Free Tablet for signing up to TV Company -Rights

hollydays

steve1500 wrote: »

I tried phoning them, just passed from pillar to post.

Charger itself is fine. Luckily they have a shop where I live so will pop in

Ask to speak to a manager/ supervisor. If they are busy, ask them to call you back. Don’t take no for an answer. Keep your cool.

LadyDee

Ask over on the Techie Forum before going any further. Someone there I think posted a way to get what appeared to be a dead tablet going again. I see to remember it was something to do with holding the power and volume buttons down at the same time - something like that anyway, and it worked.

unholyangel

agrinnall wrote: »

It seems obvious to me that that the retailer has no CRA obligation for an item provided entirely free of charge to the purchaser - the cost of the service provided was the same whether the tablet was included or not. I'm not saying they won't do anything about it, but I can't see how the law requires them to. The only thing they might not be entitled to do is take the tablet back from the OP, but at the moment the OP has the service and a tablet, which is what they purchased in the first place.

Well I'm afraid you're completely wrong, and quite evidently have never read MSE's own consumer rights article.

The cost of the service being the same whether the tablet was included or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is what was agreed and in these circumstances, it was agreed they pay £x in exchange for x months tv + a tablet.

Let me ask you this. You order a new car. The dealer agrees to provide some extras (maybe parking sensors, bluetooth etc) at no extra charge. They then deliver a standard stock car with none of the promised extras. Are you saying in that situation you'd quite happily accept the inferior model just because you didn't pay any extra despite the fact they haven't provided what you agreed to buy?

Manxman_in_exile

unholyangel wrote: »

Well I'm afraid you're completely wrong, and quite evidently have never read MSE's own consumer rights article.

The cost of the service being the same whether the tablet was included or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is what was agreed and in these circumstances, it was agreed they pay £x in exchange for x months tv + a tablet.

Let me ask you this. You order a new car. The dealer agrees to provide some extras (maybe parking sensors, bluetooth etc) at no extra charge. They then deliver a standard stock car with none of the promised extras. Are you saying in that situation you'd quite happily accept the inferior model just because you didn't pay any extra despite the fact they haven't provided what you agreed to buy?

Are there actually any decided cases on this point of law, or are we saying what the law should be? I wonder if there's a difference between a feature being absent and simply not working?

agrinnall

unholyangel wrote: »

Well I'm afraid you're completely wrong, and quite evidently have never read MSE's own consumer rights article.

The cost of the service being the same whether the tablet was included or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is what was agreed and in these circumstances, it was agreed they pay £x in exchange for x months tv + a tablet.

Let me ask you this. You order a new car. The dealer agrees to provide some extras (maybe parking sensors, bluetooth etc) at no extra charge. They then deliver a standard stock car with none of the promised extras. Are you saying in that situation you'd quite happily accept the inferior model just because you didn't pay any extra despite the fact they haven't provided what you agreed to buy?

We'll have to agree to disagree. The OP has a tablet, it's just not working properly. I don't think the provider has an obligation to fix it, they might be required to choose between repair, replace or refund, and if they choose to refund then the amount to be refunded is £0. The car example is irrelevant, as a) no sensible person would accept it, and b) you are referring to items not provided, which is not the case with the OP.

unholyangel

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Are there actually any decided cases on this point of law, or are we saying what the law should be? I wonder if there's a difference between a feature being absent and simply not working?

I can't tell if you're joking or not.

The rules on contract formation and consideration are very well established and form the foundation for contract law as a whole.

This is why I explained earlier about the difference between a "free gift" with no consideration given in exchange and one with consideration given (even if no extra was given/it wasnt adequate, its still valid consideration).

unholyangel

agrinnall wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree. The OP has a tablet, it's just not working properly. I don't think the provider has an obligation to fix it, they might be required to choose between repair, replace or refund, and if they choose to refund then the amount to be refunded is £0. The car example is irrelevant, as a) no sensible person would accept it, and b) you are referring to items not provided, which is not the case with the OP.

If you understood even the basics of how a contract is formed, you'd realise why you're wrong.


If you're really interested in the correct answer, try googling and see what you find - there are a wealth of solicitors pages, law resources etc documenting the role consideration plays and how that impacts on promotional gifts.

For example, heres one from Cripps:

The structure of a free gift promotion can lead to there being a contract between the consumer and the promoter for the supply of the free gift. Where there is a true gift passed between two people (for example, the giving of a birthday present), there will not be a contract as there will be no consideration (a vital element for contract formation) passing between the parties. However, the courts have often found an element of consideration passing between the consumer and the promoter in relation to a free gift promotion. For example, the purchase of three promotional packs of toilet roll could be seen as consideration for a cuddly toy dog or the provision of personal data and agreeing to be added to a mailing list could be consideration for a free packet of biscuits.

Where a contract is found to exist, terms as to the quality of the free gift will be implied into that contract and the promoter could face a breach of contract claim if the gift fails to meet those quality requirements and the consumer suffers a loss as a result.

As I said, something is not legally a gift if consideration is given for it in return - even if that consideration isn't adequate.

bris

agrinnall wrote: »

It seems obvious to me that that the retailer has no CRA obligation for an item provided entirely free of charge to the purchaser - the cost of the service provided was the same whether the tablet was included or not. I'm not saying they won't do anything about it, but I can't see how the law requires them to. The only thing they might not be entitled to do is take the tablet back from the OP, but at the moment the OP has the service and a tablet, which is what they purchased in the first place.

No you're wrong, the law states there is no such thing as a free gift and they are treated the exact same way as any other purchase.


The way the law looks at free gifts is simple. When a free gift is offered would you have bought the service if the gift wasn't offered. The law says no, the free gift is why you buy the service in the first place so forms part of the contract. There is no such thing as a free gift.

Manxman_in_exile

unholyangel wrote: »

I can't tell if you're joking or not.

The rules on contract formation and consideration are very well established and form the foundation for contract law as a whole.

This is why I explained earlier about the difference between a "free gift" with no consideration given in exchange and one with consideration given (even if no extra was given/it wasnt adequate, its still valid consideration).

I'm not joking - sorry. I do wonder if there is case law that determines that a "free" gift that does not work is something that is actionable? I would hope as a consumer that there is but I don't know. Is at clear cut as you suggest? I'm not sure.

unholyangel

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I'm not joking - sorry. I do wonder if there is case law that determines that a "free" gift that does not work is something that is actionable? I would hope as a consumer that there is but I don't know. Is at clear cut as you suggest? I'm not sure.

Happy new year!

Its so clear cut, I thought you were possibly joking

I can give a full rundown and explanation but the gist is what I said above - that where you are required to give something in order to get something, it is not free - regardless what their advertising states - and a contract is formed. There may be some exceptions - such as if the "something" you need to give is promises of love or affection or if it is past (already been given/happened) as those don't form valid consideration so a contract can't be formed.

The consumer rights act basically applies to most contracts between a retailer and a consumer (there are few exceptions - such as a contract for a mortgage or for currency exchange, which obviously don't apply here).

Even where there is a competition/prize draw or the like, there are regulations in place giving the recipient rights - but in particular entering a contract where you pay any consideration at all gives you full consumer rights - even if a value wasn't specifically attached to it.

Its really no different to buying a table and 4 chairs for the same price they sell just the table on its own. You paid £x for a table and 4 chairs, you didn't agree to pay £x just for a table.