"Benefit of Use" am I not entitled to a replacement ?

agrinnall

Thomas_Hardy wrote: »

Not if they use the reducing balance method of depreciation

(I agree it seems very harsh, but not as harsh as indicated by some of the calculations on here!)

I'd be inclined to agree with this, most computer components are available at a lower price 6 months later, so it's possible the 50% refund will in fact buy a new replacement (or adding 50% yourself will buy one twice as good as the original).

nox118

If it failed within six months I'd expect a full refund, especially as you can point out it was probably a manufacturing fault, i.e. the fault existed when the item was shipped to you.
I personally would purchase a better quality drive. Can you afford the extra £60-80 to do that?

Equaliser123

agrinnall wrote: »

I'd be inclined to agree with this, most computer components are available at a lower price 6 months later, so it's possible the 50% refund will in fact buy a new replacement (or adding 50% yourself will buy one twice as good as the original).

OP is entitled to be put in the position he would be in with a working product. In other words - how much to buy an equivalent today.

You may be absolutely right.

However, the concept they are applying of 'benefit of use' is utterly wrong.

halibut2209

Equaliser123 wrote: »

OP is entitled to be put in the position he would be in with a working product.

I thought you were a solicitor?

Yulter

I once returned a broken Mini ITX computer to Dabs.com 1 week before the warrenty was up, the computer had been discontinued so they refunded me the full price I paid.

Was very cool actually as there were some sites actually still selling it and they had it for around 3/4 of what I got refunded, so I could have rebought the same model and basically have free money.

I always thought if something breaks due to a fault you were entitled to the same or better via repair, refund or replacement as long as it is within warranty, how can they justify giving you half back after just 6 months.

Also can it not be sent back to the manufacturer for a replacement? I am very surprised Scan did not offer to send it back to the manufacturer for a replacement rather then try and rip you off.

bod1467

Warranty and legal rights are entirely separate matters. A warranty can have any (reasonable) terms applied to them ... legal rights are immutable* - they cannot be contracted out.

* For consumers. For business to business transactions then certain rights CAN be contracted out.

pinkshoes

Thomas_Hardy wrote: »

Not if they use the reducing balance method of depreciation

(I agree it seems very harsh, but not as harsh as indicated by some of the calculations on here!)

Why??

I would expect an SSD drive to last for 5 years, so if it's only managed 6 months, this is only 10% of its expected lifespan, so a 90% refund is fair!

OP, if the only other product is £100 more, then they should give you a 90% refund instead.

mattyprice4004

pinkshoes wrote: »

Why??

I would expect an SSD drive to last for 5 years, so if it's only managed 6 months, this is only 10% of its expected lifespan, so a 90% refund is fair!

OP, if the only other product is £100 more, then they should give you a 90% refund instead.

Because depreciation isn't linear.

bod1467

Agreed. BUT ... in my opinion there should be NO depreciation within the 1st 6 months.

visidigi

bod1467 wrote: »

Agreed. BUT ... in my opinion there should be NO depreciation within the 1st 6 months.

On a computer component? No chance - they're like buying new car!

Depreciation city...