Ebuyer - Sale of Goods Act - buyers beware!

teffers

pcombo wrote: »

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...

The point is he had to fight them to get them to do the right thing, and only then as a 'gesture of goodwill' etc.

I agree your last bit though, some people ...:money:

malc_b

CoolHotCold wrote: »

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.

Hang on a minute. Ebuyer now have faulty RAM (with a lifetime guaranty) which they return to the manufacturer who gives them more RAM. How are Ebuyer out of pocket? They have to pay postage for collection and delivery but that is covered in SoGA, they must cover that anyway. Also SoGA says disproportionate means unreasonable. It's not unreasonable for Ebuyer to have to pay out when things go wrong. If it happened within 6 months they would have replaced the item and the costs would have been exactly the same so clearly the costs weren't unreasonable at 6 months and they haven't changed at 8 month. One of the costs of doing business is replacing items that fail.

Also, I wasn't asking for advice. I was letting buyers know Ebuyer's policy so they could make up their own mind if they want to do business with a company with such a policy or whether they would prefer a company with a more correct interpretation of SoGA. I say correct as although you may think my interpretation of SoGA is wrong, my view is same as my solicitor and the same as consumer direct.

I was correcting posts which go against what my solicitor and consumer direct told me and what I read of SoGA. I wouldn't want someone reading this thread to think that Ebuyer is entitled to do this as that is NOT what I have been told by the legal experts.

Also, I've yet to find in SoGA where it says the seller can rescind the contract and REDUCE the refund.

pcombo

malc_b wrote: »

Hang on a minute. Ebuyer now have faulty RAM (with a lifetime guaranty) which they return to the manufacturer who gives them more RAM. How are Ebuyer out of pocket? They have to pay postage for collection and delivery but that is covered in SoGA, they must cover that anyway. Also SoGA says disproportionate means unreasonable. It's not unreasonable for Ebuyer to have to pay out when things go wrong. If it happened within 6 months they would have replaced the item and the costs would have been exactly the same so clearly the costs weren't unreasonable at 6 months and they haven't changed at 8 month.

Also, I wasn't asking for advice. I was letting buyers know Ebuyer's policy so they could make up their own mind if they want to do business with a company with such a policy or whether they would prefer a company with a more correct interpretation of SoGA. I say correct as although you may think my interpretation of SoGA is wrong, my view is same as my solicitor and the same as consumer direct.

I use ebuyer all the time, And i have never had a problem with them refunding or exchanging stuff. Except my 2 year old TV that broke that was out of its warranty which was 1 year.

I managed to get ebuyer to agree to collect it free and do a fault report + repair it and deliver it for free.

I would say that would have cost them money since SOGA requires the customer to get the fault report done.

Ebuyer are actually good company.

You got your 90% refund forget section a and b and c and what not no one here really cares.

If you want the same memory pay the difference or get different and cheaper. Move on.

malc_b

Actually I got the RAM replaced. But I don't think I would use a company that now is bending SoGA. I've used them for ages and also not had a problem with them before, but it looks like that has changed.

Anyway, this wasn't intended to be a discussion or a request for advice. It was just a heads up. Ebuyer's policy is now to give partial refunds for items over 6 months old. If you are happy with that, even though it reduces your SoGA rights (confirmed by legal sources) then fine.

pcombo

malc_b wrote: »

Actually I got the RAM replaced. But I don't think I would use a company that now is bending SoGA. I've used them for ages and also not had a problem with them before, but it looks like that has changed.

Anyway, this wasn't intended to be a discussion or a request for advice. It was just a heads up. Ebuyer's policy is now to give partial refunds for items over 6 months old. If you are happy with that, even though it reduces your SoGA rights (confirmed by legal sources) then fine.

Well if you know much about computers you will know its probably impossible to repair memory.

So the only other option is replace that or refund you.

So you must have picked replace when you submitted the RMA. So what was ebuyers reason for not doing this.

cardinalbiggles

CoolHotCold wrote: »

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).

What a load of old cobblers. That's Consumer Directs job! They pass on cases to Trading Standards that warrant them looking at them. Its a triage in effect to reduce the load on TS.

malc_b

pcombo wrote: »

Well if you know much about computers you will know its probably impossible to repair memory.

So the only other option is replace that or refund you.

So you must have picked replace when you submitted the RMA. So what was ebuyers reason for not doing this.

Yes, I picked replace when I returned the RAM. Ebuyer emailed to say the RAM had been found to be faulty but as it was over 6 months old, in line the Ebuyer's T&Cs which comply with Sale of Goods Act (so Ebuyer claim, Consumer Direct and my solicitor say not), the request for replacement is refused and instead a partial refund will be credited to your credit card.

Some emails and phone calls later Ebuyer decided to replace the RAM instead (after I said I would sue :cool: as I had insurance for such things).

Hence my post to let people know that when you buy from Ebuyer if the part breaks after 6 months you won't get it replaced nor all your money back (without a fight).

Zandoni

They are the only company that I have personally come across that do this, it might make me change my buying habits in the future as I use them a lot.

neilmcl

malc_b wrote: »

Yes, I picked replace when I returned the RAM. Ebuyer emailed to say the RAM had been found to be faulty but as it was over 6 months old, in line the Ebuyer's T&Cs which comply with Sale of Goods Act (so Ebuyer claim, Consumer Direct and my solicitor say not), the request for replacement is refused and instead a partial refund will be credited to your credit card.

Well, as already mentioned, in general terms the information you received from the TS and your solicitor is incorrect, or at the very least only specific to this particular instance. Generally the retailer are well within their rights to offer a partial refund after the "reasonable period" as passed to take into account any usage the buyer has had from the item, so long as this remedy isn't disproportionate to any other remedy.

vaio

all part of "deny & lie" which is coming to be the general model for business these days

Anything that costs them money will be "denied & lied", if 80% of punters accept it (which looking at the posts on here seems a bit low if anything) then they are quids in and can grudgingly do the correct thing for the other 20%.

I agree with the general thrust of the OP's reading of SOG but it's also worth remembering that SOG is a codified subset of contract law intended to make like easy for consumers but there is nothing to stop disgruntled punters relying on the wider contract law if they need to sue.

SOG gives the consumer the option of rescinding the contract which places everybody back in the position they would have been in had the contract never existed.

Wider contract law also allows "enforcement" which puts the buyer in the position he would have been in had the seller performed the contract properly.

As long as you give the seller the opportunity to sort things out then if they refuse you can source equivalent goods elsewhere and recover the costs (inc consequential costs) from the seller,

Much the same as if you paid someone £250 to tile your bathroom and he (or she) bug gered it up. To fix it (ie put you in the position you would have been in if the tiler had done a proper job) needs all the new tiles to be removed, new tile to be supplied and fixed together with glue/grout.

This could well end up costing well in excess of the original £250 but the bad tiler is still liable and can't escape that liability just by giving you back the original £250