Returning Items

RefluentBeans

Okell said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I don't see why the short term right to reject is needed here, the goods did not confirm, a replacement was issued, further reasons for the goods not conforming = final right to reject with burden of proof on the retailer...

Regarding the short-term right to reject I think previous posters (including me) have been inadvertantly misled by the OP's mention of a 30 day return period and have assumed that's what the issue was.

But whether it's the short term right or the final right I'm not entirely confident that the OP's realisation that "the quality and comfort was poor" is sufficient grounds to justify rejection on either basis.  The original broken chairs have been replaced and I think the trader could easily persuade a court that the OP is really saying "I don't like them" rather than that there is still something wrong with them.  But not having sat on them and not having paid a grand for them I'm not really in a position to say.

I still wonder if the OP might be best advised to look at what cancellation info they were given and whether it could be argued that the cancellation period is extended.

I think this is the issue at the heart of it. If the short term right ti reject is still present (and based on the posts above, it appears it is) a quality (or not as described) argument is valid. However the longer the time that has passed the harder this claim is to substantiate. 

I think given the product has already been returned once, this is now harder to prove, as if there was an issue with the products (not as described) the time to bring that up would be at the same time as sending it back. Clearly the items were all inspected - as two chairs were found to be broken. 

So I don’t think the argument for ‘not as described’ will hold much water. The issue of comfort is the next thing - and to me something being uncomfortable is a matter of taste and not faulty. This would hence fall into the 14 day right to inspect the items under the CCR’s, which had already passed. 

I, unfortunately, don’t see any grounds to make a faulty claim as the time to do so on the basis of goods not conforming to the description (which is a fault) would be upon initial inspection of the product, which the OP has already done (otherwise they wouldn’t know how many chairs are faulty). 

Okell

I can't help thinking the OP made a tactical error here:  "I decided to wait until these were replaced until I assembled the remaining chairs, otherwise I would have odd chairs at my dining table"

It would have made more sense - albeit possibly with the benefit of hindsight - if the OP had assembled the undamaged chairs before contacting the trader, and had assessed their quality and level of comfort before complaining about the damaged ones.  Then they could have exercised the short-term right to reject the set of six based on the damaged chairs.

Not wanting to risk having a non-matching set of chairs at the dining table for a short period of time perhaps isn't a very good reason for not assembling the other chairs.

ArbitraryRandom

RefluentBeans said:

Okell said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I don't see why the short term right to reject is needed here, the goods did not confirm, a replacement was issued, further reasons for the goods not conforming = final right to reject with burden of proof on the retailer...

Regarding the short-term right to reject I think previous posters (including me) have been inadvertantly misled by the OP's mention of a 30 day return period and have assumed that's what the issue was.

But whether it's the short term right or the final right I'm not entirely confident that the OP's realisation that "the quality and comfort was poor" is sufficient grounds to justify rejection on either basis.  The original broken chairs have been replaced and I think the trader could easily persuade a court that the OP is really saying "I don't like them" rather than that there is still something wrong with them.  But not having sat on them and not having paid a grand for them I'm not really in a position to say.

I still wonder if the OP might be best advised to look at what cancellation info they were given and whether it could be argued that the cancellation period is extended.

I think this is the issue at the heart of it. If the short term right ti reject is still present (and based on the posts above, it appears it is) a quality (or not as described) argument is valid. However the longer the time that has passed the harder this claim is to substantiate. 

I think given the product has already been returned once, this is now harder to prove, as if there was an issue with the products (not as described) the time to bring that up would be at the same time as sending it back. Clearly the items were all inspected - as two chairs were found to be broken. 

So I don’t think the argument for ‘not as described’ will hold much water. The issue of comfort is the next thing - and to me something being uncomfortable is a matter of taste and not faulty. This would hence fall into the 14 day right to inspect the items under the CCR’s, which had already passed. 

I, unfortunately, don’t see any grounds to make a faulty claim as the time to do so on the basis of goods not conforming to the description (which is a fault) would be upon initial inspection of the product, which the OP has already done (otherwise they wouldn’t know how many chairs are faulty). 

I would agree - other than the products hadn't been assembled until the replacement items were received - so it's reasonable to say any quality issues might not be apparent until after they were put together and in were use for some amount of time (with joints loosening up or padding settling etc). 

Arguably, that's why the short term right to reject is 30 days vs the right to inspect for change of mind cancellation is only 14... 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

Okell said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I don't see why the short term right to reject is needed here, the goods did not confirm, a replacement was issued, further reasons for the goods not conforming = final right to reject with burden of proof on the retailer...

Regarding the short-term right to reject I think previous posters (including me) have been inadvertantly misled by the OP's mention of a 30 day return period and have assumed that's what the issue was.

But whether it's the short term right or the final right I'm not entirely confident that the OP's realisation that "the quality and comfort was poor" is sufficient grounds to justify rejection on either basis.  The original broken chairs have been replaced and I think the trader could easily persuade a court that the OP is really saying "I don't like them" rather than that there is still something wrong with them.  But not having sat on them and not having paid a grand for them I'm not really in a position to say.

I still wonder if the OP might be best advised to look at what cancellation info they were given and whether it could be argued that the cancellation period is extended.

I think this is the issue at the heart of it. If the short term right ti reject is still present (and based on the posts above, it appears it is) a quality (or not as described) argument is valid. However the longer the time that has passed the harder this claim is to substantiate. 

I think given the product has already been returned once, this is now harder to prove, as if there was an issue with the products (not as described) the time to bring that up would be at the same time as sending it back. Clearly the items were all inspected - as two chairs were found to be broken. 

So I don’t think the argument for ‘not as described’ will hold much water. The issue of comfort is the next thing - and to me something being uncomfortable is a matter of taste and not faulty. This would hence fall into the 14 day right to inspect the items under the CCR’s, which had already passed. 

I, unfortunately, don’t see any grounds to make a faulty claim as the time to do so on the basis of goods not conforming to the description (which is a fault) would be upon initial inspection of the product, which the OP has already done (otherwise they wouldn’t know how many chairs are faulty). 

Having purchased a piece of furniture which had obvious faults at the time of delivery, I was surprised months later when a further fault became noticeable, it does happen and even with a very basic idea of a poor quality build or finish the more you look at something the more you shake off that feeling it’s just you and start to realise there is something wrong. 

The issue is very subjective and thus very hard to comment without the specifics and ideally photos.

Your last paragraph is somewhat misleading, whilst leaving an issue over time may make it more difficult to substantiate that doesn’t equate to there be no grounds to do so as there is no time limit (except 6 years or the end of the product lifespan).

The grounds to do so are either valid or not, passing of time is irrelevant in that respect