Refund after 12 months

DevCoder

That doesn't make them complicit and that doesn't make your case.

Seriously, I'd move on. You are going to have a hell of a job proving this one and even then the company has offered a goodwill gesture and hasn't admitted fault.

They allude to this in their "several factors" which would go beyond any statement made to the simple pushing in on the wire.

If a few MSE'rs can think of counter argument to your statement of "fox proof" then the company itself will have a whole raft to present if it went to court.

tomtontom

damianjmcgrath wrote: »

It is very strange that as soon as I emailed my complaint, they updated their website to remove that wording, isn't it?

Easier to remove it than have people misinterpret it?

Spank

Yours could be the first that had in intrusion (that they know of) so they removed that bit of text.
TBH I read Fox proof hutch as I would unbreakable safe or all inclusive insurance. Im sure they thought (could of even tested) that foxes couldn't get in, sadly your could be the one exception.

unholyangel

damianjmcgrath wrote: »

Lets put wording to one side to a minute.
Wouldn't making a hutch secure from foxes be reasonably assumed by a customer buying an outdoor hutch? If I buy a fridge (which has a principal function of keeping food cold), but I can't open the door, that would be considered faulty. This would be despite the product pages not mentioning anything about functioning doors. Some things are just assumed.

An outdoor hutch providing safety and security from animals was assumed by me to come as standard. Do people think that is an unreasonable assumption?

I understand Esqui's comment about a replacement being offered under the Sale of Goods Act, but surely some products don't make sense to be replaced? Some products are so specific that if they break, and destroy the sole reason for having the product in the first place, then a replacement shouldn't be the only outcome of a complaint?

I'll use your own analogy.....if your fridge breaks, you'd be entitled to a repair or a replacement after 1 year....you can request one preference over another but retailer can refuse if disproportionately costly in comparison to another. You wouldnt be entitled to a refund simply because you were moving in with your partner (for example) and didnt need a fridge any longer. The purpose of the remedy is to (first and foremost) put you into the same position you would have been in had the breach not occurred. So if its inherently faulty, they owe you a repair/replacement and a rabbit.

However after 6 months, its up to you to prove the item is inherently faulty.

wealdroam

damianjmcgrath wrote: »

Lets put wording to one side to a minute.

You simply cannot put aside wording.

The Sale of Goods Act is made up from words, and those words say that whilst you can choose a remedy, you cannot force a seller to provide a remedy that is disproportionate.
See SoGA Section 48B.

Anyway, as you haven't been able to prove that the product failed due to an inherent fault, the seller is doing more than he need do by offering to replace the faulty part.

damianjmcgrath wrote: »

I understand Esqui's comment about a replacement being offered under the Sale of Goods Act, but surely some products don't make sense to be replaced? Some products are so specific that if they break, and destroy the sole reason for having the product in the first place, then a replacement shouldn't be the only outcome of a complaint?

You mean like a freezer that fails and destroys all the food within it?
In that case one would get the thing repaired/replaced and buy some more food.

If you want to change the law, your starting point is your Member of Parliament.

djmsemcgrath

If the product was not secure enough to prevent a fox, and they replace the wire bars for another set of wire bars, how is that any use to anyone? In this case, I don't believe a replacement would be appropriate because the product fails to adequately protect rabbits.

unholyangel

damianjmcgrath wrote: »

If the product was not secure enough to prevent a fox, and they replace the wire bars for another set of wire bars, how is that any use to anyone? In this case, I don't believe a replacement would be appropriate because the product fails to adequately protect rabbits.

Pics of the damage?

tomtontom

damianjmcgrath wrote: »

If the product was not secure enough to prevent a fox, and they replace the wire bars for another set of wire bars, how is that any use to anyone? In this case, I don't believe a replacement would be appropriate because the product fails to adequately protect rabbits.

You're missing the point - the hutch protects the rabbits as well as it can, but ultimately there is no hutch that will keep a rabbit entirely safe, and this one does not claim to.

Hintza

A couple of points from your posts.

This will not be the first time a fox has been through your garden, they will always be around.

If you believe the security light came on for the first time why didn't you take any action?