Sent cheaper item by mistake; Costco refuse to refund the difference, only full return

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

So the options it appears OP is to send the item back for a refund, or send a Letter before action and then take them to the small claims court for £35.

Or remind of them of the consumer's rights and hope they do the decent thing..... 

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

So the options it appears OP is to send the item back for a refund, or send a Letter before action and then take them to the small claims court for £35.

Or remind of them of the consumer's rights and hope they do the decent thing..... 

Added to the above before you quoted. I can't see them regs applying as the OP didn't receive what he ordered. As such, it's a simple breach of contract.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

So the options it appears OP is to send the item back for a refund, or send a Letter before action and then take them to the small claims court for £35.

Or remind of them of the consumer's rights and hope they do the decent thing..... 

Added to the above before you quoted. I can't see them regs applying as the OP didn't receive what he ordered. As such, it's a simple breach of contract.

Any instance where the consumer is entitled to seek a remedy under the CRA is a simple breach of contract.

I assume you mean that as the item is incorrect rather than this being a case of the goods not confirming to the contract instead OP hasn't received anything relating to their order and is an involuntary bailee of a random bottle of booze? 

In which case Costco are obligated to refund the OP under the Delivery of Goods requirements and then attempt to recover their property from the bailee, so basically ask for it back nicely or go to court for a bottle of booze. 

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

So the options it appears OP is to send the item back for a refund, or send a Letter before action and then take them to the small claims court for £35.

Or remind of them of the consumer's rights and hope they do the decent thing..... 

Added to the above before you quoted. I can't see them regs applying as the OP didn't receive what he ordered. As such, it's a simple breach of contract.

Any instance where the consumer is entitled to seek a remedy under the CRA is a simple breach of contract.

I assume you mean that as the item is incorrect rather than this being a case of the goods not confirming to the contract instead OP hasn't received anything relating to their order and is an involuntary bailee of a random bottle of booze? 

In which case Costco are obligated to refund the OP under the Delivery of Goods requirements and then attempt to recover their property from the bailee, so basically ask for it back nicely or go to court for a bottle of booze. 

If the OP had received the original bottle he ordered and the box was damaged, he could ask for a price reduction.

As this was a totally different item, it's a case of returning the item for a refund as Costco are unable to fulfil the original contract.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

So the options it appears OP is to send the item back for a refund, or send a Letter before action and then take them to the small claims court for £35.

Or remind of them of the consumer's rights and hope they do the decent thing..... 

Added to the above before you quoted. I can't see them regs applying as the OP didn't receive what he ordered. As such, it's a simple breach of contract.

Any instance where the consumer is entitled to seek a remedy under the CRA is a simple breach of contract.

I assume you mean that as the item is incorrect rather than this being a case of the goods not confirming to the contract instead OP hasn't received anything relating to their order and is an involuntary bailee of a random bottle of booze? 

In which case Costco are obligated to refund the OP under the Delivery of Goods requirements and then attempt to recover their property from the bailee, so basically ask for it back nicely or go to court for a bottle of booze. 

If the OP had received the original bottle he ordered and the box was damaged, he could ask for a price reduction.

As this was a totally different item, it's a case of returning the item for a refund as Costco are unable to fulfil the original contract.

All B2C contracts (for goods) have an implied term that the goods will meet the description, in this instance they don't and the CRA sets out the usual steps for what happens when the goods fail to meet the description.

It's either than or involuntary bailee as above.

I agree it's a breach of contract, I agree Costco can't fulfil the contract but I'm not sure what you relying on for the third option that doesn't fit the two above?  

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

So the options it appears OP is to send the item back for a refund, or send a Letter before action and then take them to the small claims court for £35.

Or remind of them of the consumer's rights and hope they do the decent thing..... 

Added to the above before you quoted. I can't see them regs applying as the OP didn't receive what he ordered. As such, it's a simple breach of contract.

Any instance where the consumer is entitled to seek a remedy under the CRA is a simple breach of contract.

I assume you mean that as the item is incorrect rather than this being a case of the goods not confirming to the contract instead OP hasn't received anything relating to their order and is an involuntary bailee of a random bottle of booze? 

In which case Costco are obligated to refund the OP under the Delivery of Goods requirements and then attempt to recover their property from the bailee, so basically ask for it back nicely or go to court for a bottle of booze. 

If the OP had received the original bottle he ordered and the box was damaged, he could ask for a price reduction.

As this was a totally different item, it's a case of returning the item for a refund as Costco are unable to fulfil the original contract.

All B2C contracts (for goods) have an implied term that the goods will meet the description, in this instance they don't and the CRA sets out the usual steps for what happens when the goods fail to meet the description.

It's either than or involuntary bailee as above.

I agree it's a breach of contract, I agree Costco can't fulfil the contract but I'm not sure what you relying on for the third option that doesn't fit the two above?  

So in the real world, would you advise the OP to take Costco to the SCC for £35?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

So the options it appears OP is to send the item back for a refund, or send a Letter before action and then take them to the small claims court for £35.

Or remind of them of the consumer's rights and hope they do the decent thing..... 

Added to the above before you quoted. I can't see them regs applying as the OP didn't receive what he ordered. As such, it's a simple breach of contract.

Any instance where the consumer is entitled to seek a remedy under the CRA is a simple breach of contract.

