Ebuyer - Sale of Goods Act - buyers beware!

somethingcorporate

What you are effectively arguing over is the word "disproportionate" in the legislation. Ebuyer have interpreted it one way, your "lawyer" has interpreted it another it doesn't make either right or wrong aside from your interpretation of it.

I'd suggest Ebuyer are absolutely in the right given it is over 6 months old and they have fulfilled their requirement under SOGA so any claim from you would ultimately fail. You've had 6 months+ use of RAM and it would cost you ~10% of the value of the RAM. Sounds fair to me.

Just because your lawyer interprets statute one way does not make them right. Do you think the army of lawyers supporting Samsung's defence against Apple thought they were wrong? There is often legal representation on the losing side in court cases.

Zandoni

somethingcorporate wrote: »

You've had 6 months+ use of RAM and it would cost you ~10% of the value of the RAM. Sounds fair to me.

I don't think it's fair at all. Usually RAM will last the life of a computer, so in theory the OP is now having to pay 110% fro their RAM.

If consumers keep accepting this sort of thing, other companies will follow.

CoolHotCold

Zandoni wrote: »

I don't think it's fair at all. Usually RAM will last the life of a computer, so in theory the OP is now having to pay 110% fro their RAM.

If consumers keep accepting this sort of thing, other companies will follow.

Well go moan to the government to change the laws then. Ebuyer are within their rights under the SoGA to do what they did. Don't blame the companies for acting correctly under current laws.

Zandoni

CoolHotCold wrote: »

Well go moan to the government to change the laws then. Ebuyer are within their rights under the SoGA to do what they did. Don't blame the companies for acting correctly under current laws.

Yes they are acting correctly under the current laws, but I will vote with my feet. Most companies are not.adopting this, but if Ebuyer wants to upset their customers then it's up to them.

vaio

Zandoni wrote: »

I don't think it's fair at all. Usually RAM will last the life of a computer, so in theory the OP is now having to pay 110% fro their RAM.

If consumers keep accepting this sort of thing, other companies will follow.

yep, or 120% if the new lot lasts as long as the old lot & 130% if the next lot..... etc etc.

And that's on something sold with a "lifetime" warranty

malc_b

neilmcl wrote: »

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.

And your qualifications to make this statement are? And doubtless you can point me towards the paragraph in SoGA that says this?

No offence but since you are saying that the my solicitor, AND, consumer direct are both wrong on a pretty cut and dry case I'd like some justification as to why I believe you and not those experts. And I'd like to see something online to back up what you say, say in SoGA.

But, either way, as others have pointed out even if this is actually legal then you can still vote with your credit card and buy off someone else with the more common customer service where items get repaired/replaced within 1 year.

somethingcorporate

Well they won't end up paying 110% for their next set of RAM because it should last 6 months than the one they bought previously.

So they get lifetime + 6 months worth of RAM for 6months + cost of RAM.

Seems fair?

somethingcorporate

malc_b wrote: »

And your qualifications to make this statement are? And doubtless you can point me towards the paragraph in SoGA that says this?

No offence but since you are saying that the my solicitor, AND, consumer direct are both wrong I'd like some justification as to why I believe you and not those experts. And I'd like to see something online to back up what you say, say in SoGA.

But, either way, as others have pointed out if this is actually legal then you can still vote with your credit card and buy off someone else with the more common customer service where items get repaired/replaced within 1 year.

Did you read my post about legal opinions? Same as doctors - get 10 in a room and you'll get 10 different responses.

SOGA for a proportionate reduction you can google yourself or read the FAQs at the top of the forum - it's in there.

Edit: Here is the CAB guide: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_common_problems_with_products_e/faulty_goods_e/faulty_goods.htm

and more specifically here:

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_common_problems_with_products_e/consumer_what_you_can_do_about_faulty_goods_e/faulty_goods_-_if_you_want_your_money_back.htm

That says you are only entitled to a partial refund:

"When you won't be able to get your money back

It’s unlikely you’ll be able to get a full refund if you have accepted the goods. This means that you've either:

• kept the goods for too long before telling the trader, or
• treated the goods as your own – for example by trying to repair or change the goods yourself in some way.

If you aren't entitled to a full refund for one of these reasons, you may be entitled to get some of your money back, or to a repair or replacement instead."

wealdroam

malc_b wrote: »

And your qualifications to make this statement are? And doubtless you can point me towards the paragraph in SoGA that says this?

No offence but since you are saying that the my solicitor, AND, consumer direct are both wrong on a pretty cut and dry case I'd like some justification as to why I believe you and not those experts. And I'd like to see something online to back up what you say, say in SoGA.

But, either way, as others have pointed out even if this is actually legal then you can still vote with your credit card and buy off someone else with the more common customer service where items get repaired/replaced within 1 year.

And as well as Somethingcorporate's response, here is a link to the Sale of Goods Act 1979 Part 5A.

Sections 48A and 48B are about the remedies available and that you cannot force a 'disproportionate' remedy.

Section 48C is perhaps that bit you are asking for...

Reduction of purchase price or rescission of contract 
(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may—
(a)require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods in question to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or
(b)rescind the contract with regard to those goods,
if the condition in subsection (2) below is satisfied.
(2)The condition is that—
(a)by virtue of section 48B(3) above the buyer may require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; or
(b)the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods, but the seller is in breach of the requirement of section 48B(2)(a) above to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the buyer.
(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.

In particular, note the last sentence.

Zandoni

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Well they won't end up paying 110% for their next set of RAM because it should last 6 months than the one they bought previously.

So they get lifetime + 6 months worth of RAM for 6months + cost of RAM.

Seems fair?

RAM shouldn't fail at all, so they are paying 110% so it's not fair.