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

shaun_from_Africa

molerat wrote: »

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

The doors on many refrigerators and freezers sometimes come off and on very easily, something that enables them to be reversed for left or right hand opening.
If you had an appliance delivered and it had a big dent in the door, (and going by threads on here, this is something that seems to happen fairly often) I think that most reasonable people would class the door replacement as a repair despite the fact that it may have simply been screwed on and off.

molerat

And as this is DFS and they don't give in easily it may be left up to the courts to decide so I refer to my previous quote.

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.

A court generally bases its decisions on what a normal person would consider reasonable and total rejection for a easily rectifiable breach of the contract at no more inconvenience than collection of the item may not be a reasonable remedy. Pick fights that you have a certain chance of winning.

shaun_from_Africa

molerat wrote: »

And as this is DFS and they don't give in easily it may be left up to the courts to decide so I refer to my previous quote.A court generally bases its decisions on what a normal person would consider reasonable and total rejection for a easily rectifiable breach of the contract at no more inconvenience than collection of the item may not be a reasonable remedy. Pick fights that you have a certain chance of winning.

Well, how about Trading Standard's opinion as they seem to think that even minor problems are good enough to allow the consumer to apply their right of rejection.

•of satisfactory quality, covering for example the appearance and finish of goods, their safety and durability and their freedom from defects (even minor ones) - except where they have been pointed out to you before purchase.
•fit for their purpose.
•as described, complying with any description applied to them during the sale.

If the goods do not meet these standards, there is a breach of contract on the part of the trader. You are entitled to reject the goods and claim a refund

http://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/webcontent/home/services/community+and+living/consumer+advice+and+protection/es-mw-tradingstandardsfaq

unholyangel

molerat wrote: »

And as this is DFS and they don't give in easily it may be left up to the courts to decide so I refer to my previous quote.A court generally bases its decisions on what a normal person would consider reasonable and total rejection for a easily rectifiable breach of the contract at no more inconvenience than collection of the item may not be a reasonable remedy. Pick fights that you have a certain chance of winning.

Did you read my earlier post?

The act sets out when consumers have the right to reject and when they don't.

What youre talking about is breach of warranty versus breach of condition - except that the legislation means that those terms are to be treated as conditions in consumer contracts. A breach of condition entitles you to repudiate the contract, a breach of warranty only entitles you to claim for damages.

It has nothing to do with how easily a remedy can be enacted.