Obtaining a refund on defective lap top from Amazon Seller

Fairydust75

Visidig, whilst I really appreciate your help on this matter I find your tone antagonistic. Unreasonably so. I really don't see what warrants such a harsh attitude. I can only hope you are much kinder to people in person.

But thanks, I do see exactly what you are saying. I do want my son to have his Christmas present sooner rather than later. I am happy with the advice you and others have given regards the best way to go about this. I am very grateful for that. I am not happy with pursuing a repair on something that one would expect to be in perfect working order having just purchased it but, rather than cut off my nose to spite my face, perhaps that is the easiest option.

But, do think about your attitude - you come across as rather angry and it probably rubs a lot of (less tolerant) people up the wrong way.

powerful_Rogue

visidigi wrote: »

Im not debating reasonable!

Could have fooled me!

visidigi wrote: »

Oh I get it.
But how is it any different to buying a car and not using it for 6 weeks. Its there to be used, but you choose not to because its a present for the wife - how is that reasonable to the retailer. That's what the OP has done, bought 6 weeks before they need it and now they have started to use it the fault has become apparent.

The notion that the retailer is bound by the time the buyer chooses to use the item is simply crazy - there would be massive cashflow issues in all businesses if they were to provide full refunds based on the birthday schedule of the end recipients...

visidigi

neilmcl wrote: »

It's totally different. The choice of not to use the car in your scenario would be yours alone however when you buy an item as a gift it is entirely reasonable to expect that item not to be be used fully until it was given. This is precisely the reason why a specific period is not defined in the legislation because scenarios can differ. For example (and this one used by the OFT I believe), I could go out and buy a pair of skis during the summer but then find them to be faulty six months later when I used them for the first time. As this is the first opportunity I could have had to fully examine the skis I would be within my rights to reject them for a full refund.

You missed the bit where I said the car was a gift...the whole point of my scenario...never mind!

visidigi

Fairydust75 wrote: »

Visidig, whilst I really appreciate your help on this matter I find your tone antagonistic. Unreasonably so. I really don't see what warrants such a harsh attitude. I can only hope you are much kinder to people in person.

But thanks, I do see exactly what you are saying. I do want my son to have his Christmas present sooner rather than later. I am happy with the advice you and others have given regards the best way to go about this. I am very grateful for that. I am not happy with pursuing a repair on something that one would expect to be in perfect working order having just purchased it but, rather than cut off my nose to spite my face, perhaps that is the easiest option.

But, do think about your attitude - you come across as rather angry and it probably rubs a lot of (less tolerant) people up the wrong way.

Hang around here more than 5 minutes and you'll see why.

Good luck, come back and let us know how you get on.. (In July)

frugal_mike

visidigi wrote: »

Oh I get it.

But how is it any different to buying a car and not using it for 6 weeks. Its there to be used, but you choose not to because its a present for the wife - how is that reasonable to the retailer. That's what the OP has done, bought 6 weeks before they need it and now they have started to use it the fault has become apparent.

The notion that the retailer is bound by the time the buyer chooses to use the item is simply crazy - there would be massive cashflow issues in all businesses if they were to provide full refunds based on the birthday schedule of the end recipients...

Many retailers seem to disagree with you on this point. There are plenty of retailers that extend their returns policy to allow things bought between mid November and Christmas to be returned in January.

They clearly think its reasonable to defer the decision on whether to keep it until after Christmas, so I don't see it being at all unreasonable for Acceptance (as defined in the Sale of Goods Act) to be deferred too.

visidigi

frugal_mike wrote: »

Many retailers seem to disagree with you on this point. There are plenty of retailers that extend their returns policy to allow things bought between mid November and Christmas to be returned in January.

They clearly think its reasonable to defer the decision on whether to keep it until after Christmas, so I don't see it being at all unreasonable for Acceptance (as defined in the Sale of Goods Act) to be deferred too.

Please. Let's distinguish between rights and individual retailer policy.

Retailers extend the period to encourage spread of purchases over a longer period prior to Christmas, not just in a single month of December.

Retailers aren't 'disagreeing' with me, they are just trying to entice customers to shop early at top price (stuff I watched for sale in November was cheaper in the third week of December when I bought it....)

frugal_mike

But they are setting the precedent that it is reasonable to buy things in November to be given as gifts at Christmas. A reasonable person would probably agree that something bought as a present can't (always) be examined in sufficient detail to trigger acceptance until it has been received by the recipient. Therefore I find it perfectly reasonable that a gift bought at a reasonable time might not be accepted until after Christmas.

I imagine it might depend on which judge was deciding the case, but I don't think its far fetched that it would go in the consumers favour.

tyllwyd

We had a similar problem with a laptop that stopped working six weeks after purchase. We wanted to return it for a refund rather than repair, and we spoke to Trading Standards who initially were very positive that we were entitled to ask the retailer to refund. We also spoke to Barclaycard, but since the retailer was offering a repair, Barclaycard weren't willing to refund the money. The retailer kept offering a repair, we wrote three times following advice from Trading Standards (who were less positive every time we spoke to them). In the end it was obvious that the only thing we could do was take it to the small claims court, but because a repair was being offered it wasn't at all certain that we would win, so we gave in and accepted the repair.