Multiple exchanges of goods and acceptance rule regards refunds?

frugal_mike

deckhanddave wrote: »

It seems like I think differently to the majority of you regards this third pair of boots being 7 month old as the initial pair were purchased then. To me it seems logical that if a pair of boots fail in two to three months and then so do the next two replacements, they must have an inherent fault. As such they were not fit for purpose and therefore the purchaser should be able to get his money back. Anyway, that part of the story is now done with and thank you all for your input.

I would now like to ask you all if my thoughts on the next stage of this are correct,

The credit note plus an extra £5.00 were used to purchase a different type of boot. This sale is now a new sale albeit still under his trade account? Therefore his twelve month warranty starts from the day they were purchased, is this correct?

It's not so much that the 3rd pair of boots are 7 months old (they could have been made the day your friend received them, or many months earlier), but that the sale and thus the contract is 7 months old.

Imagine two customers, one who bought a pair of boots that failed after 7 months usage and one that is in your friends situation with a pair of replaced but failed boots after 7 months total usage. They have both had 7 months benefit from the contract so it makes sense they have the same legal rights.

The above may be beside the point if it was a b2b transaction as others have pointed out.

As to your second question, I believe the credit note terminated the original contract and any purchase made with them was a new transaction. There will have been a new receipt and a new contract. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will confirm or deny this.

bris

deckhanddave wrote: »

It seems like I think differently to the majority of you regards this third pair of boots being 7 month old as the initial pair were purchased then. To me it seems logical that if a pair of boots fail in two to three months and then so do the next two replacements, they must have an inherent fault. As such they were not fit for purpose and therefore the purchaser should be able to get his money back. Anyway, that part of the story is now done with and thank you all for your input.

I would now like to ask you all if my thoughts on the next stage of this are correct,

The credit note plus an extra £5.00 were used to purchase a different type of boot. This sale is now a new sale albeit still under his trade account? Therefore his twelve month warranty starts from the day they were purchased, is this correct?

The reason the newest pair was still 7 months old are becuase they are a continuaion of the first pair, just like the first were were never faulty in the first place, to keep you in the same position you were at the start. The other reason is to stop infinite claims on goods, if they always had a new warranty then people would abuse it and have 1 pair of boots forever.

The new purchase will be seperate from this one, so will have a new warranty. The first purchase was tied off with the credit note, it is still a B2B transaction though so still under their terms.

Please also note if the new pair go the same way and you take them back they may look for other reasons as to why the boots are failing, such as being particularly heavy on them at work.
They will put a stop to it if they think you are taking the p**s,

[Deleted User]

bris wrote: »

The other reason is to stop infinite claims on goods, if they always had a new warranty then people would abuse it and have 1 pair of boots forever.

I've often seen such obvious attempts, sometimes as late as eleven months since purchase.