Hudl 2 charging problem. Tesco will not replace only repair

Brummagem_Bertie

RumRat wrote: »

Not seen anyone be discourteous to you on this thread.

I've explained about how it might be perceived that discourtesy was intended.

RumRat wrote: »

Perhaps you should accept that you are not correct and have been shown why.

That sounds very much like I am being told to behave, like an errnat schoolchild: "It's important to remember anything on the forum is the opinion of the person posting only."

Given that we are dealing with opinions and, as Mr Toad has pointed out, British law is not black and white, being told what is right or wrong doesn't seem to get us very far. Given I have also explained my reasoning by reference to the actual wording of SOGA, whereas most of those disagreeing have simply said something to the effect of, "You're wrong, it's not a it's b and I know because I am reasonable/experienced/a regular poster and you are just a sensitive, childish newbie", I would argue I have not been shown why I am wrong at all.

RumRat wrote: »

Making out you are being bullied, is just childish..

I take it that you were being deliberately ironic? If not, you may want to reflect on that comment and consider how it might be regarded as contradictory.

Brummagem_Bertie

bod1467 wrote: »

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.

Are you sure about that? I mean, really, really sure? Where in either S35 or S48A does it say that S48A doesn't apply if the buyer has accepted the goods? (If you need any clues as to which of us is right try looking at the title to Part 5A, immediately preceding S48A, and S48A(3).)

Mr_Toad

Brummagem_Bertie wrote: »

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.

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.

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?

No I didn't mean to say in my opinion, because it wasn't my opinion.

It was copied from a website explaining what people can and can not expect when an item fails. I just forgot to post the link.

Another link, the BBC, also states that after four or five weeks has passed you've missed the boat for a refund.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8253915.stm

Perhaps you'd respond with some actual evidence to support your view that the OP is legally entitled to a refund?

You can't post links but you can still type them out w w w dot xxxx dot com etc.

bod1467

Brummagem_Bertie wrote: »

Are you sure about that? I mean, really, really sure? Where in either S35 or S48A does it say that S48A doesn't apply if the buyer has accepted the goods? (If you need any clues as to which of us is right try looking at the title to Part 5A, immediately preceding S48A, and S48A(3).)

Arguing for arguing's sake. I'm out.

You can lead a horse to water .... etc.

d123

bod1467 wrote: »

Arguing for arguing's sake. I'm out.

You can lead a horse to water .... etc.

You were far more patient with an argumentative poster than most would be.

Brummagem_Bertie

Mr_Toad wrote: »

No I didn't mean to say in my opinion, because it wasn't my opinion.

It was copied from a website explaining what people can and can not expect when an item fails. I just forgot to post the link.

Another link, the BBC, also states that after four or five weeks has passed you've missed the boat for a refund.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8253915.stm

Perhaps you'd respond with some actual evidence to support your view that the OP is legally entitled to a refund?

You can't post links but you can still type them out w w w dot xxxx dot com etc.

You appear to be confused - the opinion reference was to your statement that, "As the OP bought the item in October, ... ." not what you have copied from Auntie Beeb.

I've already explained, at length, why I believe the OP might have the legal right to a refund and may have the right to insist on a replacement. You don't agree, I get that. It's clear from just this thread, however, that what is reasonable is only a matter of opinion. Given that the opinions on what is reasonable of those arguing that there is no right to a refund range from a few days to 4-5 weeks, is an opinion that it might stretch to 8 weeks so wildly improbable?

Brummagem_Bertie

bod1467 wrote: »

Arguing for arguing's sake. I'm out.

You can lead a horse to water .... etc.

Not arguing for arguing's sake, just asking you to justify your opinion that S48A doesn't apply. Clearly, you cannot.

Brummagem_Bertie

d123 wrote: »

You were far more patient with an argumentative poster than most would be.

If you think that asking someone who makes a statement about an important point of law to justify that statement is being argumentative, guilty m'lud.

I just happen to believe that on a forum that is meant to discuss consumer rights it's important that the correct advice is given. Saying that S48A doesn't apply simply because someone has accepted goods doesn't come close, IMO.

frugal_mike

(4)One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—
(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,
(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and
(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

(5)Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined by reference to—
(a)the nature of the goods, and
(b)the purpose for which the goods were acquired.

(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/section/48B)

I have no idea what the relative costs of repair/replacement are here to Tesco, but I think it's a safe assumption to make that Tesco would choose the cheapest option to them. Given that, we can assume that replacement is more costly to Tesco than repair.

Paragraph 5 as quoted states that determining reasonableness and significant inconvenience (as use in paragraph four) should take into account the nature of the good and the purpose that they were acquired for.

Given that the Hudl is a low-spec tablet with the only consumer use being for entertainment purposes or light internet surfing, it seems clear to me that it isn't an essential item that would cause significant inconvenience to be without for a short period of time (compared with say a cot, or a washing machine).

It seems to me that it is highly likely that the replacement for a brand new unit would be disproportionately costly to a repair for Tesco.

[Deleted User]

12 posts of 30 by "Brummagem Bertie" who is not even the OP of this thread should set alarm bells ringing. Don't feed.