Missing Part

System

naedanger wrote: »

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

More than potatoes. Sections 6&7 are a codification of case law, a summary is available in "Baskind, Osborne, & Roach: Commercial Law"

See pages 309-312 https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=TZ2cAQAAQBAJ&q=perish#v=snippet&q=perish&f=false

If the pages are hidden (google only sometimes gives you what you want) and without buying the book, question 2 of the online quiz from the book should clear it up.
http://global.oup.com/uk/orc/law/company/baskind/resources/selftestqs/ch13/

societys_child

You're not happy, they've offered to refund, that's reasonable.
Loss of Bargain? Maybe, but it's a separate issue .

Can you post a pic of this missing plinth?

naedanger

mutzi wrote: »

More than potatoes. Sections 6&7 are a codification of case law, a summary is available in "Baskind, Osborne, & Roach: Commercial Law"

See pages 309-312 https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=TZ2cAQAAQBAJ&q=perish#v=snippet&q=perish&f=false

If the pages are hidden (google only sometimes gives you what you want) and without buying the book, question 2 of the online quiz from the book should clear it up.
http://global.oup.com/uk/orc/law/company/baskind/resources/selftestqs/ch13/

If the matter gets to court, the risk the retailer proves, on the balance of probability, that the cooker plinth perished would be low down my list of concerns.

The more obvious concern to me would be proving the plinth that the op saw was not a dummy one as the store are alleging.

freakyp

So a plinth has now been provided and one that fits. A little bit of focus got us past the only offer being a refund. The plinth is however not the one that was on the cooker that we saw and photographed. As far as I can ascertain it is a general plinth rather than one specific to this cooker. Although not over the moon it is probably something we will accept.

I do however find it frustrating that it seems a seller can sell a product, lose a part and then just offer a refund to the customer. In this situation it appears like an easy way out for the seller, a seller who made the error. If they make an error it seems to me that the seller should be obligated to provide exactly the product that they sold, regardless of the extra cost to them.

Maybe I'm asking too much!

takman

freakyp wrote: »

So a plinth has now been provided and one that fits. A little bit of focus got us past the only offer being a refund. The plinth is however not the one that was on the cooker that we saw and photographed. As far as I can ascertain it is a general plinth rather than one specific to this cooker. Although not over the moon it is probably something we will accept.

I do however find it frustrating that it seems a seller can sell a product, lose a part and then just offer a refund to the customer. In this situation it appears like an easy way out for the seller, a seller who made the error. If they make an error it seems to me that the seller should be obligated to provide exactly the product that they sold, regardless of the extra cost to them.

Maybe I'm asking too much!

I personally think it's unreasonable to expect a retailer to provide the goods at all costs even if they make a loss. Obviously it's pretty poor that they were unable to provide what you paid for but in that case a full refund is what you can reasonably expect.

freakyp

takman wrote: »

I personally think it's unreasonable to expect a retailer to provide the goods at all costs even if they make a loss. Obviously it's pretty poor that they were unable to provide what you paid for but in that case a full refund is what you can reasonably expect.

takman, I get where you're coming from. Having been in business I do get your thinking.

I'm kind of sitting on the other side of this one though - I do think the retailer should provide it at a loss. They sell a product, I purchase it at price agreed, they provide the product. I think, even if the retailer loses the product, or damages it that they should still be (legally and morally) obligated to provide it.
In simplicity - don't lose the piece of equipment and this scenario never arises.

lincroft1710

Consumer legislation says the retailer has the option to replace, repair or refund. The consumer can ask for the remedy they would prefer, but it is up to the retailer to decide the option usually based on the one which makes most economic sense.

societys_child

I think, even if the retailer loses the product, or damages it that they should still be (legally and morally) obligated to provide it.

It doesn't work like that.

Bogalot

freakyp wrote: »

takman, I get where you're coming from. Having been in business I do get your thinking.

I'm kind of sitting on the other side of this one though - I do think the retailer should provide it at a loss. They sell a product, I purchase it at price agreed, they provide the product. I think, even if the retailer loses the product, or damages it that they should still be (legally and morally) obligated to provide it.
In simplicity - don't lose the piece of equipment and this scenario never arises.

Human error. Have you never made a mistake?