Sale of Goods Act

[blueball]

What are peoples understandings of the sale of goods act (or even just good customer care) in the following scenario?

A person (me) buys an electrical item online.
It starts exhibiting a fault within 2 weeks.
The retailer won't offer a replacement just a repair but that will take weeks to turn round.

Can I have peoples opinions on this please?

[Lucio]

As long as the repair occurs within 28 days, I believe that'll meet their legal requirements.

[Rave]

http://www.berr.gov.uk/consumers/fac...page38311.html

Nearly all retailers take 30 days to be the 'reasonable period' within which you'd be entitled to a full refund or a replacement. If they don't sort one out I would get in touch with Trading Standards.

[Clunk]

Name and shame.

[nickster]

Have you tried contacting the manufacturer? Sometimes it might be quicker than just going back to the retailer, even though they should fix it.

[blueball]

Thanks for the comments so far.

My own understanding was that I was entitled to repair, refund or replacement within a reasonable time - most decent companies work to 28 or 30 days for that and I believe it is my option as to which of these solutions I take.

[Lucio]

Thanks for the comments so far.

My own understanding was that I was entitled to repair, refund or replacement within a reasonable time - most decent companies work to 28 or 30 days for that and I believe it is my option as to which of these solutions I take.

Nope! it is *not* your choice what you get, it's theirs.

[blueball]

Nope! it is *not* your choice what you get, it's theirs.

See point 7 in this link: http://www.berr.gov.uk/consumers/fac...page38311.html

[badass]

Nope! it is *not* your choice what you get, it's theirs.

Completely wrong. Provided you get back to them in a reasonable time.

[finlay666]

If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit

You can REQUEST what you want, whether or not you get it is an entirely different matter, it IS the retailers choice in the matter

[Whiternoise]

What did you buy, out of interest - many of these will depend on the item. Some will request you go via the manufacturer for this sort of thing.

However, if it's a fault with the product that wasn't caused via negligence, the vast majority of stores will just take it back and replace it. They shouldn't lose money as they just send them back to their warehouse/supplier as faulty.

TBH they're offering a repair. Take the hit and let them do it. Or go directly to the manufacturer for replacement - if it comes with a warranty/guarantee they should honour it.

[Lucio]

See point 7 in this link: http://www.berr.gov.uk/consumers/fac...page38311.html

You know, that point 7 is an entirely useless point out of context, it says you can alternatively request a repair or replacement if you're a consumer. Alternative to what?? I believe it's alternative to being offered a partial refund to prevent businesses screwing people over with useless refunds for non-working products!


Quite frankly if you're arguing with us so much, you're either a) getting screwed over or b) are in the wrong and the etailer is simply one with narrow profit margins who can't afford to do what the big stores do and screw the manufacturers like Tesco or Costco do...

[badass]

If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit

You can REQUEST what you want, whether or not you get it is an entirely different matter, it IS the retailers choice in the matter

Get some evidence of GTFO. I am fed up of rubbish like this being dished out as advice.
You might think that rubbish is true, but the court cases I have helped friends win would suggest otherwise. When's the last time you took a retailer/salesman to court or helped slomeone do that?
Perhaps check out the trading standards website before spouting this drivel.

[finlay666]

Get some evidence of GTFO. I am fed up of rubbish like this being dished out as advice.
You might think that rubbish is true, but the court cases I have helped friends win would suggest otherwise. When's the last time you took a retailer/salesman to court or helped slomeone do that?
Perhaps check out the trading standards website before spouting this drivel.

Err I haven't, I have however been on the other end many times

And I did look at the website.
From:
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/c...V0043-1011.txt

What are you entitled to ask for?

If the goods are faulty at the time of sale, you are legally entitled to request one of the following remedies:

1) A full refund.

This remedy is available when the goods have not been ‘accepted’. Under the Sale of Goods Act, acceptance can take place in three ways:

By telling the retailer that you have accepted them.

By acting in a way with the goods which is inconsistent with the seller’s ownership. E.g. if you have altered the goods in any way or customised them then you would be deemed to have accepted them.

By keeping them for longer than a reasonable time without telling the seller that you have rejected them. There is no time specified in the Act and it may vary according to the type of goods. Ultimately, it may be for the judge to decide whether an unreasonable time has passed and whether goods have been accepted. For this reason you must contact the supplier, preferably in writing, as soon as the fault appears. To delay may mean you lose a right to a refund

If acceptance has taken place, then only the following remedies are available:

2) Compensation (damages)

The amount of compensation may be based on the cost of repair, or if that is not possible, compensation may be based on the purchase price with an allowance for usage.

3) Repair or replacement

The trader can refuse to agree to either of these remedies if it is disproportionate in comparison to the other remedies. For example, if you ask a trader to replace a washing machine then he would be entitled to turn down your request and offer a repair instead.

However, the repair or replacement must be carried out within a reasonable time and without causing significant inconvenience to the consumer. If this does not happen or the repair or replacement is not possible, then the consumer can rescind the contract (claim a refund) or request a reduction in purchase price.

Please note: The remedies of repair/replacement and the subsequent rescission or reduction in purchase price are not applicable to Hire Purchase contracts and other laws apply. Please contact your local Trading Standards Service for further advice

4) Rescission or reduction in price

These financial remedies can only be achieved by a failure of the repair / replacement option once acceptance has taken place. If the trader agrees to rescission, the amount paid may be reduced to take account of usage.

Once you have chosen a remedy and the trader has agreed, you must give the trader a reasonable time to effect the chosen remedy before switching to another one. Ultimately, if a remedy cannot be agreed upon, then the courts have the power to choose any of the remedies.

I think it is pretty clear that the seller does NOT have to give you a refund, it is dependent on the situation, some retailers I have worked for have operated a 7 day refund policy, other than that it is repair or replacement, perfectly within the law.

[Splash]

Saracen in 3....2....1....


Seriously, he's the man on this kind of thing. I could comment, but I'll likely be wrong.

[Steve B]

Get some evidence of GTFO. I am fed up of rubbish like this being dished out as advice.
You might think that rubbish is true, but the court cases I have helped friends win would suggest otherwise. When's the last time you took a retailer/salesman to court or helped slomeone do that?
Perhaps check out the trading standards website before spouting this drivel.

I'm fed up of people blowing their own trumpets.

If you've helped friends win cases, then I would assume that you're not a lawyer, else you would have "won the cases on behalf of your clients". Maybe if you were a lawyer, you could quote the law, as it stands, which I see you fail to do.

I notice you provide no evidence to counter Finlay's arguments, so maybe think twice about "spouting off" yourself?