Tricky Return

DCFC79

When will it end ?

powerful_Rogue

DCFC79 wrote: »

When will it end ?

Once the OP has taken the retailer to court and the case gets thrown out because it has no merit.

shak2

Valli wrote: »

If something is not of satisfactory quality, you have a statutory right under the Sale of Goods Act, to a refund, have it replaced or repaired for free.
You can ask the retailer to do either, but it can normally choose to do whichever would be cheapest

The either applies to repair or replace, and is from the SOGA. It does not apple to refund.

shak2

wealdroam wrote: »

If this happens, the trader should either:
offer you a partial refund if you return the item (to allow for the use you’ve had from it)
let you keep the item and give you a reduction in price for the fault

But who makes the decision to refund or let you keep the item? who has authority to make that decision?

unholyangel

DCFC79 wrote: »

When will it end ?

Perhaps we should just let people who agree with the OP to answer......certainly if that had been the case the thread would still be 1 page long.

shak2 wrote: »

The either applies to repair or replace, and is from the SOGA. It does not apple to refund.

I repeat:

(3)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 they are unable to repair or replace within a reasonable time or causing significant inconvenience OR if a repair/replacement would be disproportionate in comparison to a refund......then yes they can refund.

halibut2209

They do. It's their choice. As you've been told. Many times. Many many times.

wealdroam

shak2 wrote: »

But who makes the decision to refund or let you keep the item? who has authority to make that decision?

Have you read Section 48B of The Sale of Goods Act?
It has been mentioned, and quoted, earlier in this thread.

The following words from that statute clearly say that the buyer cannot insist on a replacement:

(3)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.

Please do let us know if there is anything still unanswered.

powerful_Rogue

shak2 wrote: »

The either applies to repair or replace, and is from the SOGA. It does not apple to refund.

If you've bought something not of satisfactory quality, not fit for a particular purpose or not as described, the law gives you a number of remedies.

If you complain to the retailer within a reasonable time, you're entitled to get a full refund. However, the law does not say what a reasonable time is. Each case may be different. So the sooner you make your complaint, the better.


Once you go beyond a reasonable time to reject the goods, you're only entitled to claim compensation. You can also claim for any consequential losses that result directly from the goods being unsatisfactory.

Alternatively, you may wish to ask, in the first instance, for a repair or replacement.

Such repair or replacement has to be carried out within a reasonable time and without any great inconvenience to you. The retailer has to bear any costs, such as transporting the goods.

However, the retailer can refuse either of these remedies, if it can be shown that the other one would be less costly.

If a quick and trouble-free repair or replacement is not possible, you can ask for a full or part-refund. Whatever benefit you may have already had from the goods will be taken into account in deciding any refund.

http://www.consumerline.org/legislation/?cat=Consumer+Law&item=Sale+of+Goods

shak2

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

you can ask for a full or part-refund

Everything seems to point to it being the buyers choice in deciding if they want a refund, not the sellers.

I understand many of these interpretations of the law are written for consumers so that may be why, but the law itself also does not state sellers can decide:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54
 
(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may—

(a)require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods in question to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or

(b)rescind the contract with regard to those goods,

if the condition in subsection (2) below is satisfied.
(2)The condition is that—

(a)by virtue of section 48B(3) above the buyer may require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; or

(b)the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods, but the seller is in breach of the requirement of section 48B(2)(a) above to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

Everything points to it being the buyers decision, right?

wealdroam

shak2 wrote: »

Everything seems to point to it being the buyers choice in deciding if they want a refund, not the sellers.

I understand many of these interpretations of the law are written for consumers so that may be why, but the law itself also does not state sellers can decide:



Everything points to it being the buyers decision, right?

Why did you quote paras 1) and 2) but omit paragraph 3) of Section 48B?

Here it is again, just as it was posted for you in posts #98 and #100:

(3)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.

Notice those words: The buyer must not require the seller...