Tricky Return

shak2

Valli wrote: »

The law EXPLICITLY GIVES THE RETAILER THE OPTION TO SELECT TO OFFER THE CONSUMER THE REMEDY THAT IS BEST FOR THE RETAILER.

If you can point me to a law or link that states the retailer has the option to offer a refund or rescind the contract to remedy the situation I end this right here.

halibut2209

shak2 wrote: »

In this case it was the seller who independently of the buyers wish refunded for the items, against the buyers wish.

Which is exactly what they are allowed to do. Hang on, while I find another picture for you.

powerful_Rogue

shak2, were all going around in circles here.

No-one is going to agree with you and its been explained to you numerous times in different styles.

If you think your interpretation of the law is correct, simply file a claim with the Small Claims Court.

matttye

shak2 wrote: »

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)



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.

Right, the buyer may make that decision. You did not ask for a reduction in cost though, you sent the item back. If you were asking for a reduction in cost you would not have sent the item in to them.

The seller was left with no option but to refund you, because a replacement was impossible.

I understand what you're saying about them having stock in but the fact of the matter is, when it came to actually applying the remedial action, they did not have stock. It was therefore not possible for them to replace the item.

They then had to either reduce the cost or refund you and, given that you had returned the item to them and effectively rescinded the contract, they refunded you.

What they did is entirely compatible with the law.

Your request that they return it to you in its broken state is not one of the options within the Sale of Goods Act.

Valli

shak2 wrote: »

If you can point me to a law or link that states the retailer has the option to offer a refund or rescind the contract to remedy the situation I end this right here.

I did. Way back up the thread I posted a link to the Sale of Goods Act. Yesterday.

Post 31

Since you clearly hadn't read that I found a link which explained it more simply. Then you started bleating on about the word 'either'. Which was in the simpler link.

I strongly suggest you get a paper and make a simple tally chart, where you record the number of posters who think you are in the right and the number of posters with whom you disagree.

I think I am right in saying there are more posters who will say you are not entitled to your goods back as you have had a refund. But I haven't done the maths.

Then take a deep breath and ask yourself, honestly, is it likely you are being given erroneous advice here or not?

And did you look at the definition of troll?

I now think we do, indeed, have a troll. I am 100% certain I'm not the troll.

mije1983

shak2 wrote: »

If you can point me to a law or link that states the retailer has the option to offer a refund or rescind the contract to remedy the situation I end this right here.

Isn't this the second time you've said you will end it and then just carried on anyway?

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

(a)impossible (There is no stock left so they can't replace it), or

(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies (If it is going to cost them 30% more to send you a replacement - for example if the trade price they pay per unit has gone up - rather than refund then they don't have to), or

(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price (You didn't ask for this remedy in the first place)

I've tried to make it clearer for you in red, in the (no doubt vain) hope that you will listen to what people have been saying to you!

halibut2209

But the OP is saying that the option of returning the goods back to the buyer is not there. What does SOGA say about that?

(I know the OP has no basis in this, but am enjoying this thread far too much to simply let it end)

shak2

wealdroam wrote: »

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.

I think I see where you guys are coming from now and it looks like the law is badly worded with punctuation. Cleaning it I get:

(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is...
disproportionate in comparison to either:
x1 - an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a)
x2 - rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.


F4148C - Reduction of purchase price or rescission of contract

(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;



First point:
F3948A - Introductory says
(1)This section applies if...
(b)the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery.

If the item developed the fault later (after 6 days) and until then it was perfect does that mean the goods DID conform to contract at the time of delivery? or did they not?

Second point:
It still does indeed say "the buyer may" in F4148C. The law is not clear on the choices the seller can make independently if repair or replacement is impossible. And it says it is the buyers choice to choose either monetary compensation to cover the fault and get the goods back or rescind the contract. Agreed?

Bamber19

Valli wrote: »

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.

Hmmm. The offer to buy is not the invitation to treat. The invitation to treat is the retailers suggested willingness to contract, prior to the offer being made by the eventual buyer. I'm just being pedantic but I didn't see the usefulness, correctness or relevance of implying that the offer to buy was an invitation to treat, it was an offer obviously.

matttye

shak2 wrote: »

First point:
F3948A - Introductory says
(1)This section applies if...
(b)the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery.

If the item developed the fault later (after 6 days) and until then it was perfect does that mean the goods DID conform to contract at the time of delivery? or did they not?

Second point:
It still does indeed say "the buyer may" in F4148C. The law is not clear on the choices the seller can make independently if repair or replacement is impossible. And it says it is the buyers choice to choose either monetary compensation to cover the fault and get the goods back or rescind the contract. Agreed?

First point:

Did not. There must have been an underlying issue.

Second point:

The seller hasn't made any choice. You have sent the item back and repair/replacement is not possible / not proportionate, leaving them no option but to refund. You forced their hand.