Missing Part

freakyp

Electric Range Cooker purchased in store on 22.10.16.
This was at a significantly reduced price. As such a photo was taken of the product in store and paperwork completed to show that the only damage was a few scratches on hob. It was made clear that no parts were missing.

It was purchased by debit card and delivered to home in full bubble warp on 31.10.16.
The product was only opened this past weekend (3.12.16) as kitchen was being renovated. Upon opening it became evident that the plinth on the ground/base of the cooker was missing and had not been supplied.

There was a plinth on the cooker in store and I have the photo to prove it. I’ve been told the product was ‘sold as seen’ and that the plinth on the cooker wasn’t a proper one. There is no record of this in the paperwork. As a solution, I was given a ‘dummy plinth’ by the store. This is not the one evident in the photo of the product. Further to this, it is 90cm wide and the cooker is 100cm wide so it doesn’t even fit!
The store is now offering only a refund and are unwilling at this point to provide any part (I would accept an alternative, suitable plinth).
So, my questions – As stated above, the product was purchased at a very good price. I do not want to return it or to receive a refund. I want the product as paid for and as shown by paperwork and photo. Is the store under no obligation to provide the product that they sold me? Can they simply provide refund and that’s the end of it?

powerful_Rogue

freakyp wrote: »

Electric Range Cooker purchased in store on 22.10.16.
This was at a significantly reduced price. As such a photo was taken of the product in store and paperwork completed to show that the only damage was a few scratches on hob. It was made clear that no parts were missing.

It was purchased by debit card and delivered to home in full bubble warp on 31.10.16.
The product was only opened this past weekend (3.12.16) as kitchen was being renovated. Upon opening it became evident that the plinth on the ground/base of the cooker was missing and had not been supplied.

There was a plinth on the cooker in store and I have the photo to prove it. I’ve been told the product was ‘sold as seen’ and that the plinth on the cooker wasn’t a proper one. There is no record of this in the paperwork. As a solution, I was given a ‘dummy plinth’ by the store. This is not the one evident in the photo of the product. Further to this, it is 90cm wide and the cooker is 100cm wide so it doesn’t even fit!
The store is now offering only a refund and are unwilling at this point to provide any part (I would accept an alternative, suitable plinth).
So, my questions – As stated above, the product was purchased at a very good price. I do not want to return it or to receive a refund. I want the product as paid for and as shown by paperwork and photo. Is the store under no obligation to provide the product that they sold me? Can they simply provide refund and that’s the end of it?

They can refund you to put you back into the same position as before.

If you can then find the same cooker ex display but it is more expensive, then you could look at claiming "Loss of bargain" through the small claims court.

freakyp

That's what I'm trying to avoid I think. In my view they don't want to replace part because the cooker was sold at such good value. However the loss of the part is not my fault or responsibility.

It was my understanding that if a store sells me a product then they are obligated to provide that product. Can they just offer a refund to get out of it? A refund that I don't want! I thought that if I'm sold something the store is obligated to provide that thing and not use the refund as any easy way out. A refund has been offered to me simply because they don't want to stand to the cost of providing the part on a product that they sold at such good value.

powerful_Rogue

freakyp wrote: »

That's what I'm trying to avoid I think. In my view they don't want to replace part because the cooker was sold at such good value. However the loss of the part is not my fault or responsibility.

It was my understanding that if a store sells me a product then they are obligated to provide that product. Can they just offer a refund to get out of it? A refund that I don't want! I thought that if I'm sold something the store is obligated to provide that thing and not use the refund as any easy way out. A refund has been offered to me simply because they don't want to stand to the cost of providing the part on a product that they sold at such good value.

If currys have breached the contract by not supplying you with what you paid for, they then have to put you back into the same position as if the breach had not occurred, so in this case a full refund.

After that, if you manage to purchase the same make and model ex display cooker elsewhere but it is more expensive, you can then send a Letter Before Action asking for the difference. If they do not comply, you would start Small Claims Court action for "Loss of bargain".

freakyp

They have stated that they could provide the part (e.g. take it from another cooker) but they won't do this. They are simply choosing not to. Other than small claims and 'loss of bargain', when they can make this situation good, is there no obligation on them to do so?

powerful_Rogue

freakyp wrote: »

They have stated that they could provide the part (e.g. take it from another cooker) but they won't do this. They are simply choosing not to. Other than small claims and 'loss of bargain', when they can make this situation good, is there no obligation on them to do so?

You can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink.

freakyp

Lol I will keep trying for a day or two yet

I've not mentioned small claims, trading standards or anything like that yet so will see how it goes.

Any other advice is appreciated?!

unholyangel

Under the consumer rights act, you cannot force a remedy that is impossible or disproportionately costly. Given you've said several times on what good value/a good deal it was, its very likely that a repair would be disproportionately costly and that a replacement isn't possible (replacements are on a like for like basis so given its an ex-display model, they most likely can't replace on a like for like basis). Which would then bring us back to the refund option.

You could perhaps contact the manufacturer and see if they would be willing to source a replacement but its likely not going to be covered by a warranty (if one was provided) so I wouldn't get my hopes up.

System

Loss of bargain has worked when sellers have tried to renege on contracts they could fulfill but didn't want to.

Your case isn't the same and there is a defense they can use.

Goods perishing before sale but after agreement to sell.

Where there is an agreement to sell specific goods and subsequently the goods, without any fault on the part of the seller or buyer, perish before the risk passes to the buyer, the agreement is avoided.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/section/7

Can you prove they were at fault?

naedanger

mutzi wrote: »

Loss of bargain has worked when sellers have tried to renege on contracts they could fulfill but didn't want to.

Your case isn't the same and there is a defense they can use.



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/section/7

Can you prove they were at fault? If not, you can't win against that. Take the refund.

I don't see any defence in what you have quoted, which concerns perishable goods.

freakyp

I can prove, by photograph, what they sold me i.e. a range cooker with no missing parts. I also have the paperwork which shows what damage there was (a few scratches) and makes no reference to any missing parts.
The cooker was delivered but without the plinth. They are now telling me that they lost it between showroom and delivery. I've been told they could sort my problem by providing 'a £200 part but we're not willing to do that' and 'we won't take a part from another cooker'. In a sense, they only reason they will not complete the delivery of the product as purchased is because they would have to pay to replace the part and don't want to. And they don't want to because the price they sold the product was very reasonable to me.
This is what has irritated so much.....they could fulfill the delivery of the parts but don't want to because of the cost to them. The refund offer is only being made because the seller doesn't want to take the cost of covering their own error.