Tricky Return

Valli

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?

Yes it would have been acceptable for you to ask for a reduction in price.

But you didn't; you returned the item so that point is moot.

However they could have said they were not prepared to offer a reduction (or partial refund), and asked you to return the item with a view to either making a full refund, repairing it or replacing it.

mije1983

shak2 wrote: »

I don't think the health and safety thing is an issue. It's just a single dead light out of many.

How do you know there isn't an underlying electrical fault with the item? Of course if you have had the item professionally examined to rule this out then I'd agree with you on this one point.

shak2

Valli wrote: »

Yes it would have been acceptable for you to ask for a reduction in price.

But you didn't; you returned the item so that point is moot.

However they could have said they were not prepared to offer a reduction (or partial refund), and asked you to return the item with a view to either making a full refund, repairing it or replacing it.

AH HA! I told you guys I was right!! so what you're saying is if I had asked for a reduction in price they were legally obliged to do that over giving a refund?

matttye

shak2 wrote: »

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?

No, it's "may," because you're well within your rights to keep the faulty item and not invoke the SoGA at all. However, when you returned the item to the seller you invoked the SoGA.

shak2

mije1983 wrote: »

How do you know there isn't an underlying electrical fault with the item? Of course if you have had the item professionally examined to rule this out then I'd agree with you on this one point.

So if there was no health and safety issue, and I asked them to return the item, then they were legally obliged to return it over giving a refund?

shak2

matttye wrote: »

No, it's "may," because you're well within your rights to keep the faulty item and not invoke the SoGA at all. However, when you returned the item to the seller you invoked the SoGA.

But it was returned with their promise to replace it. Without that promise I would not have returned it and would have kept the faulty item. They made a promise (in writing!) and didn't keep it. That's why this doesn't feel right what they did...

powerful_Rogue

shak2 wrote: »

So if there was no health and safety issue, and I asked them to return the item, then they were legally obliged to return it over giving a refund?

Your not grasping this.

If the item had a scratch or a dent etc (cosmetic damage) you could have phoned up and asked for a reduced price.

You didnt do that. You returned the item because it was faulty, they had no replacements and as such refunded your money.

Third time lucky:

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?

powerful_Rogue

shak2 wrote: »

But it was returned with their promise to replace it. Without that promise I would not have returned it and would have kept the faulty item. They made a promise (in writing!) and didn't keep it. That's why this doesn't feel right what they did...

What exact words did they write? Can you provide a screenshot of the email obviously leaving out any personal details.

wealdroam

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?

I think you are being very naive in suggesting that a statutory document is badly worded.

With the greatest respect, just because you can't understand it it does not mean there is anything wrong with it.

Yes of course these things are thoroughly checked, and of course many learned people will have read, adjusted and re-checked the documents before they are confirmed in good order.

I fear your argument has now hit rock bottom by making that suggestion.

gik

What was the item?