Asda don't seem to know what Sale of Goods Act says

daytona0

ThumbRemote wrote: »

It is covered by the Sale of Goods Act. There is no exemption for this; you can search for and read the act quite easily.

The fact that Asda may not be able to prove something should be their problem, not the OPs. Asda can choose whether to sell these cards or not, if they do so without any systems in place that is their choice and shouldn't affect their customers.

How can asda prove or disprove that the code was redeemed before the fault had developed?

That is unfairly penalising the retailer, and I was thinking along the lines of "perishable goods" in relation to SOGA (though I'm not sure on that). It is astronomically rare that only one card would be faulty in a batch of multiple card supplied from the manufacturer's factory. I'd be hopeful that asda could use that as a sort of evidence, saying "hey look, we got 500 cards in this batch and only one was faulty. If you check the report from Microsoft you can see that they were all produced on the same factory line and on the balance of probabilities it is more likely to be customer damage".

Then again, it is just as easy for asda to initially say no (due to common sense of the whole scenario) and then to just pay out if the customer kicks off. We then see a complaint on MSE and are not sure whether it is a legitimate SOGA breach or merely a goodwill gesture, but we do see a somewhat hassle-free solution to something which was likely the fault of OP.

prowla

Fantastic - scratch cards which become illegible when scratched...
If that's not a defect in manufacturing/design, then I don't know what is!

geerex

daytona0 wrote: »

Well, I am assuming that a postcode forms part of the microsoft user ID registration form in which case it would provide a nice way of searching for user IDs which may be registered to that same postcode (although I did inaccurately use the word "similar" in my post, so please assume that it means "the same"). Such a check may yield instances where a gold membership has been registered to an account which may belong to the OP or their immediate family.

If you look at my Xbox account just now, my " post code" is 90210. No, i don't live in the USA.

shaun_from_Africa

geerex wrote: »

If you look at my Xbox account just now, my " post code" is 90210. No, i don't live in the USA.

What sort of car do you drive?
Let me know and I'll keep a look out for you as according to my Google play account, that's just where I live as well!

Azari

Well done, OP.

As usual on this forum (sadly), there are people falling over themselves to side with the retailer.

As is so often the case they are coming up with all sorts of piffle in order to do so.

Your purchase most definitely was covered by the SOGA, and the fact that in important code with specific monetary worth smudged clearly means that it was not of merchantable quality.

Not only is it perfectly easy to print things that don't smudge, it's also perfectly easy to print a second copy under a 'void if removed' marking.

The fact that they sold something that was faulty and did not take (or ensure the manufacturer took) the most basic of steps to protect themselves is entirely their own problem.

daytona0

Azari wrote: »

Well done, OP.

As usual on this forum (sadly), there are people falling over themselves to side with the retailer.

With respect, but SOGA applies to both retailer and consumer (the parties) and as such the rights of both parties need to be explored equally.

Also, one unit being faulty in an otherwise identically created batch would be extremely rare. This might be sufficient evidence to argue against SOGA in favour of consumer damage (which is more probable anyway).

Finally, there is no mention of the type of resolution gained. Did TS intervene? Did ASDA just say "sod it, give them a goodwill gesture and be done with this saga" or was it a SOGA resolution? Nobody knows....

Azari

daytona0 wrote: »

With respect, but SOGA applies to both retailer and consumer (the parties) and as such the rights of both parties need to be explored equally.

Maybe you could tell us what 'rights' the SOGA confers upon the retailer - as opposed to options in fulfilling the rights of the consumer or limitations of the rights of the consumer - above normal contract law?

Also, one unit being faulty in an otherwise identically created batch would be extremely rare. This might be sufficient evidence to argue against SOGA in favour of consumer damage (which is more probable anyway).

NO.

If you sell someone something that requires them to rub a card to uncover a code then it should be printed in smudge proof ink. No ifs or buts. Otherwise it is not of merchantable quality. It's not as if printing something in that way is difficult.

One of the major purposes of the SOGA was to stop retailer wriggling out of their responsibilities by blaming the customer.

Finally, there is no mention of the type of resolution gained. Did TS intervene? Did ASDA just say "sod it, give them a goodwill gesture and be done with this saga" or was it a SOGA resolution? Nobody knows....

Well, I would imagine ASDA knows.

Although, we can all be pretty certain that ASDA realised that they didn't have a leg to stand on.

The code was smudged. Unless they could show it had been subjected to some unreasonable treatment (and, note it would be for them to prove that, not for the buyer to prove it hadn't), the item was clearly not of merchantable quality.

As for the 'only one card in the batch' - which, incidentally, unless I've missed something seems to have come entirely from you own imagination - that's just a variation of the tired old: "None of our other customers have complained" routine.

It's entirely irrelevant.

shaun_from_Africa

daytona0 wrote: »

Also, one unit being faulty in an otherwise identically created batch would be extremely rare.

Rare maybe but certainly not impossible.
There could have been a problem with the paper that the card in question was made from (a slight bit of grease or oil on it for example), or the ink might have been running out.
For all anyone on here knows, there may have been a whole batch of faulty cards which were removed from circulation and one or two slipped through or the whole faulty batch released and this is the only case mentioned on here.

Just think of stamps or banknotes.
Made in batches just like the cards and when problems are discovered the faulty items are destroyed but on odd occasions, misprinted notes and stamps still get out.

Cornucopia

This is a tricky one. Common sense says that the Retailer is probably right, although they may have handled it badly. (And I think that technology products are particularly difficult for retailers to handle complaints over, generally).

The problem with a "product" that is a proxy for a virtual purchase is whether (at the limit) it can be said to qualify for the various rules on physical quality and fitness for purpose.

It's disappointing that with all the technology available to one of the World's leading technology companies, that they couldn't come up with an approach that was (a) more foolproof, and (b) gave a better indication of whether the virtual credit had been used or not.

I suppose the method they are using is cheap, whereas some of the methods in use by the Banks might be more secure, but are also more expensive to implement. The peel-off grainy panel is particularly clever in that it provides a fairly simple to use approach that is intrinsically tamper-evident.

Azari

Cornucopia wrote: »

This is a tricky one. Common sense says that the Retailer is probably right

Completely wrong.

They sold a product that had a specific purpose and the customer could not use it for that purpose.

They completely failed to show the customer that it either could be, or had been, used for that purpose.

Therefore it was either not fit for purpose or not of merchantable quality, or both.

Remember that under the terms of the SOGA it is for the retailer to prove that an item is of suitable quality. The fact that they and the manufacturer between them had not implemented a system to enable them to prove their case is in no way the fault or responsibility of the customer and the retailer is liable under the SOGA.

I can think of at least two ways they could have protected themselves, neither of which would have cost more than a fraction of a penny per card. And that's just with 2 minutes thought.