Ebuyer - Sale of Goods Act - buyers beware!

neilmcl

malc_b wrote: »

SoGA actually describes disproportionate as unreasonable, which I think is what most people would take it as

No, SOGA "actually" describes disproportionate as a remedy which "imposes COSTS on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable". In other words if the cost of one remedy is unreasonable in comparison to another then it's disproportionate.

somethingcorporate

neilmcl wrote: »

No, SOGA "actually" describes disproportionate as a remedy which "imposes COSTS on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable". In other words if the cost of one remedy is unreasonable in comparison to another then it's disproportionate.

And disproportionate derived from "proportion" would be a relative comparison of the costs of remedy not an absolute comparison. So if one was 50% higher even if this 50% represented just a few pounds, I would say it could be argued to be disproportionate.

malc_b

neilmcl wrote: »

No, SOGA "actually" describes disproportionate as a remedy which "imposes COSTS on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable". In other words if the cost of one remedy is unreasonable in comparison to another then it's disproportionate.

I fail to understand the difference between "SoGA actually describes disproportionate as unreasonable" and above. Costs is implied. Everything comes down to money, what else? And so comparison with other solutions. What else would it be? The retailer does nothing because all are unreasonable? He has to pick one solution.

somethingcorporate

Yes, the one which is proportionately better (cheaper) for them.

neilmcl

malc_b wrote: »

I fail to understand the difference between "SoGA actually describes disproportionate as unreasonable" and above. Costs is implied.

Then why jump on somethingcorporate's statement in the first part of your post #51.

Your posts are becoming increasingly contradictory.

malc_b

neilmcl wrote: »

Then why jump on somethingcorporate's statement in the first part of your post #51.

Your posts are becoming increasingly contradictory.

I see I think. I didn't understand what you meant by just quoting the full SoGA text and highlighting costs in bold. To me that was the same as my shorted version "SoGA actually describes disproportionate as unreasonable". Costs and comparison with all solutions was implied I thought.

What I was jumping on somethingcorporate's statement in #51 was that disproportionate in not just a straight comparison between solutions. SoGA says the difference must be unreasonable.

Otherwise consumers would be in a very poor position. It is always going to be cheaper to pay out less that the purchase price and avoid delivery charges. So on straight cost comparison, ignoring "unreasonable" the partial refund always wins. If you buy an item that is faulty then you lose out. That's not what SOGA intends AFAIK, if that is legal then SoGA has a loophole.

BTW partial refund could also occur at 0-6mth since 6mth time limit only affects the presumption of fault. 0-6mth the fault is presumed to be a manufacturing fault. 6mth on and you have to prove a manufacturing fault. Which has no effect on remedies, nor how disproportionate they are.

somethingcorporate

You raise some interesting and valid points there Malc.

You do need to consider that actually a partial refund may not be the most cost effective resolution for the company. If they have their own in house repair function or a contractual agreement with their supplier on faulty items it may possibly work out much better for them to repair or replace as they then keep the original revenue.

The problem is we can only really make estimates as to the true cost of something but in the complex reality of a corporate these costs are very opaque. Something as simple as buying stationery can cost a company hundreds of times more than walking into a shop and buying a biro from WH Smiths. Since the consumers cannot have any transparency over the comparison of costs of remedies, this is the reason that the choice of remedy ultimately falls to the retailer. As long as it is within the rules then unfortunately we as consumers just have to lump it.

Sasahara

This thread seem to have gone off into tangents that aren't really relevant.

To clarify, ebuyer are well within there rights to make a refund if replacing a faulty item isn't cost effective (aka costing them more than the original item did). That can be due to many reasons like availability of item or cost of item has increased since the original purchase.

Also ebuyer are unlikely to get a direct replacement from their supplier, they are far more like to get a credit note for the value they originally paid. So if the price has gone up & ebuyer did replace they would lose out.

Up to 6 months you would expect a 100% refund for most items.

After 6 months use they are entitled to offer/pay all the money or a % based on the use you have had.

I got a full refund for a failing PSU 2 year and 10 months after purchase from ebuyer. The chances are PSUs had been stable in price and they were not losing out or I was just lucky.

You are also entitled to reject this and ask for more. (In this case you got more with them to replace the Ram) If you can't reach an agreement you can go to court and a judge will decide.

A lot of this came up recently with the Hard Drive shortage when retail prices more than doubled and people returned faulty drives which instead of getting a new drive they got a full refund and found out it wouldn't buy them a new drive.

They weren't too happy, but the refund was perfectly legal.

What they should have done is returned them under warrantee to get a direct replacement from he manufacturer. But this required knowledge of the specific market.

Zandoni

Sasahara wrote: »

This thread seem to have gone off into tangents that aren't really relevant.

To clarify, ebuyer are well within there rights to make a refund if replacing a faulty item isn't cost effective (aka costing them more than the original item did). That can be due to many reasons like availability of item or cost of item has increased since the original purchase.

Also ebuyer are unlikely to get a direct replacement from their supplier, they are far more like to get a credit note for the value they originally paid. So if the price has gone up & ebuyer did replace they would lose out.

Up to 6 months you would expect a 100% refund for most items.

After 6 months use they are entitled to offer/pay all the money or a % based on the use you have had.

I got a full refund for a failing PSU 2 year and 10 months after purchase from ebuyer. The chances are PSUs had been stable in price and they were not losing out or I was just lucky.

You are also entitled to reject this and ask for more. (In this case you got more with them to replace the Ram) If you can't reach an agreement you can go to court and a judge will decide.

A lot of this came up recently with the Hard Drive shortage when retail prices more than doubled and people returned faulty drives which instead of getting a new drive they got a full refund and found out it wouldn't buy them a new drive.

They weren't too happy, but the refund was perfectly legal.

What they should have done is returned them under warrantee to get a direct replacement from he manufacturer. But this required knowledge of the specific market.

Ebuyer are well within there rights to make a refund, but it's not good customer service. Sometimes a small loss is worth it to any company to maintain their customers.

With the Hard drive's during the shortage, if you returned them to the manufacturer you get a refurbished drive back and it can take a lot longer.

neilmcl

Sasahara wrote: »

Up to 6 months you would expect a 100% refund for most items.

After 6 months use they are entitled to offer/pay all the money or a % based on the use you have had.

You might "expect" a full refund under 6 months but the fact of the matter is you're not necessarily entitled to one legally. The whole before/after 6 months has no basis in law other than to determine the burden of proof.