I assume you mean that as the item is incorrect rather than this being a case of the goods not confirming to the contract instead OP hasn't received anything relating to their order and is an involuntary bailee of a random bottle of booze? 

In which case Costco are obligated to refund the OP under the Delivery of Goods requirements and then attempt to recover their property from the bailee, so basically ask for it back nicely or go to court for a bottle of booze. 

If the OP had received the original bottle he ordered and the box was damaged, he could ask for a price reduction.

As this was a totally different item, it's a case of returning the item for a refund as Costco are unable to fulfil the original contract.

All B2C contracts (for goods) have an implied term that the goods will meet the description, in this instance they don't and the CRA sets out the usual steps for what happens when the goods fail to meet the description.

It's either than or involuntary bailee as above.

I agree it's a breach of contract, I agree Costco can't fulfil the contract but I'm not sure what you relying on for the third option that doesn't fit the two above?  

So in the real world, would you advise the OP to take Costco to the SCC for £35?

No, I would advise them what I advised them 7 hours ago

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

You can remind Costco of your rights with the below

Via the CEO contact if customer services won't engage. 

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

So the options it appears OP is to send the item back for a refund, or send a Letter before action and then take them to the small claims court for £35.

Or remind of them of the consumer's rights and hope they do the decent thing..... 

Added to the above before you quoted. I can't see them regs applying as the OP didn't receive what he ordered. As such, it's a simple breach of contract.

Any instance where the consumer is entitled to seek a remedy under the CRA is a simple breach of contract.

I assume you mean that as the item is incorrect rather than this being a case of the goods not confirming to the contract instead OP hasn't received anything relating to their order and is an involuntary bailee of a random bottle of booze? 

In which case Costco are obligated to refund the OP under the Delivery of Goods requirements and then attempt to recover their property from the bailee, so basically ask for it back nicely or go to court for a bottle of booze. 

If the OP had received the original bottle he ordered and the box was damaged, he could ask for a price reduction.

As this was a totally different item, it's a case of returning the item for a refund as Costco are unable to fulfil the original contract.

All B2C contracts (for goods) have an implied term that the goods will meet the description, in this instance they don't and the CRA sets out the usual steps for what happens when the goods fail to meet the description.

It's either than or involuntary bailee as above.

I agree it's a breach of contract, I agree Costco can't fulfil the contract but I'm not sure what you relying on for the third option that doesn't fit the two above?  

So in the real world, would you advise the OP to take Costco to the SCC for £35?

No, I would advise them what I advised them 7 hours ago

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

You can remind Costco of your rights with the below

Via the CEO contact if customer services won't engage. 

That's all well and good, but should the CEO office say 'No' - Would you then advise the SCC after sending a Letter before action?

It's all well and good quoting chunks of legislation, but the fuller picture also needs to be given.

km1500

so you propose to go before the judge and ask for £35 even though Costco have offered a full refund if you return the items ?

rather you than me ...

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

So the options it appears OP is to send the item back for a refund, or send a Letter before action and then take them to the small claims court for £35.

Or remind of them of the consumer's rights and hope they do the decent thing..... 

Added to the above before you quoted. I can't see them regs applying as the OP didn't receive what he ordered. As such, it's a simple breach of contract.

Any instance where the consumer is entitled to seek a remedy under the CRA is a simple breach of contract.

I assume you mean that as the item is incorrect rather than this being a case of the goods not confirming to the contract instead OP hasn't received anything relating to their order and is an involuntary bailee of a random bottle of booze? 

In which case Costco are obligated to refund the OP under the Delivery of Goods requirements and then attempt to recover their property from the bailee, so basically ask for it back nicely or go to court for a bottle of booze. 

If the OP had received the original bottle he ordered and the box was damaged, he could ask for a price reduction.

As this was a totally different item, it's a case of returning the item for a refund as Costco are unable to fulfil the original contract.

All B2C contracts (for goods) have an implied term that the goods will meet the description, in this instance they don't and the CRA sets out the usual steps for what happens when the goods fail to meet the description.

It's either than or involuntary bailee as above.

I agree it's a breach of contract, I agree Costco can't fulfil the contract but I'm not sure what you relying on for the third option that doesn't fit the two above?  

So in the real world, would you advise the OP to take Costco to the SCC for £35?

No, I would advise them what I advised them 7 hours ago

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

You can remind Costco of your rights with the below

Via the CEO contact if customer services won't engage. 

That's all well and good, but should the CEO office say 'No' - Would you then advise the SCC after sending a Letter before action?

It's all well and good quoting chunks of legislation, but the fuller picture also needs to be given.

As I mentioned before you're welcome to give your advice in the manner you see fit.

Perhaps I should add to all posts that enforcing the regs can be difficult, I provide the regs so the poster can go back to the company to assert their position and hope the company acts as they should but where they then don't you then have to send a letter before action, assess the value to see if worth the courts time, assess the likelihood of recovering the money should you win and weigh up whether the headache is worth the money that may or may not arrive and wonder whether the 90% of posters who never return to a thread actually read the replies. 

Maybe I'll start doing that when everyone else does... 

I've simply advised the OP to point out the regs to Costco, another poster mentioned raising it higher which is a good idea, they are a big company, they know the law, they simply need to be reminded of it and they then have the choice to abide by it or not.

Should Costco say tough tinsel OP is capable of coming back for more advice, which would be, should they wish, continue to "debate the matter", send a letter before action and if that all fails concede.