Heavy bulky goods faulty - no need to return

malchish

jacques_chirac wrote: »

What a bizarre thread!

Would I be right to summarise that the OP does not understand the difference between a goodwill gift and a legal obligation?

Or the poster does not understand that often goodwill gestures are the result of realisation of legal obligation?
The company would have lost the chargeback anyway. It is much better to do a goodwill.
And, by the way, the company saw this not as a goodwill, but as a way to fulfil their obligations.

wealdroam

malchish wrote: »

And, by the way, the company saw this not as a goodwill, but as a way to fulfil their obligations.

How on earth do you know that?

jacques_chirac

malchish wrote: »

Or the poster does not understand that often goodwill gestures are the result of realisation of legal obligation?
The company would have lost the chargeback anyway. It is much better to do a goodwill.
And, by the way, the company saw this not as a goodwill, but as a way to fulfil their obligations.

No, nowhere have you demonstrated that such a legal obligation exists.

shaun_from_Africa

jacques_chirac wrote: »

What a bizarre thread!

Would I be right to summarise that the OP does not understand the difference between a goodwill gift and a legal obligation?

Perhaps malchish could explain the following.
If as you say, Robert Dyas were fulfilling their legal obligations, why did they not give the purchaser a refund back to their payment card as that is what the law requires.

Giving vouchers instead of a payment refund is not what their legal obligations oblige them to do, and giving vouchers is what many retailers do as a goodwill gesture.

malchish

because it was easier for them, and the client was happy to compromise and agree. Simples.

malchish

wealdroam wrote: »

How on earth do you know that?

I do. What is for sure, you don't.

malchish

jacques_chirac wrote: »

No, nowhere have you demonstrated that such a legal obligation exists.

It is nice to see such an active new (from yesterday) poster on the forum. Welcome! You seem to be very knowledgeable.

No, I did.

shaun_from_Africa

malchish wrote: »

because it was easier for them.

Giving a refund to a payment card can be done without the customer being present and simply needs a couple of buttons pressing on a computer and is about the easiest way a retailer can refund for a transaction.

Giving vouchers instead of a cash refund is not easier to do as it would require more paperwork and more effort.

malchish

Of course, vouchers are easier for them, because it costs them less, but the customer did not mind.
What are you trying to prove? Are you happy for people to be able to get refunds for heavy faulty items without the hassle of hiring a van to bring them back? Or are you unhappy about that? You want people who had the misfortune of buying rubbish quality goods, to vget stuck with them if they cannot bring them back? you want them to have no refunds?
What are you trying to defend? the right of a seller who sold a bad product to get away with the money - just sell it boxed and make sure they are big enough?
This is the forum about consumer rights - not about how to dissuade consumer to claim their rights. If some people are unhappy about a consumer getting money back for an undisputably faulty item and not having to spend time/costs on returning it - why bother waste time to post?
We should all celebrate the consumer victory, and respect the store who resolved things amicably.

wealdroam

malchish wrote: »

I do. What is for sure, you don't.

I did not ask whether or not you knew it.

I asked how you knew it.

Can you please answer the question.