Ebuyer - Sale of Goods Act - buyers beware!

malc_b

Hi,

I bought some RAM from Ebuyer in Jan 2012 which failed. Returned this Ebuyer asking for a replacement. Ebuyer confirmed it was faulty but instead of a replacement instead gave me a partial refund (90%) claiming that this was allowed under Sale of Goods act.

I've a legal helpline with my home insurance so I contacted the duty solicitor there who told me Ebuyer were wrong. Section 48b gives the buyer the choice of repair/replacement/refund. I got the same answer from consumer direct, who also said they would be passing the case on to trading standards. Ebuyer stand by their claim, even though I have the same info from 2 independent legal expert sources. To be fair, as a gesture of good will (or perhaps as I said I would sue and had insurance that covered that) Ebuyer have replaced the RAM. They had the same RAM in stock.

Ebuyer claim that replacing the RAM is "disproportionate" as per section 48C hence they are allowed to give a partial refund. My solicitor thought this a very unlikely argument to succeed. It is there for such cases as asking for a new car for a faulty 3yr old one, not RAM which has gone up in price by £4, is in stock and only 6 months old. He also though the partial refund was unlikely to succeed either.

The RAM also had a lifetime warranty, something Ebuyer advertised on the item page but also refused to honour.

So buyer beware. If anything goes wrong with a purchase from Ebuyer you'll have a fight to get your rights.

CoolHotCold

Consumer direct always say they'll pass the cases on because they dont have enough time themselves to deal with it and it makes you feel like something will be done (no it won't).


Your "duty Lawyer" has mistaken information, you can request a resolution, but if one solution is cheaper than the others the retailer can pick. It doesn't matter if it's £4 or £40 price difference, theres still a price difference, it could be the manufacturer was covering some costs when you purchased it, or ebuyer got it cheaper or the price of Ram has risen and Ebuyer has to pay this and pass on the cost to the customers.

Ebuyer are within their rights to deduct monetary value from a item to account for the enjoyment you've had of it.

Also the lifetime warranty isn't with ebuyer, but with the manufacturer.
Hence why their product page says

Limited Lifetime Manufacturer Warranty

and as such if you wanted to follow that route you should of contacted the manufacturer.


Furthermore this isn't a consumer problem, this belongs in the Praise, Vents and Warnings board. I don't like Ebuyer, but they were right.

bod1467

Whilst there may not be any specific time frame mentioned in legislation, most reasonable people would say that there should be no deductions from a refund if an item fails within 6 months of purchase. So whilst Ebuyer were within their rights to refuse to replace, they were being disingenuous in offering only a 90% refund (IMHO).

bris

Both the duty solicitor and consumer direct were wrong. I would ask for my money back for the legal assistance from your insurer if they are that incompetant they cant get a simple thing like that right.

System

bod1467 wrote: »

Whilst there may not be any specific time frame mentioned in legislation, most reasonable people would say that there should be no deductions from a refund if an item fails within 6 months of purchase. So whilst Ebuyer were within their rights to refuse to replace, they were being disingenuous in offering only a 90% refund (IMHO).

Actually 10% reduction is very fair. That implies the life of the item would be 5 years.

malc_b

So according to CoolHotCold what we actually have a 6 month guaranty period. Everything increases in price, it's called inflation, or buying in the January sales. So any time something breaks after 6 months the price of the item is more, the retailer can give you 90% back meaning you have to pay another 10%, plus the price increase, to be back where you should be, with a working product.

The crux of the matter is what does disproportionately mean. Ebuyer are taking the line that any increase is disproportionate. In my case the RAM had increase in price by about £4. You can pay more that than in postage which Ebuyer would have to pay as well to return the items. Ebuyer are basically taking the p***.

Yes I know the lifetime warranty is with the manufacturer but Ebuyer advertise this making it an express condition of the sale. If Ebuyer do not want anything to do with that then they should not mention, or, at RMA time they should tell users to go to the manufacturer direct. However it is usual to go through the retailer in all cases for the first year even if the manufacturer does the repair or replacement.

The forum is called consumer rights which is what this is about. If I just though Ebuyer gave poor service that would be a vent.

Also, I've read the Sale of Goods and as far as I can see my duty solicitor and consumer direct are correct. The RAM is not fit for purpose as it failed. Hence it didn't conform to contract (Section 48A 1b) at time of delivery. Section 48A 3 says anything that fails with 6 months is presumed to be a manufacturing fault, but, it doesn't say any thing after isn't. You just have to prove it and that hasn't been questioned.

