Amazon market place warning

Valli

frugal_mike wrote: »

That may be a little too succinct. If a product fails before I have accepted it then I definitely will be expecting a refund.

Unless it's broken on arrival then it's probable acceptance will have occurred before the product fails;)

frugal_mike

agrinnall wrote: »

Please let us know when your expectation fails to be met, because it's pretty easy to envisage a situation where that might happen.

What situation? I didn't specify that the failure needs to be inherent I guess. But if the goods don't conform to contract before acceptance occurs then they can be rejected.

ThumbRemote

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

BUT the bottom line is still:- You did not use it for the purpose for which it was intended (by your own admission !!) therefore you cannot claim that it was not fit for purpose - if you don't believe me take it to the Small Claims Court !!

Unless you know exactly what they did carry, your statement is rubbish.

lucy03

struth5424 wrote: »

I bought a laptop bag using an Amazon market place seller (chervi-lane) The bag strap broke after 3 weeks of use but, as I didn't use it straight away, this put me out of the 30day returns window. Chervi-lane kept repeating this in response to my emails complaining that the bag was not fit for purpose - I didn't even carry anything as heavy as a laptop in it! I was not eligible to file an Amazon A-z claim as I didn't return it within 14 days - it hadn't broken by then. The seller eventually offered a replacement bag but by then I had already bought a replacement so I asked for a refund. They are now ignoring my emails. Buyers on the market place beware when buying goods - it seems that unless any defect shows within 30 days of purchase you will not get a refund. My bag was comparitively cheap but I could have bought something way more expensive and be caught in the same dilemma. Any advice?

The Amazon A-Z Guarantee isn't instead of your consumer rights, it's in addition to them. You can still pursue the matter via the usual legal processes if you wish.

agrinnall

frugal_mike wrote: »

What situation? I didn't specify that the failure needs to be inherent I guess. But if the goods don't conform to contract before acceptance occurs then they can be rejected.

For instance, if something arrives broken but you don't bother to open it to check for a year - we have seen similar examples on here.

malc_b

Maybe the best place to read is here, section 5. It depends on the definition of accepted the goods. I would be inclined to argue:

1. I only found out the part was faulty after so many days when it broke, as the law allows a a reasonable time to inspect goods and I didn't discover it was faulty until it broke then I am still in the inspection period and therefore entitled to ask for a refund.

Or,

2. I would have accepted a replacement, but you took an unreasonable amount of time so I rescind the contract and thus now want a refund.

But in future I'd suggest examining good straight away.

You could also argue that this weakness is inherent in item (if that is what you think) and so a replacement would have exactly the same fault and the one supplied. Hence no point in anything other than a refund.

frugal_mike

agrinnall wrote: »

For instance, if something arrives broken but you don't bother to open it to check for a year - we have seen similar examples on here.

In that situation acceptance has (probably) occurred so wouldn't be the situation I was describing. Pre-acceptance the goods can be rejected if they don't conform to contract.

unholyangel

malc_b wrote: »

Maybe the best place to read is here, section 5. It depends on the definition of accepted the goods. I would be inclined to argue:

1. I only found out the part was faulty after so many days when it broke, as the law allows a a reasonable time to inspect goods and I didn't discover it was faulty until it broke then I am still in the inspection period and therefore entitled to ask for a refund.

Or,

2. I would have accepted a replacement, but you took an unreasonable amount of time so I rescind the contract and thus now want a refund.

But in future I'd suggest examining good straight away.

You could also argue that this weakness is inherent in item (if that is what you think) and so a replacement would have exactly the same fault and the one supplied. Hence no point in anything other than a refund.

I'm sorry but it doesn't appear that you're well versed in consumer rights at all.

Acceptance occurs in 1 of 3 ways. You tell the retailer you accept it, you do something to/with it that is inconsistent with the seller being the owner or when a reasonable length of time has passed and you have not indicated to the seller that you reject them.

You only have as long as it would take to assess whether the goods conform to contract. For something complex like a 3d tv that may be a month. For something simple like a wooden ruler, you may only have a day.


As for replacement/reasonable length of time......what is a reasonable length of time is a question of fact. A judge will consider what an impartial person would consider reasonable in the circumstances. And I cant really see anyone thinking being without a laptop bag for a few weeks as being unreasonable or of significant inconvenience. Heck even a month wouldn't be unreasonable imo - its an item of convenience rather than necessity.

As for your last point....no. An inherent fault is not necessarily a design flaw/fault. Many replacements last way beyond the items expected lifespan. My bedroom tv for example, was given a replacement and that replacement has already lasted years longer than the original set.

malc_b

Well neither of us know the exact circumstances. Also, I think we have a different definition of inherent. I was meaning what you call a design flaw as should have been clear from my sentence (rather than a fault in the item when it arrived). The OP seems to say this bag strap failed with less load that it should have carried. This could be just this item that was a fault, or that the design of the strap is not suitable to take the weight it should be able to carry. I don't know which but if the OP thinks it a fault with all items it would allow him to argue for a refund rather than replacement.

I would agree it seems unlikely, unless he is the first person to buy this bag. If there are positive reviews on amazon then it rather kills that as an argument.

WTFH

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Unless you know exactly what they did carry, your statement is rubbish.

It was a laptop bag and the OP says they didn't put a laptop in it.

So, item description: Laptop bag.
Item purpose: Carrying a laptop.

To argue that something is "not fit for purpose" when it was not being used for the purpose for which it was designed is, as you would put it "rubbish".