Hudl 2 charging problem. Tesco will not replace only repair

frugal_mike

Brummagem_Bertie wrote: »

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?

(2)Where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he has not previously examined them, he is not deemed to have accepted them under subsection (1) above until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose—
(a)of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract, and
(b)in the case of a contract for sale by sample, of comparing the bulk with the sample.

(3)Where the buyer deals as consumer or (in Scotland) the contract of sale is a consumer contract, the buyer cannot lose his right to rely on subsection (2) above by agreement, waiver or otherwise.

(4)The buyer is also deemed to have accepted the goods when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them.

(5)The questions that are material in determining for the purposes of subsection (4) above whether a reasonable time has elapsed include whether the buyer has had a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2) above.

(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/part/IV)

You are right that the reasonable period required for acceptance to occur under paragraph 4 as quoted is not defined, and can in theory be anything from days to months (or even years). However in this specific situation (the examination of a Hudl), I fail to see how 8 weeks is required.

The minimum amount a reasonable time can be is the time taken to give the opportunity to check that the goods conform to contract. It doesn't take 8 weeks to exercise all features of the Hudl, and there is nothing about the nature of the Hudl that would prevent you beginning the examination almost immediately (say within a few days, to give you chance to get home and charge it).

4 weeks would be the absolute maximum in my opinion (and that is stretching it considerably). The only thing that would make me consider longer would be if it was in the run up to Christmas, where it is common for items such as this to be bought as gifts so it becomes more reasonable that they will not be used for a period of time.

However given that this Hudl was used immediately, it clearly wasn't put away in a cupboard as a Christmas Gift.

JReacher1

Brummagem_Bertie wrote: »

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

Just put them on ignore. They like to argue and when they realise they are wrong instead of backing down start calling you a troll.

Life is too short and they offer nothing of value, so ignore is the best way to deal with a poster like this.

Sterlingtimes

The legislation has to be read literally (as a court would read it). The buyer may require the seller to do one thing or another in this instance. The legislation does not state that this is at the buyer's option, and therefore the seller must decide which of the two things it wishes to do. The choice is the seller's.


48B (1) If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller—

(a)to repair the goods, or

(b)to replace the goods.

RumRat

I think BB can now be fairly described as a Troll.....

LilElvis

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

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

I wonder what he posted in his previous incarnation that led to ppr.

Not the only one I've seen in the last couple of days.

Brummagem_Bertie

What's a troll/alter ego?
A troll is someone who deliberately joins the forum to cause disputes. It may be a long-standing user, or someone completely new.
An alter ego is generally someone who's previously been PPR'd (see What's "PPR" under some people's usernames?) and has joined under a new username to cause trouble.
If you feel someone is trolling or is an alter-ego, please report them to [EMAIL="forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com"]forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL]. Do not respond to them on the forum - that makes things worse.
A guide to dealing with troublemakers
Sadly in a forum of this size, and many much smaller, there will always be people who enjoy disrupting or being unpleasant. It's human nature. When arguments or spats happen people tend to get involved, and even those who normally behave well can do things they wouldn’t normally think acceptable.

On MSE we hope our users can and will behave as adults. If someone is rude or offensive we ask that you report it to [EMAIL="forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com"]forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL] so it can be dealt with and looked at soon.

Don’t respond or engage with trolls

More importantly, we ask that you don’t respond, get involved or start name-calling.

For the record: -


1. I didn't join this forum to deliberately cause disputes, I joined because I saw some advice that I disagreed with and wanted to express my own opinion;



2. I am not posting as an alter ego and haven't posted in a previous incarnation that has led to me being pprd;


3. I do not believe that I have been unpleasant, rude or offensive, unless you consider asking someone to justify a statement to be so. I have been called unreasonable, childish, a troll and told that I should just accept that others know better, I am wrong, and I should just shut up. I didn't realise there were so many glass house dwellers around here .

Sadly new posters seem to be treated harshly more often than they used to. Often it's because they ask questions that have already been asked, or post in the "wrong place".
There's also sometimes a "this is our board" attitude which seems to not want new posters coming in and ruining a pre-established clique.
To be utterly clear - both of these go against the philosophy of this site.
MoneySaving should be fun. Everyone using these boards is here for the same reason, to save money. The site's motto is "Please be nice to other MoneySavers".

Can't say I'm feeling the love.:rotfl:

Mr_Toad

bod1467 wrote: »

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

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

I'm with you.

RumRat

Brummagem_Bertie wrote: »

For the record: -

1. I didn't join this forum to deliberately cause disputes, I joined because I saw some advice that I disagreed with and wanted to express my own opinion;

Well, you failed there, because, you have caused a dispute and are continuing it.

Can't say I'm feeling the love.:rotfl:

It's hard to love a Troll...:beer:

Brummagem_Bertie

frugal_mike, thank you for your considered posts, refreshing to actually have someone who has actually taken the time to construct a reasoned argument.

As far as acceptance goes, I understood one of the factors to be considered in determining what is a reasonable opportunity for examining the goods is the nature of the defect and how obvious it is: hence why, in some circumstances, a reasonable opportunity may mean months.

Even if the buyer is deemed to have accepted them, however, that doesn't exclude the right to seek a refund, if the relevant conditions for rescinding the contract are fulfilled.

As to repair or replacement, I agree that a repair that could be effected within a short period of time would not be a significant inconvenience to the buyer. Not sure how long Tesco were saying a repair would take mind: given that they seem to have quite a lot to fix, it might be a few weeks, especially with Xmas. If the OP were to have been told that he would get it back in January, for example, I would argue that that would be a significant inconvenience.

The fact that the Hudl is only about £100 could mean that a repair was disproportionate to the seller: if you took it into a repairers and they told you that to repair it would cost more than it was worth it's difficult to see how Tesco's could argue it was more expensive for them to replace it. As an example, I recently had to have the charging plug in my laptop replaced. It was £60 just for the part. If the Hudl's need a similar repair, by the time you add in labour you could well be looking at a cost higher than that of the tablet brand new. If. as someone else has suggested, it's a simple software update to fix, and that can be done quickly, that may well shift the balance.

Brummagem_Bertie

RumRat wrote:

Well, you failed there, because, you have caused a dispute and are continuing it.

I think you're confusing correlation with causation.

I am absolutely not continuing it and I'll argue to my dying breath with anyone who disagrees with me on that.