Problem with Flooring Superstore

Aylesbury_Duck

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

lincroft1710 said:

Not true. Many items (e.g, batteries, tyres) will have a expected lifespan less than 6 years. 

But OP didn't buy either of those things, they have a 4 year old carpet...

Aylesbury_Duck said:

You're not entitled to betterment

Alderbank said:

But in law just as any refund can take account of the age of the item, so can any replacement.

You're not entitled to a brand new carpet, that would be 'betterment'. You are entitled to a carpet of similar quality but which is now upwards of four years old and has had similar wear and tear to yours. The legal term for that is 'indemnity'.

It really depends, the guidance notes on the CRA stipulate that where goods were new typically the replacement should be new. Given second hand and reconditioned carpets aren't that commonplace it would be, IMHO, fair to expect a new carpet if exercising your right to a replacement.

Ultimately the company can't repair and it will be cheaper for them to fit a new carpet than mess about finding a second hand one. 

Equally if (hypothetically) a guarantee offers a new carpet then it's a contractual right and regardless of the depreciated value of the "faulty" carpet if the contract awards a new carpet that's what the customer is entitled to  

OP you have two choices, badger them for the replacement or send a letter before action requesting they perform your right to a replacement for the carpet that does not conform to the contract.

There is a contact on the CEO email website which might gain a better response than you are getting from normal channels. 

If you went to court, whilst a court can require someone to carry out specific performance of a contract, for something like this it would be (AFAIK) a monetary award which the CRA says can be reduced to account for use.  

Absolutely, but without knowing the detail of the guarantee, we can only fall back on statutory rights.  For context, the full quote of my post was:

"You're not entitled to betterment, and therefore since it's unlikely that they're going to be able to source and fit a several years old carpet of that type, a reduced refund is the likely outcome of any successful consumer rights action you take."

lincroft1710

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

lincroft1710 said:

Not true. Many items (e.g, batteries, tyres) will have a expected lifespan less than 6 years. 

But OP didn't buy either of those things, they have a 4 year old carpet...

Did you read what the OP's post said to which I replied, as your post implies you actually didn't? Plus you only quoted half of my post ignoring the important part

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

lincroft1710 said:

Did you read what the OP's post said to which I replied, as your post implies you actually didn't? 

I did indeed OP said:

Tescocomplaint said:

As explained above, I didn't ask for a refund, they agreed to replace. I understand that the item has to be fit for purpose up to 6 years.

And up to means any time period from the time of delivery up to 6 years.

lincroft1710 said: Plus you only quoted half of my post ignoring the important part

The important part about the refund being reduced isn't that important, OP wants a replacement, retailer has agreed to a replacement.

Unless OP goes to the trouble of small claims it isn't much of an issue. In terms of talking to the retailer OP is entitled to a replacement and articulating that point to get what they wish is important  

lincroft1710

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

lincroft1710 said:

Did you read what the OP's post said to which I replied, as your post implies you actually didn't? 

I did indeed OP said:

Tescocomplaint said:

As explained above, I didn't ask for a refund, they agreed to replace. I understand that the item has to be fit for purpose up to 6 years.

And up to means any time period from the time of delivery up to 6 years.

lincroft1710 said: Plus you only quoted half of my post ignoring the important part

The important part about the refund being reduced isn't that important, OP wants a replacement, retailer has agreed to a replacement.

Unless OP goes to the trouble of small claims it isn't much of an issue. In terms of talking to the retailer OP is entitled to a replacement and articulating that point to get what they wish is important  

I would argue in this case that the OP's use of "up to" was incorrect. I think they were trying to imply  "at least". My point was that there is no law (and you will no doubt correct if I am wrong) that says an item should last at least 6 years.