Asda Black Friday - Won't honour manufacturers warranty

frugal_mike

mckaymmc0 wrote: »

I do not agree with your statement that a retailer has the choice to repair/replace or refund and I have provided evidence of this in an earlier post. Is this forum not the correct forum to discuss this?

While it's technically true that a retailer does not have a free choice in the remedy they offer, the buyer cannot force the retailer into a remedy that is more costly than one of the others. This effectively gives them the choice because usually the three options are going to cost different amounts. This can be seen in section 48B(3) of the Sale of Goods Act:

The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—

(a)impossible, or

(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or

(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.

If a refund is the cheapest option for them then they are entitled to do that.

mckaymmc0 wrote: »

My original post is that Asda are acting as the manfucturer and not the retailer and I am suprised and not convinced that their is no legal requirement to provide a guarantee with electrical goods.

I'm not aware of any law saying that manufacturers are bound to provide a warranty for electrical goods (or any other), but if you find one then fair play to you. Your contract with Asda was governed by the Sale of Goods Act which states that they can refund you if a repair or replacement is more expensive.

Technically I guess they would have to prove that if you took them to court, but you'd have to be fairly certain the refund is cheaper for them to try that. And I can't imagine they would try and force a remedy that was actually more expensive for them.

shaun_from_Africa

mckaymmc0 wrote: »

and I am suprised and not convinced that their is no legal requirement to provide a guarantee with electrical goods.

There is no legal obligation for a manufacturer or retailer to provide a guarantee or warranty, this is because you are protected by your statutory rights – see fact sheets 1 & 2.
However when we buy goods or services we are often told they are covered by a guarantee' or 'warranty' and we therefore assume that we can make a claim if something goes wrong.

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/TradingStandardsFactSheet10.pdf

mije1983 wrote: »

There IS a guarantee, which is why they have offered you a refund. If the item had no guarantee they could have told you it was none of their concern.

Even if there was no guarantee/warranty, the retailer still has legal obligations under the Sale of goods act and they can't simply wash their hands of faulty goods by claiming that they don't warrant the goods that they sell.

mije1983

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Even if there was no guarantee/warranty, the retailer still has legal obligations under the Sale of goods act and they can't simply wash their hands of faulty goods by claiming that they don't warrant the goods that they sell.

Legally and in an ideal world they can't, but we all know how retailers work. It's usually the consumer that has to bring up the SoGA before the retailer relents and asks for an independant report or agrees a partial refund.

That is why I said 'could have'.

custardy

mckaymmc0 wrote: »

I do not agree with your statement that a retailer has the choice to repair/replace or refund and I have provided evidence of this in an earlier post. Is this forum not the correct forum to discuss this?

My original post is that Asda are acting as the manfucturer and not the retailer and I am suprised and not convinced that their is no legal requirement to provide a guarantee with electrical goods.

I respect other peoples opinions and view points but only if they contribute in a fair and constructive manner, even if I disagree. Can you have the common decency to do the same

thanks

There is a guarantee
It simply doesnt force them to provide a replacement
You being surprised or not believing it,doesnt change that.
I suggest the courts for you

mckaymmc0

Frugal Mike, and others

It is the wording of

The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—

(a)impossible, or

(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or


That is interesting. Others have stated that the SOGA allows the retailer to select the remedy but my reading and others suggests this is not the case. Of course the key word is disproportionate and I wonder how this is covered by case law.

On a closure note we have returned the TV for a refund and when the fault TV was scanned a £179 price was shown on the Till. When we asked the assistance about his price she said that the TV was the same model as being sold in store. She then checked with a manager who confirm this and stated we could have a replacement as this was in accordance with our rights if we so wished and was astounded we had been told anything different.

A different day we would have had a different resolution.

Can I thank everyone who has contributed in a constructive and helpful fashion. To those who wish to post criticism and were unwilling to engage in discussion, why are you even posting on a discussion forum - weirods.

Thanks again to those who deserve it.

custardy

Ah,the convenient happy ending

wealdroam

mckaymmc0 wrote: »

It is the wording of

The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—

(a)impossible, or

(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or


That is interesting. Others have stated that the SOGA allows the retailer to select the remedy but my reading and others suggests this is not the case. Of course the key word is disproportionate and I wonder how this is covered by case law.

Yes, you are right, the seller chooses the remedy, but then the paragraphs you have quoted need to be considered.

The next paragraph in Section 48B of SoGA more or less defines disproportionate:

(4)One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—
(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,
(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and
(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

Sorry, I know nothing about 'case law'.

mckaymmc0

wealdroam

I have read that same section and I do not believe it is that clear.

In my circumstance lets say that Asda bought 10000 units at £50. At various times they have sold the goods for between £99 and £179.

How are there costs disproportionate from offering a replacement, as other posters have suggested, as I purchased the TV at the lower retail cost. They may lose revenue and profit though offering a replacement unit to me as they cannot sell this unit for full price but that is not a cost.

Many posters have stated that the seller (retailer) chooses the remedy where the SOGA clearly states the buyer chooses the remedy unless disproportionate (your post states seller and respectfully I do not agree with that comment).

I appreciate you taking the time to respond

marliepanda

Please point out where the SOGA allows the buyer to choose the remwdy.

mattyprice4004

mckaymmc0 wrote: »

wealdroam

I have read that same section and I do not believe it is that clear.

In my circumstance lets say that Asda bought 10000 units at £50. At various times they have sold the goods for between £99 and £179.

How are there costs disproportionate from offering a replacement, as other posters have suggested, as I purchased the TV at the lower retail cost. They may lose revenue and profit though offering a replacement unit to me as they cannot sell this unit for full price but that is not a cost.

Many posters have stated that the seller (retailer) chooses the remedy where the SOGA clearly states the buyer chooses the remedy unless disproportionate (your post states seller and respectfully I do not agree with that comment).

I appreciate you taking the time to respond

They could easily argue loss of profit IS a cost, especially if it's a limited supply item.