Tricky Return

giantmutantbroccoli

Doesn't this mean it's my decision and when I asked them to return the faulty item they should have returned it and not just processed a refund without my permission?

No, that's not what it means.

• keep the goods and claim a price reduction from the retailer to compensate them for the fault in the goods - this would be the difference between the value of the product in perfect condition and the value of the product in the faulty condition, or
• return the goods and rescind the contract . This would mean that the customer returns the goods and you provide a partial refund, calculated to reflect the benefit the customer has received from the product.

Firstly, as far as consumer law is concerned, you have not accepted the goods - you have rejected them. Shortly after the goods arrived you found them to be faulty/not fit for purpose, and sent them back. That means you have rejected them. The company you are dealing with is dealing with you on this basis - the bit you quoted only concerns faults that appear after you have accepted the goods, which would definitely be after a longer period than just 6 days.

Secondly, if you had accepted the goods (which you have not, due to the time frame) you would have the right to either keep the item and have a partial refund, or return the item and have a larger refund - but not a full refund. The reason it's not a full refund is because, if you had accepted the goods you would have had some use out of them.

You have already made your choice. You chose to return the goods.

Legally you are entitled to a refund. You can ask for another remedy such as a repair or a replacement, but you cannot insist upon it. The company cannot provide you with a replacement, and they are well within their rights to provide a refund instead.

marliepanda

Request means ask.

You can ask for a repair. You can ask for a replacement. You can ask for the moon on a stick.

They dont HAVE to give you any of those.

Seriously, nothing else you post will make any difference. Whether the fault appear on the 5/6/18th day. How many times the fault appeared. How you sent it back. NOTHING. Thats it!

marliepanda

shak2 wrote: »

Doesn't this mean it's my decision and when I asked them to return the faulty item they should have returned it and not just processed a refund without my permission?

You were within your rights to keep the item with the fault, or send it back.

You sent it back.

The bit you quoted does not say 'the customer has the right to send it back but then to change their mind and ask for it to be returned to them'

shaun_from_Africa

shak2 wrote: »

Doesn't this mean it's my decision and when I asked them to return the faulty item they should have returned it and not just processed a refund without my permission?

Why would any company want to knowingly return something, especially an electrical item that they know is faulty?
In the event that anything happened such as a fire or someone getting hurt from using the item, they company concerned would be hung out to dry.
The item may well be safe even with the fault, but nowadays, all companies have to cover their ar5es in case they get sued.

vaio

giantmutantbroccoli wrote: »

This is rapidly becoming my new favourite site:
http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/
It's the Sale of Goods Act, explained in nice simple language for retailers - but useful for customers too........

........It's not their fault that everybody else's stock is more expensive!

yep, a useful site

As for it not being the retailers fault that everybody else's stock is more expensive, you are right, but equally it's not the buyers fault either and had the seller not breached the contract by selling defective goods then the buyer would have his widget at the original price.

If he now has to pay more to get his widget from elsewhere then, subject to the duty to mitigate, I'd say that's a consequential cost that can be reclaimed from the original seller

shak2

marliepanda wrote: »

You were within your rights to keep the item with the fault, or send it back.

You sent it back.

The bit you quoted does not say 'the customer has the right to send it back but then to change their mind and ask for it to be returned to them'

I didn't change my mind, they changed THEIR mind, so they made a promise and didn't keep it, and it was in writing, so it's a written contract, right?

marliepanda

shak2 wrote: »

I didn't change my mind, they changed THEIR mind, so they made a promise and didn't keep it, and it was in writing, so it's a written contract, right?

No. They don't have any more, they cant send you back the faulty one (they did not agree to that) what do you expect them to do? Fashion one from spare parts they find in the shed.

They have fulfilled their 'contract' by returning you to the position you were in before the contract, you have your money back.

powerful_Rogue

shak2 wrote: »

I didn't change my mind, they changed THEIR mind, so they made a promise and didn't keep it, and it was in writing, so it's a written contract, right?

They didn't change their mind though. If they had a replacement in stock, they were going to send it to you. They didn't so had no other option then to refund.

vaio

marliepanda wrote: »

........They have fulfilled their 'contract' by returning you to the position you were in before the contract, you have your money back.

is that all that needs to happen?

I thought the whole point of a contract is that if there is a breach then the innocent party generally is entitled to be put in the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred and, to (mis-)quote a famous case, "the fact that the performance has become more expensive or onerous doesn't negate the contract"

marliepanda

vaio wrote: »

is that all that needs to happen?

I thought the whole point of a contract is that if there is a breach then the innocent party generally is entitled to be put in the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred and, to (mis-)quote a famous case, "the fact that the performance has become more expensive or onerous doesn't negate the contract"

No, otherwise a replacement would be required under the SOGA, not a refund.

It isn't required, a refund is perfectly acceptable. The consumer cannot require a resolution that is too costly to the retailer, that is straight from the SOGA, so not sure about the (mis)quote in your post.