Trading Standards vs incarexpress.co.uk

Altarf

mdbarber wrote: »

dont know where u got this info from dude but ref this SOGA 1979 in particular paragraph 36, straight from the horses mouth so to speak
Seems you are getting a little confused between the soga and dsr regs

cavycrazy wrote: »

Much as I hate to perpetuate the stupidity....

Your SOGA:
36. Buyer not bound to return rejected goods

Unless otherwise agreed, where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he refuses to accept them, having the right to do so, he is not bound to return them to the seller, but it is sufficient if he intimates to the seller that he refuses to accept them.

The car shop's terms and conditions: ( http://incarexpress.co.uk/page.php?content=terms )

The warranty does not cover incidental or consequential losses, the cost of return for testing or the cost of removal and reinstallation

When purchasing from the site, you AGREED to the terms and conditions set out on the stereo website. You AGREED you weren't covered for the cost of returns.

Amusing though this thread is, Section 36 of SOGA is not relevant here, although I appreciate the irony that it was the OP who brought it up in the first place.

What is relevant is Sections 48A and 48B of SOGA, which relates to "Additional Rights Of Buyer In Consumer Cases". Not only is not possible in consumer sales for a consumer to be deprived of their statutory rights, even if they agree to a contract to do so, it is in fact illegal for a trader to attempt to do so (hence why 'no refund' signs usually say 'Your statutory rights are not affected').

However unless the conditions attached to the refund were completely ridiculous (and I note that the OP has not posted them here), then the court may not be amused at the OP's rejection of the offer.

48A Introductory 

(1)This section applies if—
(a)the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, there is a consumer contract in which the buyer is a consumer, and
(b)the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery.
(2)If this section applies, the buyer has the right—
(a)under and in accordance with section 48B below, to require the seller to repair or replace the goods, or
(b)under and in accordance with section 48C below—
(i)to require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or
(ii)to rescind the contract with regard to the goods in question.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.
(4)Subsection (3) above does not apply if—
(a)it is established that the goods did so conform at that date;
(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

48B Repair or replacement of the goods

(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller—
(a)to repair the goods, or
(b)to replace the goods.
(2)If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—
(a)repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;
(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).
(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—
(a)impossible, or
(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or
(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.
(4)One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—
(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,
(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and
(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.
(5)Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined by reference to—
(a)the nature of the goods, and
(b)the purpose for which the goods were acquired.

mdbarber

Sorry altarf and it may be just far too early for me after a late night, but but that went completely over my head.
I can see where you are going with the soga quotes you provided , why the quote from ccavy?

Pollycat

what's this thread all about, answers in no more then 5 words please

Altarf - can you count? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

mdbarber
if they offered you £144.93 and you would have been happy with £145.00, what were the conditions that they attached to this offer?

Freddie_Snowbits

mdbarber wrote: »

1. Offer from them, £144.93 + loads stupid conditions.

2 My counter offer, this i must add was made very quickly to appease their request that things were expedited so as to avoid the impending hearing and in it made several important concessions but in essence was

drop all the crap mumbo jumbo terms i don't understand and give me a full unconditional refund of £145 and i will take time to package, go to po/depot and return the item., this is what they rejected and i quote

Perhaps high Horsing on this thread would help OP's case. Or is this too much 'Mumbo Jumbo'?

mdbarber

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Perhaps high Horsing on this thread would help OP's case. Or is this too much 'Mumbo Jumbo'?

Well its a bit later in day and i have had 3 coffees but i still didn't get that, someone pass the aspirin please

Altarf

mdbarber wrote: »

Sorry altarf and it may be just far too early for me after a late night, but but that went completely over my head.
I can see where you are going with the soga quotes you provided , why the quote from ccavy?

Because it amused me that there were several pages of argument over section 36 when it was not relevant at all, and nobody had spotted that it was section 48 that applied.

mdbarber

Pollycat wrote: »

Altarf - can you count? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

mdbarber
if they offered you £144.93 and you would have been happy with £145.00, what were the conditions that they attached to this offer?

that if the returned item was not faulty, had a fault caused by fitting etc the deal was off etc.
This i didn't get, because they had pretty much said they were taking it back due to their failings under DSR regs and a few other bits and bobs making what would actually be paid and when very unclear

Altarf

mdbarber wrote: »

that if the returned item was not faulty, had a fault caused by fitting etc the deal was off etc.

Which seems entirely reasonable.

Bamber19

Altarf wrote: »

...and nobody had spotted that it was section 48 that applied.

I'm pretty sure I did, perhaps in the other thread, although I've had a few posts deleted so i may have said something nasty in the same post and thus it's disappeared. I recall a short debate following whereby at the stage the OP is talking about it is not a requirement for repair (as in the act) but testing to see if it requires repair. The act is unclear on what happens in that situation. Also saying that the seller should incur costs does not mean they must incur them upfront, merely that an obligation to incur the costs exists.

mdbarber

Altarf wrote: »

Which seems entirely reasonable.

It would have been reasonable six months ago, not now its not and it most definitely is not if as they claim they are accepting responsibility under the DSR which has no such restrictions.
I appreciate what you are saying about section 48 of the SOGA but for reasons i can't go into just yet it is not applicable, many thanks for the input though