Consumer rights after partial refund

HillStreetBlues

RefluentBeans said:

HillStreetBlues said:

https://www.fsp-law.com/the-consumer-rights-act-2015/

Whilst there is no specific rule, it is anticipated that the reduction should reflect the difference in value between what the consumer paid and the value of what they actually got (it is suggested that if the buyer accepts a reduction in respect of a particular fault, that does not prevent them from pursuing the full range of remedies for any further fault which emerges).

The author is a member of the Legal 500,
Can't seem to find much else

That’s an interesting article. It seems to be that they’re using the logic that it’s a revision of contract, changing the sale price (eg original price of car £5000, after the issue with the bonnet £4700) so doesn’t affect the consumer rights. Makes me wonder if you could accept a partial refund and then insist on the final right to reject (assuming no repairs or replacements take place).

I think it’s a very complex issue. And there does seem to be some wiggle room, potentially on purpose to allow for judges to make decisions based on the situation in front of them. 

My personal belief is if you got a partial refund because of a fault A part, if a little while later B fails and is unrelated, then you would win if seeking recovery for new fault. The main reason is that there would be a contract inbalance if that wasn't the case. There could be a mark on a sofa so you could get some price reduction, but if accepting that would mean if sofa collapsed you wouldn't have further redress, then the contract would clearly be inbalanced. 

RefluentBeans

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

HillStreetBlues said:

https://www.fsp-law.com/the-consumer-rights-act-2015/

Whilst there is no specific rule, it is anticipated that the reduction should reflect the difference in value between what the consumer paid and the value of what they actually got (it is suggested that if the buyer accepts a reduction in respect of a particular fault, that does not prevent them from pursuing the full range of remedies for any further fault which emerges).

The author is a member of the Legal 500,
Can't seem to find much else

That’s an interesting article. It seems to be that they’re using the logic that it’s a revision of contract, changing the sale price (eg original price of car £5000, after the issue with the bonnet £4700) so doesn’t affect the consumer rights. Makes me wonder if you could accept a partial refund and then insist on the final right to reject (assuming no repairs or replacements take place).

I think it’s a very complex issue. And there does seem to be some wiggle room, potentially on purpose to allow for judges to make decisions based on the situation in front of them. 

My personal belief is if you got a partial refund because of a fault A part, if a little while later B fails and is unrelated, then you would win if seeking recovery for new fault. The main reason is that there would be a contract inbalance if that wasn't the case. There could be a mark on a sofa so you could get some price reduction, but if accepting that would mean if sofa collapsed you wouldn't have further redress, then the contract would clearly be inbalanced. 

I’m inclined to believe so too. But I think it depends on the nature of the issue. For example, a cosmetic mark for a price reduction could be seen as a method to prevent people from claiming on the CRA. But if there’s a reason that returning the product/disposing of the product is prohibitively expensive (I’m thinking a shed, or a massive garden pizza oven) could see the argument being made that a partial payment for the person to remedy the issue themselves would allow the retailer to discharge their responsibilities, but I guess it’s dependent on the age, the type of fault, and the amount refunded. 

Saying that I wonder how a ‘we’ll refund you X% based on the age of the product, but you should dispose of the item yourself - wink wink’ would be much different to a partial refund of an older item.