Faulty Item sold on sale won't replace...

sukigirl1

Hi,

I''m wondering if anyone can give me urgent help?

I bought a camera on 50% sale price and after 2 weeks its became faulty. I have called the store and they advised that they would replace the camera but the camera I purchased was no longer available and that they will replace it for a camera at the value i paid, not like for like. I'm really unhappy at this as I feel that I am having to down grade due to a faulty item that they provided me with. I have since receiving the camera went out and bought a flash at £129.99 and lenses which are now useless as they won't replace the camera, will only give me the camera cash equivalent. What can I do? I'm waiting for a manager to call me back, really unhappy about the whole thing! Really not trying to get something for nothing here just angry that they won't replace the camera with what i have or like for like.

agrinnall

They won't do it because they don't have to, and because it would be a financial disaster for them to do so. You don't have to accept the alternative camera, you can insist on a refund which would at least allow you the option of buying the original camera at full price elsewhere so the money spent on other equipment isn't wasted.

sukigirl1

The only problem I have is the camera that I bought was £350 and we got it at £175 obviously snapped it up as its a great camera for the price. I can'[t afford to replace it.....none of the other cameras that they offered are anywhere near the quality of camera I got so i'm being downgraded and totally out of pocket due to their faulty goods....there is really no where I stand?

McKneff

You won't actually be out of pocket if you get a refund. You'll be back in the same position you were in.

Just get the refund and shop around, or wait for another sale.

Nothing else you can do.

shaun_from_Africa

Even though the contract of sale is between you and the retailer, this may well be one of the times it's better to ignore your legal rights and contact the manufacturer instead.

There is a very good chance that the camera will have a manufacturers warranty in place, and if it does, they may well repair or replace it for you.

visidigi

McKneff wrote: »

Nothing else you can do.

Not entirely true...

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Even though the contract of sale is between you and the retailer, this may well be one of the times it's better to ignore your legal rights and contact the manufacturer instead.

There is a very good chance that the camera will have a manufacturers warrenty in place, and if it does, they may well repair or replace it for you.

Indeed, what ^ he said, saves me writing it out

malchish

You can sue for damages under contract law. The vontract was to supply the functuoning camera. They are in breach of contract.
If you can reasonably prove that the camera is faulty, you can sue for replscement cost, or for the original cost plus the cos of noe useless attachments that you bought.
Small claims matter, all chances are that they will pay well before the court, just after letter before action from you.

It is not very well known that you can choose contract law , not sales of goods act.

somethingcorporate

What an interesting statement. If we take that to conclusion the OP would have to mitigate their losses so they would not be entitled to the full value of the accessories (as they would still have these). It could be the value difference between what they paid and their (now) second hand value.

What you are actually saying is that the retailer could be on the hook for thousands (flash, lenses, filters etc) which is obviously nonsense from the sale of a cheap camera and I am sure Small Claims would see it the same way otherwise we'd all be rushing out to buy end of the line stuff in the hope of getting a lot of cash out of a retailer when our add-ons no longer work.

Back in reality (and talking to my lawyer wife) she thinks that the absolute most that would be possible would be the retailer may have to fork out the difference for buying the camera elsewhere as this would avoid the OPs losses since their kit will all be usable again. Or, actually, they'd be entitled to the cost of getting it repaired which would be far lower and put them back in the position of having the contract fulfilled (which is all they are entitled to).

Sorry Malchish, wrong again!

visidigi

malchish wrote: »

You can sue for damages under contract law. The vontract was to supply the functuoning camera. They are in breach of contract.
If you can reasonably prove that the camera is faulty, you can sue for replscement cost, or for the original cost plus the cos of noe useless attachments that you bought.
Small claims matter, all chances are that they will pay well before the court, just after letter before action from you.

It is not very well known that you can choose contract law , not sales of goods act.

:wall: That is all.

kevinb5555

somethingcorporate wrote: »

What an interesting statement. If we take that to conclusion the OP would have to mitigate their losses so they would not be entitled to the full value of the accessories (as they would still have these). It could be the value difference between what they paid and their (now) second hand value.

What you are actually saying is that the retailer could be on the hook for thousands (flash, lenses, filters etc) which is obviously nonsense from the sale of a cheap camera and I am sure Small Claims would see it the same way otherwise we'd all be rushing out to buy end of the line stuff in the hope of getting a lot of cash out of a retailer when our add-ons no longer work.

Back in reality (and talking to my lawyer wife) she thinks that the absolute most that would be possible would be the retailer may have to fork out the difference for buying the camera elsewhere as this would avoid the OPs losses since their kit will all be usable again. Or, actually, they'd be entitled to the cost of getting it repaired which would be far lower and put them back in the position of having the contract fulfilled (which is all they are entitled to).

Sorry Malchish, wrong again!

Firstly we dont actully know how much the repair will cost so it is wrong to assum that it would be cheaper. Secondly not correcting you just asking if the OP purchased the extra equipment after the sale of the orginal goods, why would then the retailer be responsible due to fact this would be impossible for them to ever factor this in to a sale

George_Michael

You can sue for damages under contract law. The vontract was to supply the functuoning camera. They are in breach of contract.

And part of the agreed contract (agreed by both the seller and the buyer) would probably be that there will be a guarantee of some sort covering the goods.
This guarantee would form part of the contract (after all Malchish, surely you would agree that a contract is binding on all parties who agreed to it), and if this guarantee stipulated that in the event of the goods failing, either a repair, replacement or refund would be given, how can there be a breech of the original contract?