Refund Faulty Item

gwelydon

I'm glad you all agree with me, and I'm looking forward to seeing what she does next. Hopefully that'll be leaving me alone, but I'm not sure she's going to give up that easily!! Especially with the astronomical costs of keeping a bike in your shed being what they are these days

Premier_2

gwelydon wrote: »

I'm glad you all agree with me, and I'm looking forward to seeing what she does next. Hopefully that'll be leaving me alone, but I'm not sure she's going to give up that easily!! Especially with the astronomical costs of keeping a bike in your shed being what they are these days

I was going to mention this earlier, but didn't because I didn't want to worry you, but since you've brought it up...

As Consumer Direct mentioned, the only way this woman is going to force you to recompense her at all is by her satisfying a judge of her entitlement to the claim. (i.e. she would need to make a claim in court)

In the unlikely event she does, and in the even more unlikely event she actually convinces the judge of a right to a refund on a 30 year old bike she collected and so had the opportunity to inspect at the time (implying acceptance), she would need to mitigate any consequential losses.

As you originally agreed to provide her a full refund if she returned the bike to you, the most she can charge for consequential loss would be the £17.94 return cost she has quoted (which may or may not be agreed with even if she does win a right to a refund)

To clarify, I'm not suggesting she would win any case for a refund, but in the highly unlikely event she did, the judge should reject any consequential loss greater than the £17.94 on the basis the plaintiff had not mitigated that loss. So she wouldn't win a consequential loss claim for say 2 days storage costs @ say £10 per day.