Hudl 2 charging problem. Tesco will not replace only repair

Brummagem_Bertie

bod1467 wrote: »

What you're forgetting is the term "acceptance" ... once this is deemed to have occurred then the retailer gets to choose the remedy. If the OP has had the Hudl more than a few days then acceptance has occurred.

And your authority for that statement would be what, exactly?

SOGA states that the buyer has a reasonable time to inspect the goods to check that they conform to the contract and is only deemed to have accepted the goods when this reasonable time has passed and he has not rejected them.

Nowhere in SOGA is a time limit specified, certainly not one as short as a few days. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances, it could even be months.

As for the retailer getting to choose the remedy once the goods have been accepted, please see my previous post where I argue otherwise.

bod1467

Brummagem_Bertie wrote: »

And your authority for that statement would be what, exactly?

Experience, being what SOGA classifies as a "reasonable person", and being aware of the really good Trading Standards SOGA Explained website (before they pulled it after the Consumer Contract Regulations came into force).

You are technically correct - SOGA doesn't specify time limits for acceptance. But that's because it CAN'T ... SOGA needs to cater for a 10p sweet to a £100k car, and acceptance conditions will vary wildly. In THIS case, having a tablet for more than a few days will almost certainly mean acceptance has occurred; having it for two MONTHS means it is a given. This negates the part you highlighted in your previous post ... once acceptance has occurred then that right is gone.

In terms of remedy ... the consumer can express a preference but cannot FORCE the retailer into accepting this remedy if it is disproportionately costly.

This thread is better-suited to the Consumer Rights board. You'll find that 99%+ of people in there will concur with my position. YOU will be very much in the minority.

agrinnall

bod1467 wrote: »

This thread is better-suited to the Consumer Rights board. You'll find that 99%+ of people in there will concur with my position. YOU will be very much in the minority.

I concur with bod :T.

Brummagem_Bertie

bod1467 wrote: »

Experience, being what SOGA classifies as a "reasonable person", and being aware of the really good Trading Standards SOGA Explained website (before they pulled it after the Consumer Contract Regulations came into force).

You are technically correct - SOGA doesn't specify time limits for acceptance. But that's because it CAN'T ... SOGA needs to cater for a 10p sweet to a £100k car, and acceptance conditions will vary wildly. In THIS case, having a tablet for more than a few days will almost certainly mean acceptance has occurred; having it for two MONTHS means it is a given. This negates the part you highlighted in your previous post ... once acceptance has occurred then that right is gone.

In terms of remedy ... the consumer can express a preference but cannot FORCE the retailer into accepting this remedy if it is disproportionately costly.

This thread is better-suited to the Consumer Rights board. You'll find that 99%+ of people in there will concur with my position. YOU will be very much in the minority.

I agree that the consumer cannot force the retailer into replacing a defective product if that would be disproportionately costly, but you must surely agree that that is very different to the retailer getting to choose the remedy, which is what you originally stated.

SOGA states that "the buyer has the right to require the seller" - that's very clear language with a very straightforward meaning. I'm rather baffled by idea that a reasonable person would accept that what this actually meant was that the seller could choose to do what they wanted, irrespective of what the buyer wanted.

As for SOGA defining a reasonable person, it doesn't and I believe that the only reference to such is in relation to satisfactory quality, which isn't really relevant to this discussion.

If you think this is better suited to the Consumer Rights board I believe there is a mechanism for raising that, other than posting it on here.

And there really is no need to SHOUT. Remember, "Be nice to all MoneySavers" especially newbies, otherwise they may not feel welcome.

bod1467

You're conveniently overlooking section (1)(b) in 48A ... (b) relates to acceptance; if acceptance has occurred then 48A does not apply at all, so the Right to require the seller is gone.

I don't care that it is here ... but OP may get better responses (as in, responses from people familiar with consumer rights) over there than in here. If OP wishes to notify a Board Guide to have it moved then OP can do so.
PS - I am a regular in Consumer Rights.

And the caps were purely for emphasis; I was not shouting. (I could equally have used underline or bold, but found it quicker and easier at the time to use CAPS). I'll not take any form etiquette lessons from you, thanks.

lovinituk

Brummagem_Bertie wrote: »

Remember, "Be nice to all MoneySavers" especially newbies, otherwise they may not feel welcome.

Nobody is being unkind as far as I can see, they are just stating facts. The problem is that a lot of newbies come along and then get upset just because people don't agree with them. Just because someone does not agree with you doesn't mean they are not being 'nice'.

For what its worth, I concur with what bod1467 is saying. A couple of months ownership of a tablet is more than enough for acceptance under SOGA.

Of course if the OP disagrees they can always take it to a small claims court and let them decide. In reality, taking the repair is by far the least costly, least risky course of action to take.

Mr_Toad

Brummagem_Bertie wrote: »

I agree that the consumer cannot force the retailer into replacing a defective product if that would be disproportionately costly, but you must surely agree that that is very different to the retailer getting to choose the remedy, which is what you originally stated.

SOGA states that "the buyer has the right to require the seller" - that's very clear language with a very straightforward meaning. I'm rather baffled by idea that a reasonable person would accept that what this actually meant was that the seller could choose to do what they wanted, irrespective of what the buyer wanted.

As for SOGA defining a reasonable person, it doesn't and I believe that the only reference to such is in relation to satisfactory quality, which isn't really relevant to this discussion.

