Currys: reseller not retailer?

CoolHotCold

If you remember the customer advisor and the store send a email to [EMAIL="LetUsKnow@KnowHow.com"]LetUsKnow@KnowHow.com[/EMAIL] what the advisor (if that's what they said) goes against all training supplied.

Equaliser123

somethingcorporate wrote: »

It's only a TV so it is hard to say this luxury item being away for 28 days is "significantly inconvenient".

That's an interesting point.

I don't think the inconvenience point makes a distinction between luxury goods and otherwise. I also think that "inconvenient" is a really low bar to overcome.

If the OP only had one telly, then I'd say that it is significantly inconvenient to be without it for a month.

Was without broadband service for 2 weeks. Not life and death but an absolutley huge inconvenience when you realise how much you rely upon it.

yangptangkipperbang

danilou21 wrote: »

I have an issue with a TV that is less than a year old, so want to return it for a replacement.

You do not have this option.

danilou21 wrote: »

Currys say that we have to contact the manufactuer not them as the Sale of Goods act does not apply to them as they are only a reseller NOT a retailer.

Not correct.

The problem you have is that someone in Currys realised that you didn't understand SoGA so they then tried to bull***t you !
To some extent you have created your own problem.

tomwakefield

danilou21 wrote: »

Currys say that we have to contact the manufactuer not them as the Sale of Goods act does not apply to them as they are only a reseller NOT a retailer.

Just goes to show the lengths Curry's will go to to get out of their legal obligations. Of course Currys are a retailer. They may be a reseller too, but they can't get out of their obligations by trying to deny they're a shop. Wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw fridge-freezer

CoolHotCold

Unless of course it was purchased through a Business account.

tomwakefield

CoolHotCold wrote: »

Unless of course it was purchased through a Business account.

If it was, any decent retailer would have stated that as the reason, rather than making up some crap

Jakg

tomwakefield wrote: »

Just goes to show the lengths Curry's will go to to get out of their legal obligations. Of course Currys are a retailer. They may be a reseller too, but they can't get out of their obligations by trying to deny they're a shop. Wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw fridge-freezer

The SOGA says your contract is with the retailer (and thus they are responsible) UNLESS they are an agent of the manufacturer, in which case the manufacturer is responsible for repairs - but this DOESN'T apply in this case (or any cases where this is normally used!)

yangptangkipperbang

tomwakefield wrote: »

If it was, any decent retailer would have stated that as the reason, rather than making up some crap

Sorry - but isn't that what the purchaser was doing ? albeit possibly inadvertently.

It always seems to be the retailer who is cast as the "baddie". My daughter worked as a manager for several major retailers inc M&S and WHS, and if want to hear some c**p you should hear some of the stories a LOT of customers try on !

I am a great supporter of the customer's rights, but just by reading the posts on this site it is very obvious that many people march into a shop and start spouting off about their "rights" when their knowledge of these rights is pretty sketchy to say the least.
The "secret EU Law" and the "6 year warranty" under SoGA are the most often recurring examples.

In this particular thread the very first line of the very first post is incorrect - that is a fact. You are NOT entitled to a replacement. Can you really blame the retailer for what he did, if he thought (rightly or wrongly) that the customer was trying to pull a fast one on him ?

PS: I have never worked in the retail trade, before someone comes up with that :rotfl::rotfl:

tomwakefield

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

Sorry - but isn't that what the purchaser was doing ? albeit possibly inadvertently.

No. They say the SOGA doesn't apply to them because they aren't a retailer. Which they are.

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

It always seems to be the retailer who is cast as the "baddie".

More often than not, when Currys is involved, the retailer is the "baddie".

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

I am a great supporter of the customer's rights, but just by reading the posts on this site it is very obvious that many people march into a shop and start spouting off about their "rights" when their knowledge of these rights is pretty sketchy to say the least.

I agree with that.

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

In this particular thread the very first line of the very first post is incorrect - that is a fact.

Agreed. However, he may have some contractual rights.

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

Can you really blame the retailer for what he did, if he thought (rightly or wrongly) that the customer was trying to pull a fast one on him ?

Yes. They can't give any !!!! and bull reason why a replacement is refused.

Equaliser123

CoolHotCold wrote: »

Unless of course it was purchased through a Business account.

What difference would that make?