Consumer advice required on refund

Robinhood

I negotiated a deal for two different types of garden furniture sets and was then asked to pay separately for them as the delivery addresses were different. I did this and ended up with two order numbers. One of the set is fine but the other has a fault that they have not been able to resolve. It’s got to the point now where they have said I can return the set for a full refund. I am saying that to do that I need to return both sets so that I have the same negotiating power when replacing the set. They say I can only return the one set.

in my opinion, the 2 sets were negotiated as a single contract and hence I should be able to return both. The fact there were two payments made at their request does not change the fact that it was negotiated as a single contract. Am I right? Thanks in advance for any advice received.

eskbanker

Even if it was all one contract (and there would seem to be significant doubt on that front), I don't believe that you have the right to return non-faulty items after any initial 'change of mind' window has expired?

RefluentBeans

eskbanker said:

Even if it was all one contract (and there would seem to be significant doubt on that front), I don't believe that you have the right to return non-faulty items after any initial 'change of mind' window has expired?

Yeah agree with this. If one item is faulty and is independent from the rest, the rights extend to that one item only. I can’t return all of my living room to Ikea just because the cabinet door has a defect in it. 

OP have they offered to repair or replace the item? That may be a better resolution if you’re concerned of losing bargaining power. 

tightauldgit

Each item on an order is considered separately - there's no provision to return an entire order based on one item being faulty. 

For the one that's not faulty you have/had a 14 day window (assuming it was a distance sale) to return it at your expense if you weren't happy with it. 

For the one that is faulty you can return it at the seller's expense for a repair or replacement - if they aren't able to do that you can get a full refund. But only for the item that faulty. 

Robinhood

RefluentBeans said:

OP have they offered to repair or replace the item? That may be a better resolution if you’re concerned of losing bargaining power. 

The item has been replaced 3 times but each time it has the same issue. They’ve offered a full refund so I can replace it with another type, but how can I bargain and get the same discount when just buying 1. I’ve asked if they can order a different range from the same supplier but they are not prepared to do so. 

The way I see it is that my contract with them was for them to supply two sets, both of which should be fit for purpose. 1 isn’t, so they are in breach of the contract.

if they are in breach of contract, why should I be financially worse off by replacing one item at a higher cost due to being in a weakened negotiating position?

tightauldgit

Robinhood said:

RefluentBeans said:

OP have they offered to repair or replace the item? That may be a better resolution if you’re concerned of losing bargaining power. 

The item has been replaced 3 times but each time it has the same issue. They’ve offered a full refund so I can replace it with another type, but how can I bargain and get the same discount when just buying 1. I’ve asked if they can order a different range from the same supplier but they are not prepared to do so. 

The way I see it is that my contract with them was for them to supply two sets, both of which should be fit for purpose. 1 isn’t, so they are in breach of the contract.

if they are in breach of contract, why should I be financially worse off by replacing one item at a higher cost due to being in a weakened negotiating position?

Yes, but the legal remedy for that breach is to repair, replace or refund for the 1 set that is faulty. 

For it to be otherwise, you'd really have to make the case that the two items are a 'set' or a commercial unit

(3)If any of the goods form a commercial unit, the consumer cannot reject some of those goods without also rejecting the rest of them.

(4)A unit is a “commercial unit” if division of the unit would materially impair the value of the goods or the character of the unit

It seems you are talking about two garden sets in two different gardens so it's hard to say they form a commercial unit.

You can see a case study here regarding a bed and a headboard which was still considered not a set

https://theconsumerlawyer.blog/2020/12/16/case-study-5-right-to-reject-a-set-when-only-one-item-is-faulty/

 

dil1976

How would you feel if they asked for the full price of the set you are keeping seeing as you brought them both to get a discount? These things work both ways, it just so happens that you are winning this time.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Where the consumer orders multiple goods under one contract and some, but not all, do not conform the consumer may chose to either reject the goods that do not conform or reject everything, they however may not pick and choose and reject some of those that do conform whilst keeping others that do conform, however may reject some of the goods that do not conform and keep some of the goods that do not conform + those that do (if applicable). 

This is covered under Partial rejection of goods

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/21

(1)If the consumer has any of the rights mentioned in section 20(1) to (3), but does not reject all of the goods and treat the contract as at an end, the consumer—

(a)may reject some or all of the goods that do not conform to the contract, but

(b)may not reject any goods that do conform to the contract.

Which is pretty clear but to save any debate here are the guidance notes

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/1/3/4/3

122.This section clarifies the consumer’s rights around partial rejection of goods. If the consumer has the right to reject the goods because some or all of them do not conform to the contract then the consumer can reject some or all of them. If the consumer rejects only some of the goods they cannot reject any of the goods which do conform to the contract. That is, the consumer can:

• reject all of the goods (conforming and non-conforming);

• reject all of the non-conforming goods (but none of the conforming goods); or

• reject some of the non-conforming goods (and keep some of the non-conforming goods and all of the conforming goods).