If you think this is better suited to the Consumer Rights board I believe there is a mechanism for raising that, other than posting it on here.

And there really is no need to SHOUT. Remember, "Be nice to all MoneySavers" especially newbies, otherwise they may not feel welcome.

I'm afraid there's a lot of rubbish bandied about regarding the SOGA and our rights.

A lot of people who have had a refund take that as actual proof that they were entitled to one and that by "knowing their rights" they've forced that retailer into a refund.

In truth the refund was probably given as an act of goodwill or simply to get rid of an irate customer or because it's easier or cheaper to do than go through the whole repair process.

British Law is far from the black and white that you seem to think it is.

In summary, the Sale of Goods Act provides three statutory rights:

• The seller owns the goods and can sell them.
• The goods are of satisfactory quality.
• The goods are ‘as described’.

It goes on to describe the remedies that are available. In summary, these are:

• A repair.
• A replacement.
• A refund.

The retailer will usually offer the remedies in this order. These remedies are a big source of confusion and many consumers expect a full refund or a brand new replacement. This is often due to retailers, such as Marks and Spencers, who have a returns policy that exceeds their statutory obligations and sets consumer expectations very high. One thing that surprises some consumers is that a refund can be partial taking into account the usage and age of the item and a replacement can be of a similar age i.e. not brand new.


As the OP bought the item in October they are now, due to the time lapsed, deemed to have 'accepted' the goods and this changes things.


From the guidlines on this site.


http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange


Down near the bottom.


Do you want a full refund? While you may want a full refund, you're not always entitled to it if they can fix the problem. Having said that, sometimes it's just easier for them to pay up to have the problem solved.


Have a look at the following.


http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/consumer/consumer_protection/138.html

Also on the CAB site.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/consumer_w/consumer_common_problems_with_products_e/consumer_what_you_can_do_about_faulty_goods_e/faulty_goods_-_if_you_want_your_money_back.htm

Brummagem_Bertie

lovinituk wrote: »

Nobody is being unkind as far as I can see, they are just stating facts. The problem is that a lot of newbies come along and then get upset just because people don't agree with them. Just because someone does not agree with you doesn't mean they are not being 'nice'.

"Have you actually read the SOGA?" is not a statement of fact and came across as condescending and dismissive of my opinion, whether it was meant that way or not.

Telling me that I am unreasonable (by implication, simply because I disagree with a self-professed reasonable person) and that I will be in a minority of 1% also has the air of someone trying to slap down a newbie for daring to disagree.

Using capital letters on message boards has always been regarded as shouting on all the message boards I have posted on and read. If someone wants to emphasise something that is what underline or italics are for. Ignoring those distinctions, for whatever reason, is likely to lead to misunderstanding.

And I do not have a problem with people disagreeing with me. What I expect, though, is that someone who does so will be able to mount a rational argument, backed up by logic and evidence, rather then bluff and bluster.

RumRat

Not seen anyone be discourteous to you on this thread. Perhaps you should accept that you are not correct and have been shown why.
Making out you are being bullied, is just childish..

Brummagem_Bertie

Mr_Toad wrote: »

I'm afraid there's a lot of rubbish bandied about regarding the SOGA and our rights.

Ain't that the truth!

Mr_Toad wrote: »

A lot of people who have had a refund take that as actual proof that they were entitled to one and that by "knowing their rights" they've forced that retailer into a refund.

I don't profess to know what a lot of people think when they get a refund. I do know, from experience, that a lot of retailers fob people off, often successfully, when legally they should provide a refund.

Mr_Toad wrote: »

In truth the refund was probably given as an act of goodwill or simply to get rid of an irate customer or because it's easier or cheaper to do than go through the whole repair process.

Possibly; there are some retailers out there who actually take their promises of good customer service seriously and deliver them. Equally, there are retailers who will try to pretend that they are doing you a favour when, in reality, you are simply getting what the law says you should.

Mr_Toad wrote: »

British Law is far from the black and white that you seem to think it is.

I have never said that the law is black and white; for the record, I know it isn't, so your assumption is wrong. Equally, however, statements to the effect that the retailer has the right to choose the remedy also seem to pretend that the law is black and white, never mind that they are factually and legally incorrect.

Mr_Toad wrote: »

In summary, the Sale of Goods Act provides three statutory rights:

• The seller owns the goods and can sell them.
• The goods are of satisfactory quality.
• The goods are ‘as described’.

It goes on to describe the remedies that are available. In summary, these are:

• A repair.
• A replacement.
• A refund.

The retailer will usually offer the remedies in this order. [/QUOTE]

You were doing so well until then. The retailer may well offer the remedies in this order, but that doesn't get away from the fact that the law states it is the buyer's right to specify the remedy, with only defined limits on their freedom to choose.

Mr_Toad wrote: »

As the OP bought the item in October they are now, due to the time lapsed, deemed to have 'accepted' the goods and this changes things.

I think you meant to say at the start of that, "In my opinion," - what was it you said about the law being black and white?

Mr_Toad wrote: »

From the guidlines on this site.

Down near the bottom.


Do you want a full refund? While you may want a full refund, you're not always entitled to it if they can fix the problem. Having said that, sometimes it's just easier for them to pay up to have the problem solved.


Have a look at the following.

Also on the CAB site.

(links removed because I'm not allowed to post them, even in quoted text, it seems.)

I'm well aware of all to which you refer. I reminded of something my dad was fond of saying, "What's all that got to do with the price of eggs?"