Returned Goods on a Sale - Unfair Refund?

naedanger

bris wrote: »

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.

If the seller supplied faulty goods then they did breach the contract and loss of bargain would apply i.e. the op could claim damages so they were put into the position they would be had the contract not been breached (and not just put into the position they were prior to entering the contract).

Had the goods perished before being supplied then the seller may have been able to argue the contract was void.

However if you are interested see the following article.

https://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=130223

e.g. "... here 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." [My emphasis.]

It is also worth noting there are further conditions for the seller to meet before they can argue the contract is frustrated e.g. it must have been specific goods that were being sold.

All academic given the amounts involved. I doubt the op will sue Maplins for a few pounds.

naedanger

jazzy wrote: »

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.

You could speak to Maplin and explain you believe they are treating you poorly as you don't believe it is fair you are worse off than you would have been had they honoured the contract and supplied a working and sufficiently durable item.

Perhaps flatter them also e.g. by saying you normally find them a good company to deal with if that is indeed the case.

If they are commercially sensible (and you are a likely future customer) then they should supply a replacement for the reasons ThumbRemote gave.

It may be that most customers believe a full refund is fair (even when the price has subsequently risen) and so it makes commercial sense to only offer the replacement to the customers that realise they are not being treated fairly (in those customers' view).

Le_Kirk

naedanger wrote: »

e.g. "... here 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."

Did it mean voided or is avoided the correct wording here?

naedanger

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Did it mean voided or is avoided the correct wording here?

The quoted text uses the word "avoided". However the full text uses "void" in other places and I don't think there is any material distinction in the intended meaning, which is that the contract is to be regarded as though it had not been made. (Which is why in those limited circumstances the buyer is not able to sue for "loss of bargain" - the bargain is regarded as having never been struck.)