Tricky Return

gik

What was the item??

shak2

matttye wrote: »

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.

If there were more options which the law wanted to provide the seller wouldn't they have given more options like (c) (d) etc? but they just said (a) or (b).

giantmutantbroccoli

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?

Yes, they have complied with the law.
If you still believe otherwise, seek legal advice.

Wow this thread.

powerful_Rogue

shak2 wrote: »

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?

Yup, your right. Lodge a claim with the Small Claims Court immediately.

matttye

shak2 wrote: »

If there were more options which the law wanted to provide the seller wouldn't they have given more options like (c) (d) etc? but they just said (a) and (b).

There doesn't need to be more options because the law is already sufficient.

This is what would happen:

- Buyer says to seller, "I want you to reduce the price of the item."
- Seller says to buyer, "No, but you can have a refund."
- Buyer says to seller, "Okay thanks."

JOB DONE. Law abided by. Everyone's happy.

shak2

Wait I've just realised something...you guys might be right in practice, but the law is worded wrong...

EXAMPLE:

I guess a buyer could just say give me £80 to cover the fault on the £90 item, then the seller would obviously say no right and the law would support the seller saying no...so it's not an a or b thing like it looks...which means maybe the seller can just give a refund...

the other case is the buyer saying give me some money to cover the fault and the seller saying ok here's £0.01. The buyer will obviously say no...

ok I get it now. thanks guys. Goodnight and thanks.

gik

shak2 wrote: »

Wait I've just realised something...you guys might be right in practice, but not in the exact letter of the law:

EXAMPLE:

I guess a buyer could just say give me £80 to cover the fault on the £90 item, then the seller would obviously say no right and the law would support the seller saying no...so it's not an a or b thing like it looks...which means maybe the seller can just give a refund...

ok I get it. thanks guys. Goodnight and thanks.

School tomorrow?

matttye

shak2 wrote: »

Wait I've just realised something...you guys might be right in practice, but the law is worded wrong...

EXAMPLE:

I guess a buyer could just say give me £80 to cover the fault on the £90 item, then the seller would obviously say no right and the law would support the seller saying no...so it's not an a or b thing like it looks...which means maybe the seller can just give a refund...

ok I get it. thanks guys.

Woohoo :T

Although I don't think there's anything wrong with the wording.

It says that the buyer may require the seller to reduce the price OR give a refund. It does not say that the buyer gets to decide which, just that they can require the seller to do one or the other.

shak2

gik wrote: »

School tomorrow?

I meant from here not literally...

mije1983

gik wrote: »

School tomorrow?

Haha you got in before the crafty edit