Display table sold as seen

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Bradden said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Sold as seen doesn't really mean much.

Goods are required to be of satisfactory quality which covers a range of aspects however it excludes:

(4)The term mentioned in subsection (1) does not cover anything which makes the quality of the goods unsatisfactory—

(a)which is specifically drawn to the consumer’s attention before the contract is made,

(b)where the consumer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, 

I'm not sure I agree with you on this. I don't think this would be an issue had the customer collected the goods themselves the contract is satisfied there and then. The issue stems from a delivery .. 5 weeks after the goods have been examined.

Not sure what you mean exactly  

Normally in a shop you pay and are then handed the goods meaning they've come in to your physical possession and risk has passed.

In this instance the table didn't come into physical possession of the OP, instead the contract included transporting the goods to their home (or other such location) and the trader bears the risk of storing and transporting the goods until physical possession has occurred.

Even if one were to argue risk had passed the storage and transportation is still a service which must be carried out with reasonable care and skill, scratching a table top would fail in that regard. 

The biggest problem is the shop thinks "sold as seen" means deal done, no comeback for anything all, where as the regs stipulate no comeback for anything pointed out or obvious upon inspection should the consumer have carried one out.

pinkshoes said:

This is going to end in one of those "he said she said" scenarios. 

I do agree but by accusing the OP of scratching the table the shop are admitting the scratch wasn't there at the time of sale. 

Manxman_in_exile

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

This is going to end in one of those "he said she said" scenarios. 

I do agree but by accusing the OP of scratching the table the shop are admitting the scratch wasn't there at the time of sale. 

I like that!       It's an important point.

screech_78

The problem here is that OP isn’t after a refund or a discount. They want a brand new table for the same price paid as the display models. 

Happens a lot to us. We sell shop floor markdowns and then they arrive with an extra scuff or damage. The customer kicks up a fuss, demanding we give them a brand new replacement when we’re offering a full refund of what they paid instead. They never get their way. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

screech_78 said:

The problem here is that OP isn’t after a refund or a discount. They want a brand new table for the same price paid as the display models. 

Happens a lot to us. We sell shop floor markdowns and then they arrive with an extra scuff or damage. The customer kicks up a fuss, demanding we give them a brand new replacement when we’re offering a full refund of what they paid instead. They never get their way. 

Out of interest what kind of mark down do display models typically get in comparison to cost price? 

Bradden

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Bradden said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Sold as seen doesn't really mean much.

Goods are required to be of satisfactory quality which covers a range of aspects however it excludes:

(4)The term mentioned in subsection (1) does not cover anything which makes the quality of the goods unsatisfactory—

(a)which is specifically drawn to the consumer’s attention before the contract is made,

(b)where the consumer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, 

I'm not sure I agree with you on this. I don't think this would be an issue had the customer collected the goods themselves the contract is satisfied there and then. The issue stems from a delivery .. 5 weeks after the goods have been examined.

Not sure what you mean exactly  

Normally in a shop you pay and are then handed the goods meaning they've come in to your physical possession and risk has passed.

In this instance the table didn't come into physical possession of the OP, instead the contract included transporting the goods to their home (or other such location) and the trader bears the risk of storing and transporting the goods until physical possession has occurred.

Even if one were to argue risk had passed the storage and transportation is still a service which must be carried out with reasonable care and skill, scratching a table top would fail in that regard. 

The biggest problem is the shop thinks "sold as seen" means deal done, no comeback for anything all, where as the regs stipulate no comeback for anything pointed out or obvious upon inspection should the consumer have carried one out.

pinkshoes said:

This is going to end in one of those "he said she said" scenarios. 

I do agree but by accusing the OP of scratching the table the shop are admitting the scratch wasn't there at the time of sale. 

I should have been clearer. I was trying to say that I don't think there is any issue selling goods "sold as seen" when the customer takes prossesion at the time of the transaction. I think offering delivery for these goods has caused the issue not the "sold as seen" part.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Bradden said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Bradden said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Sold as seen doesn't really mean much.

