Tricky Return

Valli

At 6:49 pm I re-posted the link to the Legislation.

You had read the entire document and 'cleaned' it by 7:02?

Wow!

Valli

Bamber19 wrote: »

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.

Fair point - I was shortcutting there in case the OP came back with the argument that they'd offered to sell her item x for price £y, as 'contracts' had been mentioned.

As you can see, from the development of the thread, that didn't happen.

shak2

matttye wrote: »

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.

First point:
If a lightbulb goes out after 6 days when it was rated to last 1 year, is that an underlying issue or just chance?

Second point:
The buyer requested they return the item. The seller had two choices, not one. refund, or return, and they took refund.
Someone said before they can't return an item with a fault, but there is no law to say they can't...

neilmcl

shak2 wrote: »

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? No, not necessarily. An item can be inherently faulty by design and not show until much later and therefore did not conform to contract at the time of delivery

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? No, again you're picking out small bits of the legislation to suit you but your should take the legislation as a whole which quite clearly states that the buyer must not require the seller to replace or repair if that remedy is impossible or disproportionate

The legislation isn't badly worded it's just you seem hellbent in ignoring the salient points it clearly points out.

Valli

Just take them to court for it.

But DO, please - tell us when and where the hearing is to take place.

We could have a MSE meet up!

ps - just for clarity - you won't win. But you won't listen to the salient advice you've been given either and I, for one, could do with a laugh!

Bamber19

Valli wrote: »

Fair point - I was shortcutting there in case the OP came back with the argument that they'd offered to sell her item x for price £y, as 'contracts' had been mentioned.

As you can see, from the development of the thread, that didn't happen.

Aha, part of me was posting just to confirm I hadn't got it wrong for the last however many years. I've already got a headache from reading this thread which is of the age old "If i ignore everyone who says I'm wrong, eventually someone will say I'm right" style

matttye

shak2 wrote: »

First point:
If a lightbulb goes out after 6 days when it was rated to last 1 year, is that an underlying issue or just chance?

Second point:
The buyer requested they return the item. The seller had two choices, not one. refund, or return, and they took refund.
Someone said before they can't return an item with a fault, but there is no law to say they can't...

Likely underlying issue, but could be dodgy wiring in the house.

The Sale of Goods Act lays out the buyers options. They can ask for a replacement, repair, reduction in price or a refund.

You asked for a replacement or a repair. Asking for the goods to be sent back in their broken state is not one of the options you're entitled to under the SoGA.

You did not ask for a reduction in price.

So the 4 choices were:

Repair - not possible / proportionate;
Replace - not possible;
Reduce in price - you did not ask for this;
Refund - this is what they did, as you had returned the items (thus rescinding the contract).

Three options that were not suitable, and one that was.

halibut2209

shak2 wrote: »

First point:
If a lightbulb goes out after 6 days when it was rated to last 1 year, is that an underlying issue or just chance?

Second point:
The buyer requested they return the item. The seller had two choices, not one. refund, or return, and they took refund.
Someone said before they can't return an item with a fault, but there is no law to say they can't...

But there IS a law which says they can refund. Which they did. Case closed

powerful_Rogue

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?

I already answered this question for you 4 pages go.

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

It would have been delivered with an inherent fault. If it wasn't inherently faulty, it would have been caused by mis-use and as such not covered by the sales of goods act.

If you really are thinking about taking this to court, you need to do an awful lot of research. Id start off by trying to understand the basics.

wealdroam

shak2 wrote: »

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?

Have you ever noticed how little punctuation there is in legal documents?

Of course, to some, that makes them difficult to read, but for others it removes all possible ambiguity.

Despite your "cleanliness", it is still clear that:
The buyer must not require the seller to replace the goods if that remedy is—
(a)impossible, or
(b)too costly when compared with other remedies, or
(c)too costly when compared with providing a refund.