Tricky Return

shak2

ok guys i'm not stupid. I get what you are saying but you're saying some things that are not supported by wording of the law and taking them as fact just to hate.

IF we assume that it was impossible for them to replace the faulty item on the last day. I then requested them to return the item to me. They refused and refunded. OK so that's what has happened. I say they were not allowed to refund. Some of you say they were allowed to make the decision to refund because it was impossible to replace at that point in time. I understand what you are saying.

But the law does not explicitly say they can choose to refund over returning the item does it. It does not say this in SOGA. Because SOGA does not cover this particular unique case where the seller is given the option of returning the faulty item to the buyer.

so if the buyer says "return the item to me because you failed to replace it" can the seller say "no i'm just gonna give your money back and break this contract I had to supply you some goods"? because that would be bad for all consumers, right?

halibut2209

shak2 wrote: »

I say they were not allowed to refund.

halibut2209

Once you returned, the goods were no longer yours. You have no right to ask for them back. At that point, the contract was null and void.

Valli

Contract for sale worked like this.

You made an offer to buy (invitation to treat).
They accepted your offer and sent you an item.
Contract fulfilled.

Item developed fault within SOGA timeframe.
You returned faulty item.
They could have repaired; they could have replaced; they CHOSE to refund. The law EXPLICITLY GIVES THE RETAILER THE OPTION TO SELECT TO OFFER THE CONSUMER THE REMEDY THAT IS BEST FOR THE RETAILER. So a retailer cannot be forced to repair; the retailer cannot be forced to replace. Equally the retailer cannot be forced to refund. They can choose whatever best suits them and their business model. For most large white goods, for example, most retailers offer a repair. Because that is the least expensive option FOR THEM.

How is THAT bad for all consumers?

Most unhappy consumers come on here because they cannot get ANY remedy at all.

To receive your faulty item back you would have to offer to buy it in THAT condition. That would form a NEW contract.

unholyangel

shak2 wrote: »

ok guys i'm not stupid. I get what you are saying but you're saying some things that are not supported by wording of the law and taking them as fact just to hate.

If you truly think that, you don't "get" what we're saying at all and nor do you seem capable of reading legislation as it has been written.

mije1983

shak2 wrote: »

Because SOGA does not cover this particular unique case where the seller is given the option of returning the faulty item to the buyer.

Because no reputable company would knowingly send out an item that has an electrical fault to a customer. I know you have said it was just a light that was cosmetic, but you don't know what other problems were linked to that under the surface. Therefore I think it would be irresponsible of them to return the item to you.

However, as you don't seem to be heeding advice given by the many people in this thread (and the law), and the seller has told you their responsibility has ended with the refund, your only option is to take them to court and let the judge decide.

matttye

shak2 wrote: »

ok guys i'm not stupid. I get what you are saying but you're saying some things that are not supported by wording of the law and taking them as fact just to hate.

IF we assume that it was impossible for them to replace the faulty item on the last day. I then requested them to return the item to me. They refused and refunded. OK so that's what has happened. I say they were not allowed to refund. Some of you say they were allowed to make the decision to refund because it was impossible to replace at that point in time. I understand what you are saying.

But the law does not explicitly say they can choose to refund over returning the item does it. It does not say this in SOGA. Because SOGA does not cover this particular unique case where the seller is given the option of returning the faulty item to the buyer.

so if the buyer says "return the item to me because you failed to replace it" can the seller say "no i'm just gonna give your money back and break this contract I had to supply you some goods"? because that would be bad for all consumers, right?

Section 48C Sale of Goods Act 1971:

"(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.
(3)For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him."

You could not require repair nor replacement of the goods because it was impossible for them, so you left the seller with only two options; (1) to reduce the purchase price or (2) to refund you (rescind the contract).

The Act does say that you can require the seller to reduce the purchase price for the goods, but you did not ask for this. Also, by sending back the goods having not checked in advance if a repair or a replacement was possible, you have rescinded the contract.

You therefore left them with no option but to refund you. They did this.

Can you please read this post carefully and form a coherent argument based on the actual law if you disagree, and quote the parts of the law that you think backs up your argument?

wealdroam

shak2 wrote: »

But the law does not explicitly say they can choose to refund over returning the item does it. It does not say this in SOGA.

I believe the law does explicitly say that.

SoGA S48B and 48C together say that.

Let's go through it one more time...

1) seller has the returned goods and the request from the buyer for a replacement.

2) SoGA section 48B(3) states:

(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.

paragraph (c) above says that the buyer cannot force the seller to provide a replacement if providing the replacement is more costly than rescission of the contract as described in paragraph (b) of section 48C(1) of SoGA.

It is section 48C(1) of SoGA where rescission, i.e. provision of a refund, is discussed.


Just to add: I object most strongly to any suggestion that my posts are written with any intention of 'just to hate'.

halibut2209

shak2

matttye wrote: »

Section 48C Sale of Goods Act 1971:

"(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.
(3)For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him."

You could not require repair nor replacement of the goods because it was impossible for them, so you left the seller with only two options; (1) to reduce the purchase price or (2) to refund you (rescind the contract).

The Act does say that you can require the seller to reduce the purchase price for the goods, but you did not ask for this. Also, by sending back the goods having not checked in advance if a repair or a replacement was possible, you have rescinded the contract.

You therefore left them with no option but to refund you. They did this.

Can you please read this post carefully and form a coherent argument based on the actual law if you disagree, and quote the parts of the law that you think backs up your argument?

Hello,

These are all choices the buyer can make. According to the law, it states "the buyer may..." In this case it was the seller who independently of the buyers wish refunded for the items, against the buyers wish.

SOGA says little if anything about what the seller can choose on (except for the choosing to either repair or replace - that's their choice, it does not offer the SELLER the choice to choose to rescind the contract)

Also, by sending back the goods having not checked in advance if a repair or a replacement was possible, you have rescinded the contract.

At the time the seller took the item there was replacement stock in stock. And also when they verified the fault 3 days later there was stock in stock. up to the day they were to return the item to me there was stock. On that day it had sold out. So when the replacement was requested there was indeed stock in stock and the intent from both parties was replacement and I have this in writing from them.