Tricky Return

gik

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?

No, you are wrong. You can request a remedy but you cannot force it on the retailer.

societys_child

Everything points to it being the buyers decision, right?

:wall:
Wrong

Valli

valli wrote: »

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/problem/what-do-i-do-if-i-have-a-faulty-product

from the above link -
"your rights if an item is faulty

in the first six months from when you buy something, the onus is on the seller to prove it was of satisfactory quality when you received it.
If the seller simply says the problem must be due to something you've done, it's for them to prove that.
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."

and this last line tells you that it's the retailer's choice - they can chose to do whatever would be cheapest (for them).

shak2 wrote: »

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

yes it does

and, as you have been told MANY times you can ask for your preferred remedy (refund, a repair or a replacement) but the choice of remedy is up to the retailer. Who can choose whichever remedy they see fit to.

They chose to refund in your case. Job done.

matttye

You have no case.

But, why are you charging in like a bull in a china shop and going straight to court, where, I repeat, you have absolutely NO HOPE of getting anywhere.

Why dont you write to the retailer along with a cheque for the sale price of the item, explain that you returned it for repair/replacement and they could not repair or replace the item, but you would still like to purchase it at the sale price. Provide any reference numbers, receipts etc. which will help prove you did buy it at sale price.

Court is a waste of money and a waste of time.

shak2

matttye wrote: »

You have no case.

But, why are you charging in like a bull in a china shop and going straight to court, where, I repeat, you have absolutely NO HOPE of getting anywhere.

Why dont you write to the retailer along with a cheque for the sale price of the item, explain that you returned it for repair/replacement and they could not repair or replace the item, but you would still like to purchase it at the sale price. Provide any reference numbers, receipts etc. which will help prove you did buy it at sale price.

Court is a waste of money and a waste of time.

I have done. It's been 3 weeks now. They have no more stock of the item and never will again they said. So I told them to just return the faulty item to me and they said they would not do that because it's now being used internally. That's when they refunded me without my permission.

shak2

Valli wrote: »

yes it does

Please calm down.

EITHER is an adverb that means TWO options (Used before the first of two (or occasionally more) given alternatives). those two options it refers to when saying either are repair or replace. Refund is not included when it says either.

When returning an item the seller can repair or replace (at their option) or refund, at the buyers option. This is what makes this complex.

Because the seller has refunded without the buyer requesting a refund, which is not allowed in law and might be the breach of contract that makes the case valid.

Valli

shak2 wrote: »

Please calm down.

EITHER is an adverb that means TWO options (Used before the first of two (or occasionally more) given alternatives). those two options it refers to when saying either are repair or replace. Refund is not included when it says either.

When returning an item the seller can repair or replace (at their option) or refund, at the buyers option. This is what makes this complex.

Because the seller has refunded without the buyer requesting a refund, which is not allowed in law.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

yeah right!

Either BTW is not MY word, but the word from the link you requested.

But I know I have the correct interpretation here. Hardly surprising you aren't understanding this; you've been obtuse from the outset.

matttye

shak2 wrote: »

I have done. It's been 3 weeks now. They have no more stock of the item and never will again they said. So I told them to just return the faulty item to me and they said they would not do that because it's now being used internally. That's when they refunded me without my permission.

By returning the item and requesting a replacement, you inadvertently gave them your permission to refund you.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so just because you didn't know that you were giving them your permission does not mean it invalidates the permission given.

gik

What is the item in question and we can try and find one for you?

powerful_Rogue

shak2 wrote: »

Because the seller has refunded without the buyer requesting a refund, which is not allowed in law and might be the breach of contract that makes the case valid.

The law regarding this has been quoted to you over and over again. I fail to see why you find it so difficult to understand.

You can request, however the seller dosent have to adhere to your request. How on earth can they offer a replacement if they dont have any in stock to replace it with.

https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome

Just file a claim against the retailer and let the judge answer it for you. I think thats the only way your going to understand.