M&S policy overriding consumer law

gwgw45

bod1467 wrote: »

After 3 months, you didn't have a right to insist on a refund, you had a right to insist on a remedy - ONE of which is a refund, but is ultimately the retailer's choice.
.

That is your subjective opinion, I disagree given the specific circumstances, we are both entitled to our respective opinions.

Thank you for your response and for taking the trouble to grape the main point, M&S avoiding their statutory responsibilities.

G

vyle

I suppose it's too late, OP, to point out that they are within their rights not to offer a warranty on -- or indeed, to offer a warranty on -- anything they like.

If you were trying to claim a refund under warranty, and they refused a refund on that basis, that's perfectly fine and dandy.

The later manager offered an exchange from outside the warranty sphere, something that is well within the law. You are still banging on about how your rights were infringed and that they broke the law. You are lying.

In an ideal world, all shop assistants would have an understanding of the SOGA, but they won't, and even if they did, people like you will still misinterpret it. That's why companies have legal departments, to deal with legislature and legal disagreements. If you're trying to take something back, next time you may have a smoother ride by explaining that you're not trying to claim under warranty, and remember that by the letter of the law, the remedy is not your choice.