Ebuyer - Sale of Goods Act - buyers beware!

Zandoni

The bottom line is that it's perfectly legal to take away a % for the use a customer has had, but if we accept this without complaining it will become the norm.

malc_b

There is so much incorrect information that I feel the need to correct this.

Both consumer direct and a solicitor have told me that Ebuyer do not have the right to force a refund. SoGA is clear that the customer gets the choice.

The pre post 6 months only affects the presumption of a fault. Before 6 months and the fault was there when you bought it. After 6 months and you have to prove that (and "fault" can mean not of satisfactory quality, not that it was broken). It has no relevance to remedies from SoGA.

The only slightly grey area is that SoGA does not allow a consumer to insist on repair/replacement where that is disproportionate. SoGA goes to define disproportionate as unreasonable. If SoGA had meant that retailers could force a refund if it was the cheaper option then it would have said that. It doesn't. It says unreasonable which by no stretch means a few pounds cheaper. That is why 2 legal sources, experts in consumer law, say that what Ebuyer did is wrong.

However, the trust of this thread was to warn users of Ebuyer's policy and let users make up their own mind where to shop. Ebuyer may be in the wrong but get justice is not easy and it is simpler just to buy from a company that does honour SoGA.

If, someone would like to contradict this then please quote sources for this rather that stating opinion as fact. I can support the above with quotes from SoGA or just read SoGA section 48 on.

wealdroam

malc_b wrote: »

I can support the above with quotes from SoGA or just read SoGA section 48 on.

And I can support my opinion with quotes from SOGA... in fact I have done so earlier in this thread.

All you have done is sought opinions.
It just so happens that they agree.

There is no guarantee that any judge who is asked to make a decision on any particular case is going to agree with you or your learned advisors.

I'll now leave you to keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

somethingcorporate

Malc your post is incredibly contradictory.

The consumer gets the choice, the retailer can reject if it is disproportionate. If a remedy is 50% cheaper than another then the more expensive can be rejected as being disproportionate. I don't see how else anyone could interpret "disproportionate".

If repair or replacement is more expensive (as ebuyer could argue) then they can partially refund you. You appear to suggest this is the case and then contradict yourself by saying that ebuyer were wrong to do so.

malc_b wrote: »

My solicitor thought this a very unlikely argument to succeed.

Very unlikely does not mean 100% cast iron guarantee - and nothing is law is 100%. I bet I (and ebuyer) could find a legal representative to argue the other side of the case.

neilmcl

malc_b wrote: »

There is so much incorrect information that I feel the need to correct this. You only keep adding to it.

Both consumer direct and a solicitor have told me that Ebuyer do not have the right to force a refund. SoGA is clear that the customer gets the choice. Maybe not in your case but generally they can. Yes, you can choose but you can't insist - see below

The pre post 6 months only affects the presumption of a fault. Before 6 months and the fault was there when you bought it. After 6 months and you have to prove that (and "fault" can mean not of satisfactory quality, not that it was broken). It has no relevance to remedies from SoGA. I've already stated this.

The only slightly grey area is that SoGA does not allow a consumer to insist on repair/replacement where that is disproportionate. SoGA goes to define disproportionate as unreasonable. If SoGA had meant that retailers could force a refund if it was the cheaper option then it would have said that. It doesn't. It says unreasonable which by no stretch means a few pounds cheaper. That is why 2 legal sources, experts in consumer law, say that what Ebuyer did is wrong. Again, we've already established what "disproportionate" means and it's everything to do with costs imposed on the retailer. It most definitely isn't a "grey area".

However, the trust of this thread was to warn users of Ebuyer's policy and let users make up their own mind where to shop. Ebuyer may be in the wrong but get justice is not easy and it is simpler just to buy from a company that does honour SoGA. To say Ebuyer doesn't honour SOGA is just plain wrong, if you want to say this then I suggest you take them to court and get a judge to rule in your favour. Then, and only then can you say this, else it's just opinion.

If, someone would like to contradict this then please quote sources for this rather that stating opinion as fact. I can support the above with quotes from SoGA or just read SoGA section 48 on. I don't need to provide sources other than the SOGA, it's just you seem to have difficulty with interpreting it.

OK, I'll bite.

Sasahara

malc_b wrote: »

There is so much incorrect information that I feel the need to correct this.

Both consumer direct and a solicitor have told me that Ebuyer do not have the right to force a refund. SoGA is clear that the customer gets the choice.

Since your case was about a 90% refund you can't even use the advice you got as a general statement. They were correct in that ebuyer can't force you to accept a % refund.

The thing is Ebuyer didn't force you to have a refund, they just gave you one. Then it's up to you if you choose to except it. (which you didn't)

OTOH you can't force them to replace or repair either. Lucky you persisted in asking for replacement and they relented. They didn't have to, but I suspect a manager looked at the case and decided the small value wasn't worth spending any more time on.

But lets get this straight, no one has been forced to do anything.

malc_b wrote: »

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.

Unfortunatly your book has no legal basis.

For a standard retail purchase agreement liability for losses for breaching the agreement are generally limited to the purchase price of the product you purchased. (There are always exceptions, but these will be extremely rare) You will tend to find something relating like this on most online retailers T&C, but in general they wouldn't need to as SoGA supports this view.

So a retailer giving a 100% refund would terminate the contract and all obligations. You can refuse, but if it went to court you are extremely unlikely to get a better outcome for a standard faulty item/replacement case and probably be liable for costs.

malc_b

Sasahara wrote: »

Since your case was about a 90% refund you can't even use the advice you got as a general statement. They were correct in that ebuyer can't force you to accept a % refund.

