Warranty settlement 'offer' - Fair?

ThumbRemote

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

What's the fascination with bad car examples that are totally irrelevant?

To refund in full would be betterment. The refund proposed takes into account the 20 months use the OP has had.

From the OP's original post, she didn't even check the t&c's of the warranty prior to purchase, only after she received the cheque from the manufacturer.

What does betterment have to do with it? It's purely the terms of a contract that's under discussion. There is no clause in that contract that allows them to make a deduction.

Contract: if X happens, we will do Y.
You don't get to modify Y to your own benefit somewhere down the line.

Can you genuinely not understand the difference between statutory rights and a warranty, or are you just trolling?

shaun_from_Africa

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

To refund in full would be betterment. The refund proposed takes into account the 20 months use the OP has had.

Many insurance policies offer "new for old" when claiming on them and provided that this is in line with what the terms of the policies state, this is betterment and there is nothing wrong with it happening.


If the warranty in question doesn't state anything about the amount of the refund being less than the selling price to allow for usage, the retailer can't simply decide to alter the terms of that warranty as and when they wish,

steampowered

When interpreting a contract, judges look at what a 'reasonable person' would have understood the words in the contract to mean.

I read the words "Costs: Free repair/exchange or refund" as meaning a full refund. The natural meaning of the word 'refund' is to get your money back.

If the company wanted to have the right to make a deduction from the refund to account for depreciation/use, I think the onus is on the trader to spell that out in the warranty.

As has been correctly pointed out by another poster, the CPUTR is clear that any ambiguity in the meaning of the warranty will be constructed in favour of the consumer. This is the position under common law too - ambiguities in a contract are usually constructed against the person who wrote the contract (google for 'contra preferentem').

In the circumstances, I think it would be reasonable to ask the company for a full refund, as that is what the warranty says.