Tricky Return

RosiPossum

shak2 wrote: »

Hi, the regular non sale price of the item is £140, so with £90 refunded already the difference I would like is £50.

But the defective goods aren't worth £140. Only a brand new fully working one is.

wealdroam

shak2 wrote: »

Hi, the regular non sale price of the item is £140, so with £90 refunded already the difference I would like is £50.

Sorry, in the legislation that you have quoted to us, there is no mention of the regular non sale price of the item.

From the legislation you have quoted, you are entitled to nothing more.

It appears that you may have mis-understood this loss of bargain thing.

matttye

shak2 wrote: »

Hi, the regular non sale price of the item is £140, so with £90 refunded already the difference I would like is £50.

What makes you think you're entitled to any more than the sale price? The actual value is obviously the price that they sold it for.

Do you think that if you buy a product from Poundland for £1, but it turns out to be defective, you can claim £1.50 just because that's what it costs in Tesco?

That's ludicrous :eek:

shaun_from_Africa

vaio wrote: »

For clarity does this also apply to faulty goods I hand in for a repair estimate and then the repair doesn't go ahead?

and if not, why?

In both cases the punter owns the goods and I can't think of any legislation that would allow a repairer to retain the goods on the grounds they had a fault

My opinion is that the two scenarios are different.
If you send something for an estimate then you are keeping ownership of the goods whereas the OP sent something back that they rejected (whether or not this is what they intended), and by rejecting it under the SOGA it could be argued that the ownership of the item went back to the seller.

shak2

(i) LOSS OF BARGAIN

Damages for loss of bargain are assessable to put the plaintiff, so far as money can do it, in the same situation as if the contract had been performed. For example, in a contract for the sale of goods which are defective, the plaintiff will (under this head) be entitled to damages reflecting the differences between the price paid under the contract and the actual value of the defective goods.

So the damages are to put me in the same position as if the seller had fulfilled the contract. Meaning me with the item, right?. If the item price is now £140 then that is the price, I can't change that to go down magically, that is just the price it is. It's not my fault it is higher.

I know you are all hating again and being negative after one bully said things yesterday but please stop that and let's talk law/facts please.

wealdroam

shak2 wrote: »

I know you are all hating again and being negative after one bully said things yesterday but please stop that and let's talk law/facts please.

Once again, I object to being accused of 'hating'.

Yes, let's talk facts.

For a start, please tell us what you are quoting from.

It is you that put up an explanation on how the sum due to you should be calculated.

matttye

shak2 wrote: »

(i) LOSS OF BARGAIN

Damages for loss of bargain are assessable to put the plaintiff, so far as money can do it, in the same situation as if the contract had been performed. For example, in a contract for the sale of goods which are defective, the plaintiff will (under this head) be entitled to damages reflecting the differences between the price paid under the contract and the actual value of the defective goods.

So the damages are to put me in the same position as if the seller had fulfilled the contract. Meaning me with the item, right?. If the item price is now £140 then that is the price, I can't change that to go down magically, that is just the price it is. It's not my fault it is higher.

I know you are all hating again and being negative after one bully said things yesterday but please stop that and let's talk law/facts please.

"For example, in a contract for the sale of goods which are defective, the plaintiff will (under this head) be entitled to damages reflecting the differences between the price paid under the contract and the actual value of the defective goods."

Price paid under contract: £90

Actual value of defective goods: £70

Difference: £20

You get: £20
(Taking you up to: £90)

It would be to put you in the position that you would have been in had the contract have been performed, so you would either have an item to the value of the amount you paid, or you would have an item worth less than what you paid and a monetary amount to make up the difference.

It says nothing about putting you in a BETTER position, by supplying you with a more expensive item.

You're pulling that out of thin air.

RosiPossum

The difference in price thing only seems to apply if you kept the goods, which you didn't.
I know you want to, but that just isn't an option so you'll need to let that go.

shak2

wealdroam wrote: »

Once again, I object to being accused of 'hating'.

Yes, let's talk facts.

For a start, please tell us what you are quoting from.

It is you that put up an explanation on how the sum due to you should be calculated.

I am quoting that from:

http://www.lawteacher.net/contract-law/lecture-notes/remedies-lecture-1.php

I wasn't sure if I could post links so I left it out before...

shak2

matttye wrote: »

"For example, in a contract for the sale of goods which are defective, the plaintiff will (under this head) be entitled to damages reflecting the differences between the price paid under the contract and the actual value of the defective goods."

Price paid under contract: £90

Actual value of defective goods: £70

Difference: £20

You get: £20
(Taking you up to: £90)

It would be to put you in the position that you would have been in had the contract have been performed, so you would either have an item to the value of the amount you paid, or you would have an item worth less than what you paid and a monetary amount to make up the difference.

It says nothing about putting you in a BETTER position, by supplying you with a more expensive item.

You're pulling that out of thin air.

That is an interesting interpretation. That assume the plantif keeps the defective goods, yes?