Ebuyer - Sale of Goods Act - buyers beware!
Options
Comments
-
IIRC malc_b has already used that same section previously to argue HIS point ... note the words "if the buyer rescinds" in that last paragraph.
/devils advocate0 -
You are right Bod1467, however I read it to say if it is impossible to repair or replace, or is disproportionatly costly (e.g price has risen including P&P to and from the buyer) than the only other option is for the buyer to either have a appropriate reduction in the purchase price, or for the buyer to rescinds the contract.
I suppose hypothetically, the buyer can refuse, but that will just gridlock the process, as the seller can't repair, and isn't willing to exchange/replace as even if the price is diffrent the seller will be out of pocket, so all thats left is the buyer to say "Ok, i'll take my money back", if he doesn't the seller can go "Well I followed the law, and need the buyers acceptance to rescind the contract" and the end result is the seller keeps the money and the buyer is stuck with faulty goods. I suppose most companies work on a assumed acceptance in that if buyer gets money in their account they accept to rescind, if they don't further complain, or say "Hang on, I'm not receding the contract"0 -
I agree - the words are clear but the meaning is not; quite ambiguous IMHO.0
-
RAM shouldn't fail at all, so they are paying 110% so it's not fair.
An item would never be expected to last forever and I doubt a court would agree with you that it should.
I'd suggest that a lifetime of RAM would be 5-6 years. I have had RAM last much longer and RAM be dead on arrival.
They've got what they paid for. 6 months use for a certain cost and some new ram that will last them 6 months longer than the previous would (regardless of how long it lasts). Although I have explained this point twice and know you understand what I am saying I guess we'll agree to disagree.Thinking critically since 1996....0 -
somethingcorporate wrote: »An item would never be expected to last forever and I doubt a court would agree with you that it should.
I'd suggest that a lifetime of RAM would be 5-6 years. I have had RAM last much longer and RAM be dead on arrival.
They've got what they paid for. 6 months use for a certain cost and some new ram that will last them 6 months longer than the previous would (regardless of how long it lasts). Although I have explained this point twice and know you understand what I am saying I guess we'll agree to disagree.
We will have to agree to disagree, but RAM is a very reliable component, and only fails rarely.
So I think it's unfair and you think it is, no worries.0 -
Clearly you didn't read or understand my post properly. I said in general terms their advice was incorrect or at least "specific to this particular instance". Therefor I tend to be in agreement with you that in this specific case, with the cost margins being so low that a replacement over a partial refund would probably not be classed as disproportionate. But, as I also said, which is backed up by the legislation as linked by yourself and others, the seller is entitled to offer partial refunds.And your qualifications to make this statement are? And doubtless you can point me towards the paragraph in SoGA that says this?
No offence but since you are saying that the my solicitor, AND, consumer direct are both wrong on a pretty cut and dry case I'd like some justification as to why I believe you and not those experts. And I'd like to see something online to back up what you say, say in SoGA.
But, either way, as others have pointed out even if this is actually legal then you can still vote with your credit card and buy off someone else with the more common customer service where items get repaired/replaced within 1 year.0 -
Neilmcl, I would say that unless the OP says what the original price paid was you cannot say if it was disproportionate.
What if the RAM was £20? replacement RAM would cost £24, which is a 20% increase, and you have to add on postal charges back and forth.0 -
-
Looksguywalker wrote: »Very reliable I agree but can fail due to enduser mishandelling, eg static?
Extremely rare in my experience.0 -
I'm glad someone has pointed out that SoGA says buyer has to rescind contract and can then only claim a reduction. In this case Ebuyer are cancelling the contract not the buyer.
I also find the bit about lawyers all having different opinions inaccurate in this case. Sure in complex cases it all comes down to opinion but this case is so straight forward it is boiler plate. I bought something. It failed. The failure has been confirmed and there is no suggestion it is anything but a random 1% failure. The law should be cut and dry in such case.
It may be that there is a loophole in SoGA. I've emailed my MP about this since if there is it should closed. I've never experienced such "service" before when things have failed. Usually the item is repaired, even if what you want is your money back (SoGA says buyer can only rescind if there is a good reason such as a repair taking too long).
The possible SOGA loophole would seem to be:
(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—
(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.
So if Ebuyer claim replacement is disproportionate they can force me to rescind. SoGA says on disproportionate
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.
In my case I think Ebuyer's case is very weak. The value of my RAM is the same as Ebuyer sell it for now so a) says they should ignore the price rise. Of course keeping 10% of my purchase price means rescinding will always be cheaper for Ebuyer. They also save the postage to return the item but SoGA says
(2)If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—
(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).
Which implies postage should be ignored too.
At the end day, vote with your wallet is my advice.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards