Faulty reduced price items

Valli

Just because you got what you wanted in the end doesn't mean you were right.

Chrisod

I originally asked for advice. Wealdrom has given me the best response that would have been useful last week. Many thanks for this. It maybe that ASDA made this choice which has resolved my dispute but I still maintain their negligence in not checking there was a part missing warranted their goodwill gesture. By only stating the box was damaged they had effectively mis-advertised the product.

mattyprice4004

Even if they had mis advertised it, they would STILL only have to refund if they wanted to.

At the end of the day you were wrong in assuming they had to replace. The advice given was correct, not our fault if you don't agree.

Valli

Chrisod wrote: »

I originally asked for advice. Wealdrom has given me the best response that would have been useful last week. Many thanks for this. It maybe that ASDA made this choice which has resolved my dispute but I still maintain their negligence in not checking there was a part missing warranted their goodwill gesture. By only stating the box was damaged they had effectively mis-advertised the product.

No. The item was mis-labelled; for whatever reason they appeared not to realise a part was missing. Nevertheless your remedy IN LAW would have been that ASDA needed to either repair, or refund, or replace.
But the law gives the retailer the option to select whichever remedy is preferable for them.

Sometimes retailers go 'over and above' in their provision of remedy, possibly in order to achieve a speedy result.

It looks like that is what has happened here; possibly in order to retain your goodwill? Who knows?

You have chosen to assume that those posters who didn't happen to agree fully with you are 'wrong'. This is emphatically not the case.

unholyangel

Chrisod wrote: »

I originally asked for advice. Wealdrom has given me the best response that would have been useful last week. Many thanks for this. It maybe that ASDA made this choice which has resolved my dispute but I still maintain their negligence in not checking there was a part missing warranted their goodwill gesture. By only stating the box was damaged they had effectively mis-advertised the product.

You were given the same response last week just without a link to the actual legislation - which would've been provided had you asked then.

So no idea why that info retrospectively would've been useful when it wasn't useful at the time. Although perhaps you just missed those posts.