Returned Goods on a Sale - Unfair Refund?

jazzy

I recently purchased an item from Maplin Electronics (an online purchase) which was on a pre-christmas sale at a reduced price. The goods developed a fault after 30 days, I contacted Maplin who informed me to return the goods either for a repair or a replacement.

I received an mail from Maplin today and they have issued a refund instead of a replacement and I was informed that if I wish to have a replacement to make a re-order, which is at a much higher price due to it not being on a sale anymore.

Just wondering if this is the correct procedure, because it seems unfair?

cono1717

Within the first 6 months they have to either repair, replace or refund an item if they cannot prove that it's not a manufacturing defect. But its up to them what they do.

vuvuzela

I guess you'll disagree, but to me it seems entirely fair - you spent £x on an item and they are going to refund your £x.
The fact you now need to buy another and it now costs £x+y is annoying, but they have put you back into the position you were before buying the product and you had free use of it for a month.

marliepanda

It is legally okay. A bit cheeky if you specifically sent it back to be replaced and that had been agreed, but totally legal.

lincroft1710

I'm waiting for someone to cry "loss of a bargain"

m0bov

Would this be claimable under consequential loss? You entered into a contract to purchase an item, to put you back post purchase would put you out of pocket? I suspect its worth looking into, I have heard of this with things like sofas etc... How much are we talking here?

unforeseen

The idea is to put you back into the same position as if you hadn't bought it . I.E. no loss. That is achieved with the full refund.

There is no quantifiable consequential loss.

jazzy

m0bov wrote: »

Would this be claimable under consequential loss? You entered into a contract to purchase an item, to put you back post purchase would put you out of pocket? I suspect its worth looking into, I have heard of this with things like sofas etc... How much are we talking here?

It's not that much. It was £23 on the sale and the price is now £35. Just think it's a bit naughty by Maplin not send out a replacement which are in stock.

mattyprice4004

From a business perspective I completely understand - they're in it to make as much money as possible, so can do so by refund you and hoping you'll buy at the full price.

Sucks, but perfectly legal

bris

m0bov wrote: »

Would this be claimable under consequential loss? You entered into a contract to purchase an item, to put you back post purchase would put you out of pocket? I suspect its worth looking into, I have heard of this with things like sofas etc... How much are we talking here?

No, when a sale is completed and the goods are faulty through no fault of either party the contract is unwound.


In laymans terms the contract is frustrated and both parties should be put back in the same position as if the contract was never formed.


There is such a thing as loss of bargain but there needs to be a clear breach for that, faulty goods is not a breach of contract.

ThumbRemote

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

From a business perspective I completely understand - they're in it to make as much money as possible, so can do so by refund you and hoping you'll buy at the full price.

Sucks, but perfectly legal

That's exactly what they are doing. The stupid thing is, from a business perspective it doesn't work.

If they sold it at £23 they made (for example) £5 profit. They've refunded this, so no longer have any profit - in fact, they have a small loss due to the postage cost. They are hoping the customer will buy it again at £35, meaning Maplin make £17 profit less their small previous loss.

What actually happens is the customer gets annoyed with the store, refuses to buy the replacement from them on a point of principle, and loses any goodwill they had towards that store in the future - costing them future sales too. Hey presto, nobody's a winner.