Does an online sellers own terms invalidate the consumer rights act?

msnatalie

born_again said:

Retailer has the right to repair, replace or refund. Their choice. They have chosen repair.

Is that part of the consumer rights act that they have the choice of repair, replace or refund? If it's repaired you are no longer getting a brand new item though, and so never did even though that's what you paid for?

born_again said:

Lets face it they could have said they have replaced & simply sent the same one back with the scuff mark, buffed out. At least they have been honest.

 That's actually what I am worried they will do and call it a replacement.

msnatalie

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

msnatalie said:

In their terms they do state that 'Configured to order Macs do not benefit from the 'cooling-off’ period or ‘late delivery’ policy' which is why I wondered if that part invalidates the consumer rights act. Although later on it the terms it does state
"The Consumer Rights Act 2015 gives consumers 30 days from delivery to notify KRCS of any problems with delivered goods to be able to receive a full refund for goods of unsatisfactory quality or not as described, but we will try to go above and beyond these rights wherever possible. " but when I questioned them on it they said it doesnt count as its customised.

Ask them to quote the part of the Consumer Rights Act they think covers this, they'll have a hard time.

I would advise them you are exercising the short term right to reject and are entitled to a full refund (assuming you don't want the MacBook back). 

Thank you so much, I think this has answered my question, that the consumer rights act is valid in this case, as the goods were of unsatisfactory quality and do not meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory.

Meanwhile they have both the mac and my money and im left having to convince them of the law.

msnatalie

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

@born_again might comment on the success of a chargeback here given the goods have been returned. 

 Is a chargeback possible even when a debit card was used? I was under the impression it was only credit cards.

RefluentBeans

msnatalie said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

msnatalie said:

In their terms they do state that 'Configured to order Macs do not benefit from the 'cooling-off’ period or ‘late delivery’ policy' which is why I wondered if that part invalidates the consumer rights act. Although later on it the terms it does state
"The Consumer Rights Act 2015 gives consumers 30 days from delivery to notify KRCS of any problems with delivered goods to be able to receive a full refund for goods of unsatisfactory quality or not as described, but we will try to go above and beyond these rights wherever possible. " but when I questioned them on it they said it doesnt count as its customised.

Ask them to quote the part of the Consumer Rights Act they think covers this, they'll have a hard time.

I would advise them you are exercising the short term right to reject and are entitled to a full refund (assuming you don't want the MacBook back). 

Thank you so much, I think this has answered my question, that the consumer rights act is valid in this case, as the goods were of unsatisfactory quality and do not meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory.

Meanwhile they have both the mac and my money and im left having to convince them of the law.

I agree - if it’s a ‘new’ unit then it should be scuff free. 

I also, personally, think it probably wouldn’t be customised ‘enough’ to be considered customised. The law was clearly written with the intention of you going to a retailer and asking for a product that is custom (e.g. an Etsy store selling a crochet teddy bear of my cat - speaking from experience), and then preventing the buyer from reneging after it’s been delivered, as returning the product that I have designed results in the seller taking the loss with no chance of profit. I don’t think this falls into it, since the product returned is just basically a colour code and size - a jumper in orange and Size XL is not custom - just because I selected two options! 

powerful_Rogue

msnatalie said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

@born_again might comment on the success of a chargeback here given the goods have been returned. 

 Is a chargeback possible even when a debit card was used? I was under the impression it was only credit cards.

Chargeback can be debit or credit cards. The retailer can dispute it. S75 is credit card only over £100 and the credit card company investigate as they are equally liable.

bris

Doesn't sound like there was a scuff mark though, a scuff mark doesn't just wipe away.

If the mark is gone by wiping it away then it isn't really faulty or not fit for purpose.

if you can still see the mark then that's different and the 30 days right to reject is pretty much absolute.

msnatalie

bris said:

Doesn't sound like there was a scuff mark though, a scuff mark doesn't just wipe away.

If the mark is gone by wiping it away then it isn't really faulty or not fit for purpose.

if you can still see the mark then that's different and the 30 days right to reject is pretty much absolute.

When I rubbed at it with my finger to try and get it off, the mark didn't budge. Actually it looked like it had been knocked against something. They said they gave it to a technician, so I assume it could have been buffed or sanded out? I don't know how they do it, but it would have needed more than just a wipe.
Regardless, imo a new macbook shouldn't require cleaning or any other restorative actions straight out the box.

RefluentBeans

Out of curiosity - was there still cellophane on the box? Or the little pull tab thingy (below)? Whenever I've had Macs from Apple, they've aways had these. If it hasn't; its a telltale sign that the device has been opened (not necessarily used, but at least opened). 

msnatalie

RefluentBeans said:

Out of curiosity - was there still cellophane on the box? Or the little pull tab thingy (below)?

oh, it didn't have any cellophane, which I did wonder about but then read that Apple were starting to phase it out so thought nothing more of it. There were 2 green pull tabs, shown in the photo, its not very good as its a screenshot from a video (yes I embarrassingly videoed the unboxing, I was very excited), does that seem right?



The box did have some dirt/markings on it, but at the time thought nothing of it as assumed the macbook itself is fine and safe within the box. Interestingly the plug wasn't in it's hole properly and the charging cable holder was dented, also the wrapper around the macbook was wonky.

Not sure if there's anyway to prove it wasn't new.

Okell

born_again said:

Retailer has the right to repair, replace or refund. Their choice. They have chosen repair...

Slightly off topic - and I'm sure it's been discussed before - but can somebody remind me where the proposition comes from that the retailer has "the right" to choose between repair or replacement?

I'm probably reading it wrong but the legislation seems to me to be saying that the consumer has the right to ask for either a repair or a replacement, and they should get whichever they ask for unless (a) the one they ask for is impossible or (b) the one they ask for is disproportionate compared to the other.

That might mean that the trader is in a position to decide that one is impossible or disproportionate to the other, but that doesn't seem to me to be the same as saying that they have "the right" to decide?