Can I insist on a replacement instead of a refund?

Bazza73

Hi all,


Bought a tablet from Argos as a Christmas pressie for one of the kids. Used it for a week and then it developed a fault. Back to the store and asked them to repair it. Girl logged it on their system and said it could take upto 21 days to fix. That was 25 days ago.


Have asked them to replace it - Argos no longer sell that model.


Argos have offered to refund it.


Problem is that I bought it while it was on sale for 1/2 price. Argos do have similar models on offer but at the full price.


Can I insist that Argos replace with a like product instead of refunding as I would be worse off taking the refund?


Wouldn't have been too concerned about it other than it was a pressie from Santa and my kid thinks that the elves have it back at the north pole for fixing.


Thanks.

cono1717

No. Argos need to refund, repair or replace a product in the first 6 months unless they can prove it wasn't a manufacturing defect, and after the first 6 months if you can prove it is.

However they get to choose which.

m0bov

You can claim for consequential loss under CRA/SOGA so but if the model is high spec then not so sure. Can they offer a voucher as good will? HAve you looked on Amazon or ebay?

AJXX

Bazza73 wrote: »

Can I insist that Argos replace with a like product instead of refunding as I would be worse off taking the refund?

Might not what you want to hear, but ultimately if this is a full refund then you're not "worse off" at all, you're in the position you started from which satisfies most laws.

You can ask, but certainly not force, insist or demand on a straight up replacement as you actually have no right to.

There is no requirement for Argos to swap with a different model.

societys_child

Have they said it can't be repaired or is it just taking longer than estimated?

As others have said, you're not worse off if they refund, you'd be in the same position you were before you bought it.

naedanger

societys_child wrote: »

As others have said, you're not worse off if they refund, you'd be in the same position you were before you bought it.

But the customer is worse off than they would have been had the contract been properly satisfied by the supplier. (Assuming the op cannot now buy a comparable item elsewhere for the price that will be refunded).

I don't know the legal position but it seems wrong if the consumer is left out of pocket because of the retailer's failure to provide what they were contracted to provide.

societys_child

But the customer is worse off than they would have been had the contract been properly satisfied by the supplier.

I believe the supplier is currently satisfying the contract by repairing the item? It's just taking a little longer than the "girl" estimated.

naedanger

societys_child wrote: »

I believe the supplier is currently satisfying the contract by repairing the item? It's just taking a little longer than the "girl" estimated.

My comment was in response to the argument the op would not be worse off if they were given a full refund.

societys_child

Ah, sorry, you didn't say the customer would be worse off, you said the customer was worse off. Are you talking about loss of bargain?
Either way, I agree with post #4

bris

naedanger wrote: »

But the customer is worse off than they would have been had the contract been properly satisfied by the supplier. (Assuming the op cannot now buy a comparable item elsewhere for the price that will be refunded).

I don't know the legal position but it seems wrong if the consumer is left out of pocket because of the retailer's failure to provide what they were contracted to provide.

They have fulfilled the contract, in what way have they not? The item became faulty so it's a SOGA issue, one which they are resolving by giving a full refund. Where exactly are they going wrong?

naedanger

bris wrote: »

They have fulfilled the contract, in what way have they not? The item became faulty so it's a SOGA issue, one which they are resolving by giving a full refund. Where exactly are they going wrong?

What I said was:

(1) [If Argos refund then] the customer is worse off than they would have been had the contract been properly satisfied by the supplier. (Assuming the op cannot now buy a comparable item elsewhere for the price that will be refunded).

(2) I don't know the legal position but it seems wrong if the consumer is left out of pocket because of the retailer's failure to provide what they were contracted to provide.


Which of these statements are you disagreeing with, and why?