Tricky Return

Valli

shak2 wrote: »

ok, one more time then:

If, in 48c i choose (a), and 48c2(a) applies, 48a applies and 48c(a) was possible, then they have to do 48c(a) right?

wrong.

no.no.

halibut2209

This is the thread which just keeps on giving

Valli

shak2 wrote: »

But they have a contract to supply me goods. Otherwise any company could sell anything, send a faulty item "by mistake", and cream of the interest, then refund after 30 days.

Well you can avoid this EVER happening by pointing them to this thread, advising them that YOU are the OP of this thread and giving them the option to refuse to do business with you.

'Cream off the interest?'

Classic:cool:

:rotfl:

matttye

shak2 wrote: »

But they have a contract to supply me goods. Otherwise any company could sell anything, send a faulty item "by mistake", and cream of the interest, then refund after 30 days.

What's your point?

They sent you goods, which turned out to be faulty.

Do you even understand what you're trying to say yourself?

powerful_Rogue

shak2 wrote: »

But they have a contract to supply me goods. Otherwise any company could sell anything, send a faulty item "by mistake", and cream of the interest, then refund after 30 days.

But that business would have to pay the return costs for the faulty items. Im pretty positive that cost would vastly out weigh anything they would make on the interest.

shak2

matttye wrote: »

NO.

The buyer may require the seller to reduce the value OR rescind the contract. So long as one of those two things are adhered to, they do not fall foul of the law.

If the seller refuses to reduce the value, and you require them to refund you, and they do indeed refund you, then they have quite clearly complied with the law.

This is not what I said tho...

If the seller refuses to reduce the value, and I require them to reduce the value, and they refund me, have they complied with the law? seriously, have they? because it very much looks like they haven't because it says "the buyer may" decide

matttye

shak2 wrote: »

This is not what I said tho...

If the seller refuses to reduce the value, and I require them to reduce the value, and they refund me, have they complied with the law? seriously, have they? because it very much looks like they haven't because it says "the buyer may" decide

Actually, it doesn't. It says the buyer may require them to do one of those two things, but it doesn't explicitly state that the buyer gets to decide which one.

It would have have to say something like:

"(1) The buyer may require the seller to: -

(a) Reduce the value of the goods;
(b) Rescind the contract and issue a refund,

and the seller must comply with the buyer's demand of (a) or (b)."

Obviously a very rough draft, it would probably be worded very differently.

powerful_Rogue

shak2 wrote: »

This is not what I said tho...

If the seller refuses to reduce the value, and I require them to reduce the value, and they refund me, have they complied with the law? seriously, have they? because it very much looks like they haven't because it says "the buyer may" decide

Your getting your 48B's and 48C's mixed up. I explained that what you have just said isnt the case a few posts up.

marliepanda

The buyer can ask, the supplier can say no.

The buyer can ask, the supplier can say no.


The buyer can ask, the supplier can say no.

shak2

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

No, because if 48C(a) applies, it refers to 48B(3)

Last try:

so, IF, in 48C I choose (a), and 48C2(a) applies, 48A applies and 48C(a) was possible and repair or replacement was impossible, then they HAVE to do 48C(a) right?