncaring state of mind. Many people do not realise that their words, as well as their actions, have huge impacts on their thoughts and behaviors. It's a nature-nurture concept, and I won't go in to it here.

The fact of the matter is simply that posts like those can - without knowing it - alienate the less-fortunate; how would you feel if you were a severely poor individual, and everywhere you look there is that one, two or more individuals who seem to believe that your worries/concerns are not valid.

If you treat your child in that way, you will have created a very troubled individual. We must be conscientious of other's feelings and circumstances. This is not a skill you have to go to school for, it's a way of thinking which anyone can learn, by themselves, by simply putting some thought into the question: "How would you want to be treated" in some given situation?

To those who mentioned that I ought to calculate my earnings by time: that is, again, a non-necessary comment, lol. There are things more important than money, which I can't believe I'm actually saying considering my audience is those who subscribe to a website (useful as it may be) called "Money Saving Expert", lol. Perhaps that is my mistake, but I would like to believe that morality is not something you must sacrifice in order to be money-conscious.

I am glad that at least a few posters responded in a helpful manner - thank you wealdroam, neilmcl and especially bod1467 for your non-negative responses to a legitimate request for help. It is much appreciated, as (obviously), not everyone has what must be a "kindness bone" in their body.

arcon5

s.j664 wrote: »

As mentioned: please do not waste thread space with this kind of response. This is the same kind of pseudo-'trolling' which afflicts many of the threads on the Consumer's Rights forums.

I don't think any competent person needs an explanation to understand that whether an item is 'cheap' or not is 100% irrelevant from a moral perspective.

Whether an item is cheap or not is very relevant in determining whether goods have 'lasted a reasonable time'. In this case, the poster you refer to clearly thinks you purchased a lower quality model and paid the price as the longevity is not what you would expect had you purchased a more superior (and usually more expensive) model.
SOGA does consider price a factor.

(2A)For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.

arcon5

Yes, Padz just made a simple comment, but I would ask you all this: Did it offer any kind of useful or helpful information to anyone reading this thread now or in the future?

I would agree the post you refer to could be more informative, however it did bring to light a very valid point that price matters.

I think it's a pretty obvious "No".

In your opinion.

The fact of the matter is simply that posts like those can - without knowing it - alienate the less-fortunate; how would you feel if you were a severely poor individual, and everywhere you look there is that one, two or more individuals who seem to believe that your worries/concerns are not valid.

What a load of cobblers. I fail to see how this affects only the poor!

I am glad that at least a few posters responded in a helpful manner - thank you wealdroam, neilmcl and especially bod1467 for your non-negative responses to a legitimate request for help. It is much appreciated, as (obviously), not everyone has what must be a "kindness bone" in their body.

Well I thought my comment was quite constructive.

I guess the only type of comments you don't like are those that disagree with you.

bod1467

True. But the 6 months initial period would surely still apply? (Unless the goods by their very nature are not expected to last 6 months. In this case a laptop charger would be expected to last at least a year - even a cheap one. Bear in mind we have had no info from the OP as to price paid, so we don't know if it WAS cheap).

Edit: that was in reply to arcon's previous post, not the one immediately above.

System

Its a well known fact that one of the biggest hardships the severely poor face is having trouble getting a replacement laptop charger

halibut2209

Padz' comment was perfectly fine. Chargers are cheap and many people would find it less hassle to simply buy another one. Especially considering that the seller only has to give a partial refund

arcon5

Some obvious reasons not to tell someone to just "go buy another one; it's cheap":

1. The individual you're speaking to may be very environmentally-friendly, and does not waste, pollute, or just 'chuck things away' when they do not work.
2. The individual could be a DIY'er (Do It Yourself), in which they - like individual #1 - do not simple throw things away when they don't work, but has the understanding / know-how to fix it themselves.
3. The individual could be very poor, and your comments to "go buy another one; it's cheap" is simply rude, discourteous, and very naive as to the machinations and economy of this world.

None of which necessarily mean you have a valid case under SOGA. Which, correct me if i'm wrong, that's what it comes down to here?

bod1467

But the OP does have a valid case under SOGA - until the seller can prove otherwise.

arcon5

bod1467 wrote: »

True. But the 6 months initial period would surely still apply? (Unless the goods by their very nature are not expected to last 6 months. In this case a laptop charger would be expected to last at least a year - even a cheap one. Bear in mind we have had no info from the OP as to price paid, so we don't know if it WAS cheap).

Edit: that was in reply to arcon's previous post, not the one immediately above.

Yes.

I do agree with op here though, I wouldn't expect the item to fail after such a period of time, even if it was a lower end product.

But the point is, op seems to be dismissing any comment that doesn't fit his views and seems to be posting some bizarre reasons for wanting a repair which in fact carry to relevance. 'I want a repair because i'm environmentally friendly' for example is a weird angle to take.

s.j664

bod1467 wrote: »

The ultimate path is to send the seller a Letter Before Action (recorded delivery) and then follow it up with Small Claims Court action. If it gets to this stage then the "it was cheap - buy another" argument starts to take credence; it really depends on how you value your own time.

Thanks for your response; very detail-oriented and non-biased.

I did not purchase this item in any auction-style setting; no bidding/buyouts, etc - just a simple purchase price which I paid.

Most-assuredly, a Small Claim Court action would rule out any possibility of saving money. However - as many have likely surmised by now - money is, in my mind, not the main reason I am here.

I am, arguably, one of those ridiculously-annoying individuals, whom other businesses probably hate, because I care more about the principle of a matter than the monetary costs surrounding it. This is - as I have come to understand throughout the years - a very frowned-upon stance, and contrary to most of the 'unspoken laws' human beings have with one another.

I rock the boat, but only when the boat has done something immoral, wrong, or downright criminal. In that regard, the boat 'deserves', in my mind, to be rocked and/or sunk to re-balance the imbalance it wrongfully created.

Many of you may hate individuals like myself, but I ask you this: without those types of individuals, where would you all be? Sacrifice is sometimes necessary; standing up for your rights - inalienable and otherwise - is not a choice (in my mind), but a responsibility.

From now till the day you die, I would ask that you take notice of every time you are cheated, lied to, hoodwinked, and ripped off. Now, during each of those moments, I ask you to take notice of if you stand up to what is wrong, or if you take the beating and sit down without a fuss. How do you feel when it happens to you; because it will happen to you. That boat you're going to buy, in the far-future, will have a serious underlying mold problem, and the seller will laugh at you when you try and get your money back.

When that day comes, I want you to remember that today (when you had the chance to be good and kind) you, instead, decided to be the exact same type of individual who laughs, makes stupid comments, and attempts to alienate the individual who is being/has been ripped off. Remember, that you were guilty of that same behaviour. You'll understand one day - I guarantee it.

You can take the right path, or the easy path. I think we all know the difference in the end.

Thanks, bod1467, for your great reply. I believe I have enough information to proceed now.

For those with the unnecessary / rude comments: respond all you'd like, but I won't be checking this thread again. I think I've all the information I need to find my way now, and I hope - without intending to - we've all learned something today; more, likely, about humanity itself, than one of its (in the grand scheme of all things), ultimately, irrelevant laws.

Just remember: Think and Remember.