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

Mr_Norrell

InsideInsurance wrote: »

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

Terms in contracts can be express or implied, but can also be conditions, warranties or innominate terms.

A condition is a term which goes to the root of a contract, which allows repudiation (Poussard v Spiers (1876)) this is also known as a promissory condition - for example conforming to a description.
A warranty is a lesser term which doesn't go to the root of the contract, so entitles the innocent party to damages only (Bettini v Gye (1876)) and is defined in s.61(1) SOGA.
An innominate term is one which is found by the court, which can either be a warranty or condition.

InsideInsurance wrote: »

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

I'll defer to you on this, I'm a tech troglodyte.

stedan1827

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.

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

Is this Ebuyer?

Hi no it's aria

I bought a second card from ebuyer and they have already given me a refund for that one accepting the miss-sell.

stedan1827

Mr_Norrell wrote: »

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.

Thanks for your reply. I accept that 5 months is long enough to have accepted the goods.

However the computer hasn't been performing as well as I had thought it would do. It wasn't until 2 weeks ago that I found out from the manufactures own website 'nvidia' that they have made an error in their advertisement of the cards.

On reading their article I realised that this is why my performance wasn't as expected. I acted on this information as soon as I found out.

Nvidia in America have offered customers of the USA assistance in obtaining a refund from the traders their.

I haven't seen anything here in the UK and I suspect it would be from the sales of goods act.

I intend to write a letter into the company and give 7 days' notice for them to reply.

Failing this would trading standards assist or should I file a small claims court claim?

As I mentioned above I have 2 of these graphic cards and the second I have already returned to a company called ebuyer.

This was also bought 5 months ago. The reason they are from different companies is because aria local to me and I wanted to pick one up to use until I got the second online.

As ebuyer have accepted that the card was miss sold and have given a refund I would have thought I would have a strong case at court for a refund with aria too?

Cycrow

InsideInsurance wrote: »

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

Its a little more complicated than that.
But the problem was with how nvidia designed the cards and is an issue with all GTX970's.

Essentially they have 4GB but practically, only 3.5GB is usable, which means anyone who runs games at very high res (4k, triple monitor, etc) starts getting problems

some companies were offering full refunds to anyone who had bought one, but not all

InsideInsurance

Whilst what is happening in the USA is interesting it is in no way binding in UK courts. We have much greater consumer protection law than they have over there but at the same time the law only allows indemnification where as the US has punitive damages.

Presumably you did buy it from a UK merchant?

NVidia's admission of a defect with the product is clearly going to be useful but I have to say that personally I have never worked out how much of a card is NVidia and how much is MSI, Gigabyte, Asus or whatever other brand is on the box?

Cycrow

InsideInsurance wrote: »

NVidia's admission of a defect with the product is clearly going to be useful but I have to say that personally I have never worked out how much of a card is NVidia and how much is MSI, Gigabyte, Asus or whatever other brand is on the box?

The core hardware will be from Nvidia, if its reference design, then the board and heatsink will be based on nvidias design. (so all reference boards are essentially the same with different branding)

Different brands may use different levels of overclocking, but this can also be changed by the user

Non reference design will still use the same hardware, but may place them in different places on the board and use different heatsinks/fans.

So all the important bits will be from nvidia, with the cooling/overclocking/appearance from the different brands