Point taken. The default would be to cancel the contract and thus a full refund. In general I could also claim any additional losses I suffered.

Sasahara wrote: »

The thing is Ebuyer didn't force you to have a refund, they just gave you one. Then it's up to you if you choose to except it. (which you didn't)

This is just phrasing. I asked for a replacement. Ebuyer refunded 90% to my credit card and told me after they did that. Ebuyer, forced (pushed, whatever) this solution against my expressed wishes. What word would you prefer instead? Offer to me means that Ebuyer asked me first, not did it then told me.

Sasahara wrote: »

OTOH you can't force them to replace or repair either. Lucky you persisted in asking for replacement and they relented. They didn't have to, but I suspect a manager looked at the case and decided the small value wasn't worth spending any more time on.

But, SoGA clearly says the consumer can request repair/replacement but that the retailer does not have to do that if it is disproportionate. In other words if it is NOT disproportionate then the retailer does have to do repair/replacement (or they could cancel and do full refund of course).

Sasahara wrote: »

For a standard retail purchase agreement liability for losses for breaching the agreement are generally limited to the purchase price of the product you purchased. (There are always exceptions, but these will be extremely rare) You will tend to find something relating like this on most online retailers T&C, but in general they wouldn't need to as SoGA supports this view.

Yes, but as you say there are exceptions. For example if I bought a solid gold watch which failed and the retailer just gave me my money back (gold having doubled in price in the meantime). I suspect I would have a case because the gold value had gone up. RAM has gone up in price for the same reason and it is also a commodity these days. It's a weak argument I'd agree and not one I'd risk in court.

In practice cancelling the contract also loses the retailer the profit on the sale so that tends to be a last resort in most cases.

The key is still disproportionate which SoGA say means unreasonable. SoGA does not say just costs less. If replacement was not disproportionate, which consumer direct and my solicitor say, the Ebuyer should have replaced the parts or, outside of SoGA they could have cancelled the contract and thus given a full refund.

Also, as I keep saying, this post was primarily to warn consumers of Ebuyer's T&Cs. I suspect we'll have to agree to differ on what SoGA means, however, consumer direct and my solicitor seem to agree with me.

I'm happy with the solution I got in the end but I wouldn't buy from Ebuyer in future with these T&C's and I've never had similar from any other retailer. Nor I note has anyone posted here that they have had the same from company X too. When something has failed it has been repaired or replaced or a full refund given. In one case, a 18 month old camera was repaired (Pixmania, 2yr warranty as standard). There was no question of a 75% refund.

George_Michael

Point taken. The default would be to cancel the contract and thus a full refund. In general I could also claim any additional losses I suffered.

Why would any retailer agree to cancelling the contract and giving out a full refund if they had already refused a full refund which is in line with their SOGA obligations?

But, SoGA clearly says the consumer can request repair/replacement but that the retailer does not have to do that if it is disproportionate. In other words if it is NOT disproportionate then the retailer does have to do repair/replacement (or they could cancel and do full refund of course).

The only people who could knowingly determine if something is disproportionate is the retailer in the first instance, then, once the evidence has been presented in court, a judge could give their opinion.

Yes, but as you say there are exceptions. For example if I bought a solid gold watch which failed and the retailer just gave me my money back (gold having doubled in price in the meantime). I suspect I would have a case because the gold value had gone up. RAM has gone up in price for the same reason and it is also a commodity these days. It's a weak argument I'd agree and not one I'd risk in court

It is extremely unlikely for any SOGA remedy to end up putting you in a better financial position than you would have been prior to the fault becoming evident.
If this was permissible, what would stop the retailer offering a far lower refund if the price of gold halved in price?

SoGA means, however, consumer direct and my solicitor seem to agree with me

.
But as already mentioned by others. A different CD agent and different solicitor might have a totally different opinion.

MiserlyMartin

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.

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).

I found out about this 6 month rule when I tried to return a HDD that is 7 months old. I think ebuyer are acting shockingly. For a start when you ask for the RMA online, it doesn't get processed until you phone them up. Why!?!! As all that happens when you phone them is a long wait then they try to fob you off with another email telling you how to return it to the OEM. Its not until you have to fight a bit and remind them about the SoGA and that the contract is between you and them that they then create an RMA to return to ebuyer. If you were to contact the OEM like they ask, the EOM just refers you back to the seller!

Ebuyer are cheap, but these incorrect practices relating to the SoGA are the reason why. Buyer beware!!! Their facebook page is full of disgruntled customers posts. The service at ebuyer seems to have gone way downhill lately.

Malc_b, you did a good thing by raising this issue on MSE. I really don't understand the high and mighty 'holier than thou' attitude of some of the responses you have received. They are unhelpful and unnecessary, and must be only posted for the reason of arguing for the sake of arguing. Unfortunately MSE has been invaded by these types of posts and it really spoils the experience of the forums.

MiserlyMartin

These are the current T's and C's from ebuyer that seem questionable under the SoGA.

"9.2 Any Orders that are over 6 months old and the Product has been confirmed to be defective and a refund is due, the refund will be calculated based on the age of the Order and you will be refunded a proportionate amount of the original purchase price of the Product. This does not include the carriage cost of the original Order which will not be refunded."

Even European law states a 2 year warranty on electrical items, but if PC parts are included I don't know. They certainly are 'electrical'!