The "commercial unit" refers to goods which are together effectively as one piece, such as the bed and headboard exampled in the link* or for example a table and chairs, where it would be deemed their separation would affect the value of the goods, in that instance the consumer must reject all rather than some.

However if a trader were to allow a consumer to buy just a table or just chairs separately, (as some places do) then the trader wouldn't be able to apply this argument of the goods being a commercial unit. 

Covered by the regs as:

(3)If any of the goods form a commercial unit, the consumer cannot reject some of those goods without also rejecting the rest of them.

(4)A unit is a “commercial unit” if division of the unit would materially impair the value of the goods or the character of the unit.

Explained in the guidance notes

127.Subsections (3) and (4) correspond to section 35(7) of the SGA and provide that where the goods form part of a “commercial unit” (defined in subsection (4)) the consumer may not reject some of the goods in that unit but keep others. For example, if furniture was sold as a three-piece-suite, but there was a fault with one of the chairs, the consumer would not be entitled to reject only the chair.

The commercial unit is academic to the OP because they wish to reject everything rather than some, it would only apply if they wanted to, for example, keep the table and reject a chair which was exclusively part of a set. 

The only question on whether the OP may reject both sets of furniture is whether they have one contract or two and I don't think anyone here can answer that with certainty. 

Just to add the information in that so called "case study" is incorrect, the consumer would have had the right to reject both the bed and headboard were they formed under one contract, which the information appears to imply they were. 

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Where the consumer orders multiple goods under one contract and some, but not all, do not conform the consumer may chose to either reject the goods that do not conform or reject everything, they however may not pick and choose and reject some of those that do conform whilst keeping others that do conform, however may reject some of the goods that do not conform and keep some of the goods that do not conform + those that do (if applicable). 

This is covered under Partial rejection of goods

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/21

(1)If the consumer has any of the rights mentioned in section 20(1) to (3), but does not reject all of the goods and treat the contract as at an end, the consumer—

(a)may reject some or all of the goods that do not conform to the contract, but

(b)may not reject any goods that do conform to the contract.

Which is pretty clear but to save any debate here are the guidance notes

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/1/3/4/3

122.This section clarifies the consumer’s rights around partial rejection of goods. If the consumer has the right to reject the goods because some or all of them do not conform to the contract then the consumer can reject some or all of them. If the consumer rejects only some of the goods they cannot reject any of the goods which do conform to the contract. That is, the consumer can:

• reject all of the goods (conforming and non-conforming);

• reject all of the non-conforming goods (but none of the conforming goods); or

• reject some of the non-conforming goods (and keep some of the non-conforming goods and all of the conforming goods).

The "commercial unit" refers to goods which are together effectively as one piece, such as the bed and headboard exampled in the link* or for example a table and chairs, where it would be deemed their separation would affect the value of the goods, in that instance the consumer must reject all rather than some.

However if a trader were to allow a consumer to buy just a table or just chairs separately, (as some places do) then the trader wouldn't be able to apply this argument of the goods being a commercial unit. 

Covered by the regs as:

(3)If any of the goods form a commercial unit, the consumer cannot reject some of those goods without also rejecting the rest of them.

(4)A unit is a “commercial unit” if division of the unit would materially impair the value of the goods or the character of the unit.

Explained in the guidance notes

127.Subsections (3) and (4) correspond to section 35(7) of the SGA and provide that where the goods form part of a “commercial unit” (defined in subsection (4)) the consumer may not reject some of the goods in that unit but keep others. For example, if furniture was sold as a three-piece-suite, but there was a fault with one of the chairs, the consumer would not be entitled to reject only the chair.

The commercial unit is academic to the OP because they wish to reject everything rather than some, it would only apply if they wanted to, for example, keep the table and reject a chair which was exclusively part of a set. 

The only question on whether the OP may reject both sets of furniture is whether they have one contract or two and I don't think anyone here can answer that with certainty. 

Just to add the information in that so called "case study" is incorrect, the consumer would have had the right to reject both the bed and headboard were they formed under one contract, which the information appears to imply they were. 

Fair enough. Hard to argue with that even though it's not how I remembered it and plenty other places seem confused about it. 

I don't think the contract issue should be difficult to resolve - if it's one invoice it's one contract, if it's two separate invoices then it's two contracts. Which might be another point the OP is going to fall down if, as they suggest, they've got two separate order numbers. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

tightauldgit said:

I don't think the contract issue should be difficult to resolve - if it's one invoice it's one contract, if it's two separate invoices then it's two contracts. Which might be another point the OP is going to fall down if, as they suggest, they've got two separate order numbers. 

I would assume two invoices means two contracts and the two delivery addresses, payments and order numbers would probably support this. Obviously you can negotiate prices across multiple contracts. 

It could however depend upon what was discussed, although if this was in store and verbal that probably wouldn't count for much and perhaps regardless of what was discussed it could be viewed OP accepted it was two contracts by going ahead in the manner in which it occurred. 

I think the biggest problem for OP is that regardless of right or wrong if they are seen to be a thorn in the company's side it's doubtful the company are going to negotiate a deal on a second order, although it's not clear if OP intends to buy with them again or go somewhere else.