Offered a credit note but can I fight for a refund? sales of goods act

stedan1827

Hello,

I bought an item 5 months ago.

The item is a graphics card for a computer costing £300.

It was advertised as having 4GB of memory which is important to my requirement. It gets technical but has 3.5gb running at full speed and another .5 running much slower so it doesn't meet my needs.

The manufacturer accepts that is was 'miss-advertised' and the trader accepts the contact and that it is in breach of S13(1) of the sales of goods act but the trader is only offering a return for a credit note.

I want to get a full refund...am I entitled to this.

I am happy to go through the small claims court but I want to check, legally has the trader met the requirements by offering a credit note or do I have a case for a refund with them?

I would appreciate if you can point me to the relevant part of the sales of goods act if it states one way or the other.

Thanks

DoaM

stedan1827 wrote: »

I want to get a full refund...am I entitled to this?

Yes. If the retailer has accepted that a refund is due (in this case because of breach of contract), then (if the consumer rejects the offer of a credit note*) they must refund to the same method used for payment. (This is due to money laundering rules). The refund must include all monies paid, including initial shipping cost. Note also that they can insist on return of the goods, but as it is due to their breach of contract then they must also bear the cost of return.

* They are allowed to offer a credit note, but they can't insist on one.

Is this Ebuyer?

InsideInsurance

DoaM wrote: »

Yes. If the retailer has accepted that a refund is due (in this case because of breach of contract), then (if the consumer rejects the offer of a credit note*) they must refund to the same method used for payment. (This is due to money laundering rules). The refund must include all monies paid, including initial shipping cost. Note also that they can insist on return of the goods, but as it is due to their breach of contract then they must also bear the cost of return.

SOGA gives the merchant the choice of how to resolve the issue from Refund, Repair or Replace. A credit note is not a refund and so doesnt meet the requirements under SOGA and so whilst you are free to accept if you want you equally can reject it and insist on one of the statutory resolutions.

It isnt necessarily a full refund. The SOGA does allow the merchant to deduct from a refund the use that the person has already received from the goods. Realistically I doubt anyone would bother doing this for a 5 month old graphics card but when you get cases of people rejecting cars after 3 years etc then a useage discount certainly is applied.

Refunds can be any mechanism that the vendor wants. Anti-money laundering guidelines do suggest that it should be back to source but they arent strict rules as long as the merchant can show they have adequate controls. The amount of a graphic card is unlikely to be sufficient to trip any high value limits and after 5 months the chances that its a stolen credit card or such is also fairly slim

Mr_Norrell

stedan1827 wrote: »

Hello,

I bought an item 5 months ago.

The item is a graphics card for a computer costing £300.

It was advertised as having 4GB of memory which is important to my requirement. It gets technical but has 3.5gb running at full speed and another .5 running much slower so it doesn't meet my needs.

The manufacturer accepts that is was 'miss-advertised' and the trader accepts the contact and that it is in breach of S13(1) of the sales of goods act but the trader is only offering a return for a credit note.

I want to get a full refund...am I entitled to this.

I am happy to go through the small claims court but I want to check, legally has the trader met the requirements by offering a credit note or do I have a case for a refund with them?

I would appreciate if you can point me to the relevant part of the sales of goods act if it states one way or the other.

Thanks

S.13(1) SOGA tells us that things sold by description will correspond to the description.

S.13(1A) SOGA tells us that s.13(1) is a condition.

However, as per s.11 SOGA, a condition can be treated as a warranty and the contract not repudiated if it is deemed the buyer has accepted the goods.

"Acceptance" is defined by s.35 SOGA. The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when "when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them..." which is further defined in s35(4) as "when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them."

In this case, whilst I initially thought it was a condition, I believe it to be a warranty because you have accepted the goods (5 months) before rejecting them.

A warranty doesn't allow you to repudiate the contract as it is a minor term, therefore I think a credit note is reasonable.

zaax

What is a reasonable time?
It can take a few months to work out why a computer crashes (or goes slow) with certain games as some games can only played at weekends, because it takes 5 hours to play the game, and only when these games are played is the computer stretched and it needs that extra .5 meg of memory to run.

ThumbRemote

Mr_Norrell wrote: »

A warranty doesn't allow you to repudiate the contract as it is a minor term, therefore I think a credit note is reasonable.

Even if your description is correct and OP is not able to repudiate the contact, a credit note is still not an acceptable remedy. The retailer must refund, repair or replace. As the latter two are not possible they can only offer a refund.

shaun_from_Africa

Mr_Norrell wrote: »

In this case, whilst I initially thought it was a condition, I believe it to be a warranty because you have accepted the goods (5 months) before rejecting them.

Just because the goods have been legally accepted doesn't mean that any resolution for faulty goods must be carried out based on any warranty terms.
The SOGA specifically states that goods must be fit for their intended purpose and must also last a reasonable time and I don't think that many people would agree that a life of 5 months for a £300 item is reasonable.


This means that the OP is entitled to a repair, replacement or refund and the retailer cannot insist on a credit note for the refund option.

wealdroam

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Even if your description is correct and OP is not able to repudiate the contact, a credit note is still not an acceptable remedy. The retailer must refund, repair or replace. As the latter two are not possible they can only offer a refund.

I agree, although as already stated, that could be reduced to take account of the use to date.

If the seller is forced to provide a 'proper' refund, it is possible they might offer (say) £280 instead of a £300 credit note.

Op, if you think this might be a risk, then you need to consider your options.

InsideInsurance

zaax wrote: »

What is a reasonable time?
It can take a few months to work out why a computer crashes (or goes slow) with certain games as some games can only played at weekends, because it takes 5 hours to play the game, and only when these games are played is the computer stretched and it needs that extra .5 meg of memory to run.

That is ultimately for a judge to decide.

It is intended to be a fairly short time to give the person time to unpack it and check it over etc. Most places will quote something on the scale of a few days to a week or so however they do point out exceptional cases like a lawnmower bought in winter and not unpacked until the first cut of spring.

Mr_Norrell

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Just because the goods have been legally accepted doesn't mean that any resolution for faulty goods must be carried out based on any warranty terms.
The SOGA specifically states that goods must be fit for their intended purpose and must also last a reasonable time and I don't think that many people would agree that a life of 5 months for a £300 item is reasonable.


This means that the OP is entitled to a repair, replacement or refund and the retailer cannot insist on a credit note for the refund option.

I think we both mean different things when we're using the word warranty.

And I tried to stay away from the question of fault, but if the OP can show that the .5gb of the graphics card is running slow due to an inherent fault, then sure he's entitled to a refund - I didn't have enough technical knowledge to know whether it's a fault, so stuck to terms of the contract.

InsideInsurance

Mr_Norrell wrote: »

I think we both mean different things when we're using the word warranty.

And I tried to stay away from the question of fault, but if the OP can show that the .5gb of the graphics card is running slow due to an inherent fault, then sure he's entitled to a refund - I didn't have enough technical knowledge to know whether it's a fault, so stuck to terms of the contract.

What is your meaning of warranty? Normal definition is a written guarantee or promise.

There is however no need to rely on any warranty because there are statutory rights as per the SOGA and as these adequately cover the matter there is no need to go to the weaker warranty terms. Only if the warranty offered greater coverage than the SOGA would it be worth even considering it over statutory rights.

As to the fault, I am guessing the OP is saying that it was sold has having 4gb of GDDR5 RAM running at 7010 MHz but in reality it has 3.5gb of this and 0.5gb of something else. Now why a graphics card would have this I've no idea but still