Tricky Return

shak2

So from what you guys are saying, it seems that F4148C - Reduction of purchase price or rescission of contract is also just badly worded then?

F4148C - Reduction of purchase price or rescission of contract

(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer MUST EITHER

(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.

so it's not "may", it's "must either"? is that what a few of you are getting at then?

But then why would they use "may" if they meant "must either"? aren't these documents checked thoroughly and every word is important no matter how subtle?

powerful_Rogue

So, a replacement is impossible and a repair is out of the question, returning the faulty item isnt an option due to health and safety - what remedy are you after?

shak2

wealdroam wrote: »

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.

I see you conveniently avoided the Second point...

powerful_Rogue

shak2 wrote: »

So from what you guys are saying, it seems that F4148C - Reduction of purchase price or rescission of contract is also just badly worded then?




so it's not "may", it's "must either"? is that what a few of you are getting at then?

But then why would they use "may" if they meant "must either"? aren't these documents checked thoroughly and every word is important no matter how subtle?

An item that is cosmetically damaged and the buyer is happy to keep it can ask for a reduction in price or a refund.

Heres a flow chart that might help you. I dont want to spoil the surprise, but it says seller to refund.

http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/sogaataglance

shak2

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

So, a replacement is impossible and a repair is out of the question, returning the faulty item isnt an option due to health and safety - what remedy are you after?

I don't think the health and safety thing is an issue. It's just a single dead light out of many. Let's assume the fault was a single blown LED in a line of 100 christmas lights. If the item was that, would there be an issue returning it?

mije1983

shak2 wrote: »

so it's not "may", it's "must either"?

No. It is 'may'. You may require them to do that, but they don't have to if it is impossible or too costly in comparison to another remedy.

powerful_Rogue

shak2 wrote: »

I don't think the health and safety thing is an issue. It's just a single dead light out of many. Let's assume the fault was a single blown LED in a line of 100 christmas lights. If the item was that, would there be an issue returning it?

What has caused the LED to blow? Power surge due to electrical fault?

A retailer will NOT sell an item knowing it has an electrical fault.

shak2

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

An item that is cosmetically damaged and the buyer is happy to keep it can ask for a reduction in price or a refund.

Heres a flow chart that might help you. I dont want to spoil the surprise, but it says seller to refund.

http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/sogaataglance

In your case then, if I had asked for a reduction in price would that have been acceptable?

and if I asked for a reduction in price and they then refunded me, are they in the wrong in that case then?

powerful_Rogue

shak2 wrote: »

In your case then, if I had asked for a reduction in price would that have been acceptable?

and if I asked for a reduction in price and they then refunded me, are they in the wrong in that case then?

Any retailer is not going to let you keep an item with an electrical fault. I dont understand why you cant see the logic in that.

So, a replacement is impossible and a repair is out of the question, returning the faulty item isnt an option due to health and safety - what remedy are you after?

wealdroam

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?

That depends.

If it had been misused, e.g. dropped, used in an inappropriate fitting, or hosed down with water, then it is not inherently faulty and the seller is clearly not obliged to provide a remedy.

shak2 wrote: »

Second point:
The buyer requested they return the item. The seller had two choices, not one. refund, or return, and they took refund.

The seller had three choices:
1) repair the item
2) replace the item
3) provide a refund.

shak2 wrote: »

Someone said before they can't return an item with a fault, but there is no law to say they can't...

If the seller provides faulty goods, then of course the buyer can reject those goods for a refund.
SoGA Section 35 - Acceptance.

Haven't we already covered that?

Please go to post number one and repeat until clear.