So section 48b says the buyer may require the seller to repair or replace, which I did. The seller's only get out of that are that the costs of repair/replacement are disproportionate. The only guidance on disproportionate are that compared to other remedies the costs are unreasonable (whatever unreasonable means). It also says that for disproportionate "the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale," should be taken into account. In my book that says Ebuyer should ignore price increases etc. and value my RAM at the current retail price which is what is their current value, ignoring they second hand of course.

pickpocketlocket

malc_b wrote: »

So section 48b says the buyer may require the seller to repair or replace, which I did. The seller's only get out of that are that the costs of repair/replacement are disproportionate. The only guidance on disproportionate are that compared to other remedies the costs are unreasonable (whatever unreasonable means). It also says that for disproportionate "the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale," should be taken into account.

This is the only part of your post that is relevant, and you are correct in that ebuyer have a "get out" in only offering you a refund. Beyond that it is all down to personal interpretation, and I would say that a 90% refund is fair.

pcombo

malc_b wrote: »

Hi,

I bought some RAM from Ebuyer in Jan 2012 which failed. Returned this Ebuyer asking for a replacement. Ebuyer confirmed it was faulty but instead of a replacement instead gave me a partial refund (90%) claiming that this was allowed under Sale of Goods act.

I've a legal helpline with my home insurance so I contacted the duty solicitor there who told me Ebuyer were wrong. Section 48b gives the buyer the choice of repair/replacement/refund. I got the same answer from consumer direct, who also said they would be passing the case on to trading standards. Ebuyer stand by their claim, even though I have the same info from 2 independent legal expert sources. To be fair, as a gesture of good will (or perhaps as I said I would sue and had insurance that covered that) Ebuyer have replaced the RAM. They had the same RAM in stock.

Ebuyer claim that replacing the RAM is "disproportionate" as per section 48C hence they are allowed to give a partial refund. My solicitor thought this a very unlikely argument to succeed. It is there for such cases as asking for a new car for a faulty 3yr old one, not RAM which has gone up in price by £4, is in stock and only 6 months old. He also though the partial refund was unlikely to succeed either.

The RAM also had a lifetime warranty, something Ebuyer advertised on the item page but also refused to honour.

So buyer beware. If anything goes wrong with a purchase from Ebuyer you'll have a fight to get your rights.

You got a refund go buy new ram, whats the problem they are refunding you to give you the choice of memory you buy.

If they sent you the cheapest ebuyer value ram like £10 for a stick you would probably still complain.

Some people...

bris

Have you actually read 48b, if so I ask you to read it again paying particular attention to 3 and 4. I also can't believe both your duty solicitor and consumer direct would get this wrong, is it not just that you read what you wanted to read and stopped there.

malc_b

The problem with a refund is I only got 90%, the RAM has gone up in price, and I'd have to pay post so it total the failure of the RAM leaves me out of pocket - why should it? If I buy a washing machine and it breaks down then you're saying I have to pay to get back to status quo of having a working washing machine of exactly the same make and type.

48b says

(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—
(a)impossible, or
(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or
(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.


So a) is out as the RAM is on the shelf. That leaves b) or c) noting that c) is money off (for a minor flaw) or money back and that 48C says:


(3)For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him.


Note this is the buyer rescinding the contract when the buyer's claim is thus purchase price less a usage allowance. It does not say the seller can rescind the contract and deduct a usage allowance. As far as I can see if the seller rescinds the contract he has to pay the full amount.


But getting back to 3 we are back to just b, in this the replacement is disproportionate to refund, whatever disproportionate means.


4 says:


(4)One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—
(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,
(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and
(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.


This is surely something on the lines of this new car you sold me has a scratch I want another new car to replace it. In my case the only realistic remedies are money back or replacement. It's not unreasonable to expect a like for like replacement after just over 6 months.


I don't see that 4 is meant to apply in this case but if we did apply it then a) says the value of my goods if they were working must be the same as the current value. Hence there is no disproportionate cost to the seller.

CoolHotCold

Disproportionate would generally mean. Doing X costs more than Z and Y.

If it was a car, then £4 isn't disproportionate, but for a £20 or £40 stick of RAM or even £100, 20% to 5% (when margins are small enough already) that £4 can mean a lot.


Point is, you may not like the advice we give and thats your option, to take it or leave it, but from what I see and from the legal point of view and general consensus, Ebuyer were right and you're unable to accept this.