Currys return Policy

kr15snw

I dont agree you should lose money. But I dont think its Curry's fault, as someone you have spoken to has said its a badly made TV. I would say its the manufacturers fault for making it like that.

That whys I reccomend you try contacting the manufacturer and explain that you cant return it as youve already opened it. But the TV is terrible and how can they make them this bad etc? Its a waste of money etc etc etc. You may get a better response from them.

uktim29

For less than £20 you can get really good speakers from supermarkets to add to TV's. Why not just do that?

cragdoo

I could do that , but it's the principle of the matter. I've just paid £449 for a TV , I shouldn't have to go out and buy additional equiment to make it satisfactory and fit for purpose

stugib

cragdoo wrote: »

...and here is the currys return policy from the site

Our returns policy

If you are not completely satisfied with your purchase, we’re happy to give you a full refund, including delivery charge, provided:

You cancel your order within 7 working days from the day after you receive your order
You return your item(s) to us in their original condition
If you have opened the box to examine the product you must have done so without damaging or marking the product or packaging
The product has not been used or installed

That's not really relevant - they're the terms from the Distance Selling Regulations (DSR) which apply if you'd ordered it from their site. They don't apply when you've walked into a shop and bought it.

cragdoo wrote: »

the problem I have is that there is no way I could have known about the poor speaker quality without installing/using the TV so their returns policy kind of stinks

Well, not strictly true, which is one of the reasons why the DSR came to be. They were introduced to put you in the same position you were in as if you'd had chance to examine the goods in-store before purchase, i.e. when it had been delivered you found that it wasn't suitable then you could return it as if you hadn't bought it in the first place.

In your case you did have the opportunity to inspect the goods in-store, including the sound quality. I sympathise that it's not the ideal environment to test it out, but from a legal standpoint you had the opportunity to see if it met your requirements (i.e. good quality sound). That's why you're in a bit of a tricky position because the sound quality is subjective. Unless you think the sound on your particular TV is faulty (go back and compare in-store now?) then unfortunately it's just a case of not satisfying you, rather than not satisfying the law.

cragdoo

In your case you did have the opportunity to inspect the goods in-store, including the sound quality. I sympathise that it's not the ideal environment to test it out, but from a legal standpoint you had the opportunity to see if it met your requirements (i.e. good quality sound). That's why you're in a bit of a tricky position because the sound quality is subjective. Unless you think the sound on your particular TV is faulty (go back and compare in-store now?) then unfortunately it's just a case of not satisfying you, rather than not satisfying the law.

Are you implying it was my fualt that I didn't check the sound , given that Currys did not provide an adequate enviroment in which to do so ??

I thought the follow excerpts for the Sale of Goods Act (1979 Ammended 2003) gives me the right to return any product I consider unsatisfactoy

14. Implied terms about quality or fitness



(1) Except as provided by this section and section 15 below and subject to any other enactment, there is no implied term about the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale.



(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality.



(2A) For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.



(2B) For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—



(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied, i.e. a TV is made for watching and listen to among other things televsion programmes , if I can't hear it properly then it's not fit for purpose

(b) appearance and finish,

(c) freedom from minor defects,

(d) safety, and

(e) durability.



(2C) The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory—



(a) which is specifically drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract is made,

(b) where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or

(c) in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample

I'm going to run a few tests on the TV tonight , as I think there actually might be problem with TV , there is little or no bass coming from the tv even with the bass turned up to max !!

stugib

cragdoo wrote: »

Are you implying it was my fualt that I didn't check the sound , given that Currys did not provide an adequate enviroment in which to do so ??

You said "we couldn't test them in the shop before hand as it's pretty hard to check out speakers when the TV is in the same row as 10-15 other TVs !"

So it was there in the shop, switched on, for you to examine to see if it met your needs. Whilst it's not going to reproduce a living room environment you could have checked it out. I was pointing out the differences between buying in a shop and buying online, where it's impossible to check the quality pre-purchase. It may have been a bit impractical, it may have been embarrassing to ask for all the other 15 TVs to be turned down for a minute, but legally you had the opportunity. I'm not defending Currys or implying it's your fault, just trying to help you understand your legal position, as best I understand it.

cragdoo wrote: »

I thought the follow excerpts for the Sale of Goods Act (1979 Ammended 2003) gives me the right to return any product I consider unsatisfactoy

As with a lot of consumer law it's all very vague, and you're relying on things which are subjective, which was my point. Note it says a 'reasonable person' - that's a poorly defined, but nevertheless objective test - not just that the purchaser isn't happy with it AFAIK.

If it's really that bad, it may imply a unit fault or a design design which makes it not fit for purpose, but in the latter case you'd expect everyone to return them or for them to be recalled. Two people could listen to the exact same TV, an audiophile may find it awful, your bog standard viewer may find it fine. My point was that a fault is easy to prove, satisfactory quality and 'reasonable person' are a lot less well defined.

cragdoo wrote: »

I'm going to run a few tests on the TV tonight , as I think there actually might be problem with TV , there is little or no bass coming from the tv even with the bass turned up to max !!

The more stuff you can come up with like that the more likely it is to prove it's a fault. Approaching a different Currys with a list of faults rather than things you don't find good enough, and rejecting the goods as Consumer Direct advised may be a better course of action and avoid a your word against there's argument.

cragdoo

well ran some sound tests on the TV last niight and I confirmed my suspicions , there is a problem with the bass on the tv. Turn the bass all the way to 0 and then back up to 100 and it makes no difference what so ever. So I will be returning the TV for a FULL REFUND as it is not 'fit for purpose'

:mad: :mad: :mad:

stugib

Good, sounds like you've found a genuine fault.

Because it's so soon and the fact you've already reported a problem so early a few days ago inform them you are rejecting the goods (use the advice Consumer Direct gave you) - knowing Currys they'll probably claim they will only repair or replace and you're bound by their T&Cs. They are entitled AFAIK to test there is a fault so they possibly won't give you a full refund there and then but insist that you do want a refund. Taking a letter to give them to state what you're doing and why and what you expect and by when should help avoid any doubt later. But be prepared for a battle.

hollydays

Glad you have found this,would this not be classed as faulty though? Which amounts to the same thing,but as said be prepared for a battle with them.

cragdoo

why would there be a battle ?? and boy am I ready for a battle , got my Sale of Goods act printed off and the relevant section highlighted !! I'm ready to cause a scene instore if necessary (but in a calm polite manner , not shouting my head off !!)

their own web site claims

"If there is a fault with your product within 28 days of delivery, you will always have the option of an exchange or refund"

so by their own Ts&Cs I am entitled to a refund