DFS have sent me the wrong legs, but I've decided I don't like the sofa anyway

molerat

What is different about the legs ?

Ultimately it could be down to the courts to decide if rejection of the goods was reasonable and the legs, which the seller is willing to replace (quickly and at a minor inconvenience?), could be considered a minor easily correctable deviation from the contract and so total rejection is unreasonable. If they sent a green suite instead of a blue one there could be no argument.

Your argument for rejection needs to be on the grounds that the item is faulty.

Hintza

You sat on a sofa and ended up with pulled shoulder muscles?

Sounds like buyers remorse to me!

Oakdene

Just so you know, you need to check your order form as it will say


'
Special Instructions

• Professional clean only
• Plump and turn cushions daily
• Vacuum weekly
• Cushions soften with use

So if your issue is the cushions are too hard, you may have a job...

Hermione_Granger

molerat wrote: »

What is different about the legs ?

Ultimately it could be down to the courts to decide if rejection of the goods was reasonable and the legs, which the seller is willing to replace (quickly and at a minor inconvenience?), could be considered a minor easily correctable deviation from the contract and so total rejection is unreasonable. If they sent a green suite instead of a blue one there could be no argument.

Your argument for rejection needs to be on the grounds that the item is faulty.

There is nothing in the CRA that states that if goods differ from those ordered, the retailer is entitled to replace or repair those goods provided that it is done quickly and with minor inconvenience. What the act does clearly state is that should the goods not conform to contract, they may be rejected within 30 days and a full refund obtained.


The consumer can ask for a repair or replacement should this be what they wish but they are no obligation to accept either if they prefer a refund.

molerat

What the act states and what a court would consider a reasonable interpretation of the act and enforce are two entirely different things.

I buy a £50,000 car and it fails to come with the picnic hamper in the boot. The dealership say OK, next time you are passing we will give it to you or we will courier you one. No, I reject the car as per CRA - would a court see that as a reasonable interpretation of my rights - I don't think so.

Hermione_Granger

molerat wrote: »

What the act states and what a court would consider a reasonable interpretation of the act and enforce are two entirely different things.

I buy a £50,000 car and it fails to come with the picnic hamper in the boot. The dealership say OK, next time you are passing we will give it to you or we will courier you one. No, I reject the car as per CRA - would a court see that as a reasonable interpretation of my rights - I don't think so.

A chalk and cheese argument.
The big difference being that if something is missing from an order, the retailer is expected to provide that item in order to complete the contract.
The OPs sofa does not have something missing, it was incorrectly assembled and needs a repair or an exchange to make it right, and a repair or exchange can legally be refused.

Surely you can see the difference.

wealdroam

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

A chalk and cheese argument.
The big difference being that if something is missing from an order, the retailer is expected to provide that item in order to complete the contract.
The OPs sofa does not have something missing, it was incorrectly assembled and needs a repair or an exchange to make it right, and a repair or exchange can legally be refused.

Surely you can see the difference.

I get it.

So what you are saying is that if Molerat's £50,000 car came with a pink picnic hamper when a blue hamper was ordered, it would be ok for him to reject the car for a full refund - even if the seller offered to replace the hamper with one of the right colour?

Remember, 'repair' is defined in Section 23 of The Consumer Rights Act:

(8)In this Chapter, “repair” in relation to goods that do not conform to a contract, means making them conform.

unholyangel

(3)If the goods do not conform to the contract because of a breach of any of the terms described in sections 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14, or if they do not conform to the contract under section 16, the consumer’s rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are—
(a)the short-term right to reject (sections 20 and 22);
(b)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and
(c)the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24).

(4)If the goods do not conform to the contract under section 15 or because of a breach of requirements that are stated in the contract, the consumer’s rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are—
(a)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and
(b)the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24).

The argument for rejection does not need to be that the goods are faulty as previously stated by molerat (and indeed retailers stating "no returns unless faulty" are acting illegally). If an item doesn't match its description, isn't of satisfactory quality, doesn't match its sample or isn't fit for purpose, then you have the right to reject.

The only one of those open to interpretation is of satisfactory quality - because that section states goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the expectations of a reasonable person. So a judge would have to decide if (for example) a tiny imperfection would be satisfactory to an average person or not. (ETA: that is to say, whether a reasonable purchaser would have accepted the goods at the same price had they been aware of the defect).

However, seeing as OP's doesn't match its description or sample, they have the right to reject.

molerat

The legs on most DFS suites simply screw on and off - no "repair" work needed.

wealdroam

molerat wrote: »

The legs on most DFS suites simply screw on and off - no "repair" work needed.

Please re-read the definition of 'repair' in the CRA:

(8) In this Chapter, “repair” in relation to goods that do not conform to a contract, means making them conform.