Goods are required to be of satisfactory quality which covers a range of aspects however it excludes:

(4)The term mentioned in subsection (1) does not cover anything which makes the quality of the goods unsatisfactory—

(a)which is specifically drawn to the consumer’s attention before the contract is made,

(b)where the consumer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, 

I'm not sure I agree with you on this. I don't think this would be an issue had the customer collected the goods themselves the contract is satisfied there and then. The issue stems from a delivery .. 5 weeks after the goods have been examined.

Not sure what you mean exactly  

Normally in a shop you pay and are then handed the goods meaning they've come in to your physical possession and risk has passed.

In this instance the table didn't come into physical possession of the OP, instead the contract included transporting the goods to their home (or other such location) and the trader bears the risk of storing and transporting the goods until physical possession has occurred.

Even if one were to argue risk had passed the storage and transportation is still a service which must be carried out with reasonable care and skill, scratching a table top would fail in that regard. 

The biggest problem is the shop thinks "sold as seen" means deal done, no comeback for anything all, where as the regs stipulate no comeback for anything pointed out or obvious upon inspection should the consumer have carried one out.

pinkshoes said:

This is going to end in one of those "he said she said" scenarios. 

I do agree but by accusing the OP of scratching the table the shop are admitting the scratch wasn't there at the time of sale. 

I should have been clearer. I was trying to say that I don't think there is any issue selling goods "sold as seen" when the customer takes prossesion at the time of the transaction. I think offering delivery for these goods has caused the issue not the "sold as seen" part.

I see what you mean  

Let's say you buy a display model kettle, it has some marks and small scratches so you can't complain about that later on, you look inside and it's nice and clean, no limescale or such suggesting staff or customers haven't been boiling water in it as part of any display interaction so you buy it, take it home and 3 weeks later the heating element goes. 

You'd still be entitled to a remedy as it wasn't possible for you to establish the heating element wasn't durable (and it couldn't be pointed out as the sales staff wouldn't know either).

"Sold as seen" would imply you don't have that entitlement to a remedy in that situation which would be misleading and unfair.

It's generally a term traders should avoid but I do completely agree the problem has been caused by the delivery aspect more than sold as seen. 

screech_78

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

screech_78 said:

The problem here is that OP isn’t after a refund or a discount. They want a brand new table for the same price paid as the display models. 

Happens a lot to us. We sell shop floor markdowns and then they arrive with an extra scuff or damage. The customer kicks up a fuss, demanding we give them a brand new replacement when we’re offering a full refund of what they paid instead. They never get their way. 

Out of interest what kind of mark down do display models typically get in comparison to cost price? 

It all depends on the reason they’ve been marked down. Some are customer returns so just opened and inspected, therefore there will only be a small discount. Some are display models and will have a higher discount and then there’s things like fridge freezers where they might have a dent in the back. They’ll never be sold for less than cost price but then we make very little on electrical items anyway. Profit margins are tiny. They’re huge on furniture etc but difficult question to answer as depends why they’re marked down. 

mic141100

Thanks for your comments.
I think what I'm asking has been misunderstood.
I'm not asking for a new table, what I want to know it's simply my rights as the seller is saying I should be happy that they've said I can have a brand new table for an additional £300.
I either want the table to be repaired at their cost or a refund which I think I'm entitled to.

She has now accepted that the scratch was there when it was delivered but it's arguing that as I signed the delivery paperwork I have no rights in relation to this

mic141100

The table is Matt marble and cost (with 4 chairs) over £1500.
I did advise that I had seen the same table at another shop and was told that I could buy it on its own for £799 so I did advise that even if I paid for the chairs at full price as she told me they'd been discounted as a package with the table, I could still buy the other and that didn't have a scratch.

When I said that I wanted a table without a scratch I simply meant that I wouldn't have bought it with the scratch and she replied that she wouldn't take it back as she couldn't sell it with a scratch. This was before I sent proof of the scratch being there on delivery.

She has previously said that there is no way the scratch was present on delivery as she would have seen it on covering but now I have photographic evidence has changed this and its now reverting back to the argument that it must have already been there when I paid for it in the shop

Aylesbury_Duck

Letter before action asking for collection of the chairs and table amd a refund, or you'll commence small claims court action in 14 days.