Faulty reduced price items

unholyangel

Chrisod wrote: »

I wanted £19.50 off the new one which was the discount offered on the faulty box item. When my wife went to pay for this item the till showed up as £55 and had to be over ridden by a supervisor.
There was negligence
1 in the store not checking the item as well as the box was faulty.
2 selling an obsolete item without displaying this information.
I personally hate shopping and had to give up my time to travel to the store and sort this out and will have to do so again when they find a replacement part. The inconvenience value to me is worth at least £30.
I think the reasonable course of action was for the store to offer me the new model.
The store itself is having to take the time to chase up the same product in its other stores or to get the supervisor to chase up the manufacturer for a replacement part. I doubt if this is an efficient way to operate.
Is it the right of the store to decide whether they give the refund, repair or replacement or is this the choice of the consumer?

You cannot claim for inconvenience. If you have genuinely suffered a loss through a breach of contract then you can claim for any losses reasonably incurred, but you also have a statutory duty to mitigate your losses.

Giving you the new model would be seen as a betterment.

RosiPossum

You want £19.50 off a new one?
So return the old one, get the £19.50 refund, then put it towards the new one. Where's the problem?

It doesn't sound like they've done anything wrong. Your wife bought something, it wasn't as described, it was returned with a 'sorry, here is your money back!' and that wasn't satisfactory for you?

The store wasn't negligent. It sounds like they're trying to help you as much as possible.

Fosterdog

The consumer can request which option they prefer but they cannot insist on it, the final decision lies with the retailer.

They have been reasonable in offering you firstly a full refund and then to add a £10 off gesture of goodwill if you choose to go for the more expensive model.

You cannot claim for the inconvenience it has caused you when you have caused the inconvenience by choosing to not accept either of their offers and insisting on more than you are entitled to. If you had gone back the first time and accepted the refund then there would be no other inconvenience to either yourself or the store, anything after that point is at your choosing and they don't have to compensate for you not understanding retail law and wanting more than you're entitled to.

rustyboy21

You can request what you want, but the store doesn't have to do it. They only have to offer a refund, repair or replacement, whichever is more commercially viable for them.

The cheapest option for them, would be to give a refund. They are going out of their way to get a replacement for you and offering you a reduction in price as a goodwill gesture. They are being very good with you , so if you wish to get the result you want, try not being so hard done by and work with them amicably. They are going well beyond what they need to do legally.

The statement that the product was faulty, is not correct, it has parts missing, presumably by another consumer pinching them. If the box looked ok to you, enough for you to buy it, then why would the retailer think anything was wrong with it as well?

IMO. your wife should have opened the box, as most people would, with a reduced to clear item and checked everything was there before committing. I do it all the time, and the amount of boxes you see opened in shops, looks like every one else does it too. I just make sure that the box looks like it did beforehand, if I am not buying it.

Work with Asda, not against them, they will be losing out on this item, if they have to buy one again from the supplier, they wont get it at a reduced price, to sort you out. Even transferring from another branch will cost them. It is a no win situation for them, in hindsight, they would have been better just saying Refund, no other option.

moyesforever

Chrisod your rights have been clarified. I suspect you may not like what you've been told but what's been said is correct.

PILES

Chrisod wrote: »

The original price on the item was £39 which was reduced to £19.50 because of "damaged box". Nowhere did it state there was a missing head. As they had reduced this item by 50% of the original price I think they ought to at least reduce the price of the new model by the same amount.

How do we know that you didnt just remove the head yourself after purchase? Did you not check inside the box first like most people would have done?

ThumbRemote

PILES wrote: »

How do we know that you didnt just remove the head yourself after purchase? Did you not check inside the box first like most people would have done?

You open every sealed box before you buy it?

rustyboy21

How do you know it was sealed?

He has already said it was marked damaged box.

PILES

ThumbRemote wrote: »

You open every sealed box before you buy it?

No, but the word "DAMAGED" on the box would make me open it, every time.

Chrisod

My wife was at work and she does not like dealing with disputes.
The item was not advertised as a discontinued line and there was nothing to indicate this in the shop.
If someone had stolen the missing part and The store then resealed the box without checking the contents then they are negligent. They have then written over the resealed box stating only the box is damaged. It has then been advertised at a 50 % reduction, giving a saving of £19.50.
If I accept the purchase price then I am losing the benefit of £19.50 saving on the purchase made in good faith.
I do not accept the assertion that I give shoppers a bad name as I believe I am sticking up for consumer rights. If the store had taken the trouble to check the product as well as the box then the issue would never have arisen. Secondly, they should have made it clear that the product was a discontinued line.