Not fir for purpose

Gavzee83

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

So it is faulty rather than being unfit for purpose then?

In the short time you have had the pram it would be deemed to have been faulty when manufactured. So you are entitled to a refund.

Yes it's faulty. The pneumatic system has failed. The pram will not unfold properly, so when you put the baby in the pram, the weight of the baby and the pram makes the whole pram want to fold. If I used it like this, I would have to push it holding the handle up so it does not fold.

I am going to make sure I get this refund - it's just getting Asda to collect the pram.

peachyprice

Have you tried taking it back to a store?

arcon5

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

So it is faulty rather than being unfit for purpose then?

Actually unfit for purpose sounds appropriate for a buggie that is unable to be secured in to an upright position, you simply cannot use it for its intended purpose because of it..

In the short time you have had the pram it would be deemed to have been faulty when manufactured. So you are entitled to a refund.

Incorrect.

Jamie_Carter

arcon5 wrote: »

Actually unfit for purpose sounds appropriate for a buggie that is unable to be secured in to an upright position, you simply cannot use it for its intended purpose because of it..

Incorrect.

Considering you just got it wrong regarding DSR's in another thread, I think you need to read up on the law.

arcon5

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Considering you just got it wrong regarding DSR's in another thread, I think you need to read up on the law.

I didn't get it wrong.

I suggest it is in fact YOU that checks your facts.

SOGA covers two things applicable to op:

acceptance of goods
the retailers right to reject the requested remedy if the cost is disproportionate to another remedy

Jamie_Carter

arcon5 wrote: »

I didn't get it wrong.

I suggest it is in fact YOU that checks your facts.

SOGA covers two things applicable to op:

acceptance of goods
the retailers right to reject the requested remedy if the cost is disproportionate to another remedy

If the item develops a fault within 6 months, it is deemed to have been faulty when manufactured. For this reason the buyer can refuse a replacement in favour of a refund.

arcon5

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

If the item develops a fault within 6 months, it is deemed to have been faulty when manufactured. For this reason the buyer can refuse a replacement in favour of a refund.

The 6 month rule has no relation to the remedy!

The 6 month rule simply requires the seller to prove the contrary or requires the buyer to prove the fault to be inherent after 6 months.

bod1467

Arcon5 is correct - the 6 months timeline is simply to define wherein lies the burden of proof. Once acceptance of the goods has happened (which HAS happened in this case) then any of the 3 remedies is available to the retailer. The purchaser can request a specific remedy but the retailer is not bound in law to comply if it is disproportionately costly versus another remedy.

Jamie_Carter

bod1467 wrote: »

Arcon5 is correct - the 6 months timeline is simply to define wherein lies the burden of proof. Once acceptance of the goods has happened (which HAS happened in this case) then any of the 3 remedies is available to the retailer. The purchaser can request a specific remedy but the retailer is not bound in law to comply if it is disproportionately costly versus another remedy.

I presume you have never worked in retail or law, because you have actually contradicted yourself.

unholyangel

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I presume you have never worked in retail or law, because you have actually contradicted yourself.

Would you care to elaborate as I'm failing to see the contradiction.

The 6 month burden of proof has no bearing on acceptance.