At the risk of speaking out of turn actually I think it entirely possible the retailer acted appropriately in this case and there is not an issue of them acting wrongly. The item was returned 10 weeks after it was bought. On most goods this far exceeds a 'reasonable time' which is usually deemed between 2 weeks and 28 days. As the goods are actually a type bought with a requirement at hand (i.e. most people don't buy a drill on the offchance they need it, but instead buy it because they need to use it) - this means the goods are likely to have been tested and fully used within 7 days. The fact that the item can have been used excessively in that time and used inappropriately (there are many ways to stress a drill and burn out the motor), means the fault may be nothing to do with fitness of purpose for the job or manufacturing faults. I see none of the above posts ask about the fault itself, how it manifested or the condition of the drill!!! That might have left the retailer questioning how the drill was used and if the customer damaged rather than a fault. I think B&Q may well have acted very well and the manager may have acted in the last instance in good faith to keep a customer happy rather than it having been a case of a 'try on' from the middle man. I think it a case for people to ask a few more questions, otherwise we might find consumer rights changing for the worse because to many consumers 'try it on'. I know far to many builders who freely admit to buying a tool and testing it to destruction on a few jobs before taking it back for a replacement and keeping the new one. It all adds to the cost of the goods us consumers buy!!