Tricky Return

shak2

unholyangel wrote: »

You're focusing on the remedy rather than the actual breach. The breach was that the goods failed to conform to contract upon delivery - not that they failed to send you a replacement.

But the goods did conform to contract upon delivery. The fault developed later after using the product.

halibut2209

The point is "loss of bargain" is not at all relevant in this case. You might as well say it falls under the Theft Act 1968. Yes, the theft act is a real piece if legislation, but is simply (and obviously) not applicable in this case, same as loss of bargain isn't

powerful_Rogue

shak2 wrote: »

But the goods did conform to contract upon delivery. The fault developed later after using the product.

Not quite. It would have been delivered with an inherent fault. If it wasn't inherently faulty, it would have been caused by mis-use and as such not covered by the sales of goods act.

If you really are thinking about taking this to court, you need to do an awful lot of research. Id start off by trying to understand the basics.

shaun_from_Africa

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

If "Loss of a baragin" was as clear cut as the OP hopes it is, it would have serious rammicifactions on the retail industry.

Spot on.
It would render a large part of the SOGA irrelevant and it would also mean that an awful lot of advice given by Trading Standards, the OFT, CAB etc would be incorrect.
In just about every instance relating to goods that were faulty upon delivery (or shortly afterwards) they clearly state that a retailer must refund and I've yet to see any advice stating that a consumer has the right to demand a replacement or cash to cover loss of bargain.

Searcher

The company are wrong
You are right
You are entitled to a replacement
If they disagree then take them to court and you will win the case hands down
You may even get compensated for the inconvenience.






There you go, you've got the answer you want!

shak2

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

On what basis have you come to that conclusion? What specific law will you be using?

The 50/50 is of course not an exact figure of the probabilities of winning/losing.

I see two arguments. There is the SOGA argument, and the breach of contract.

The SOGA argument relies on the property having been accepted as mine. The definition in law is kinda loose with some saying it needs 7 days, others saying it's on delivery or up to the buyer to define. Also uncertain here is if the law says the seller can refund at their choice if they failed to organise a replacement because of their own failures. Lastly, if they CAN refund, then do I still have a choice to tell them to just return the faulty item to me rather than take the refund.

The breach of contract is clearer as they have a duty to provide goods of satisfactory quality to meet the contract. They failed on that note because I don't have the item. Consider if a large retailer sold goods knowing that they were faulty just to cream interest off the top of holding money for a month while customers went through the returns process only to be refunded at the end.

shak2

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Spot on.
It would render a large part of the SOGA irrelevant and it would also mean that an awful lot of advice given by Trading Standards, the OFT, CAB etc would be incorrect.
In just about every instance relating to goods that were faulty upon delivery (or shortly afterwards) they clearly state that a retailer must refund and I've yet to see any advice stating that a consumer has the right to demand a replacement or cash to cover loss of bargain.

I wasn't requesting replacement after they failed to provide a replacement I would have been happy if they just returned the faulty item back to me because the fault was cosmetic. That is what they refused to do and refunded me instead without my permission.

Valli

shak2 wrote: »

And yet that's exactly what has happened. Someone has bought up breach of contract. And there's a DISCUSSION if that relates to the case or not. Please stop posting if you have nothing useful to add again.

You are behaving like a petulant toddler.

Here's my useful information for you reiterated before you make a complete fool of yourself cherry-picking tiny bits of posts which you feel back up your own opinion because you're agrieved that the thing you bought doesn't work and you've been given a refund for it so you are musing over the idea of taking them to court.

You have been refunded.
You will have to pay the costs of bringing a court case.
You will LOSE the case because the company from whom you have bought your item have FULFILLED their obligations under SoGA.
You may also be required to pay the costs of the other party in the action (the defendant). They may chose to use a solicitor. If they win (and you lose) then that will be more expense for you if costs are awarded to the defendant. Solicitors are likely to charge in excess of £100 PER HOUR.

You have no knowledge of the legal qualifications of any of the posters on here.

BUT the majority view is that you would be wasting your time if you pursue this. And your money.

halibut2209

My prediction

In an attempt to save face, OP will return at some point claiming that the seller has offered to pay the £50 difference saying that he was right and all of us were clearly wrong

powerful_Rogue

shak2 wrote: »

I wasn't requesting replacement after they failed to provide a replacement I would have been happy if they just returned the faulty item back to me because the fault was cosmetic. That is what they refused to do and refunded me instead without my permission.

It wasnt a cosmetic fault though, it was an electrical fault by your own admission.

shak2 wrote: »

It was a non critical fault. One of the lights, wasn't working.

Also, they dont need your permission to issue a refund. The choice is down to the retailer.