Jump to content


Faulty goods - entitlement to a refund within six months


obvious
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3262 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Please stop making things up.

 

We've drilled down to 48C which seems to be where you disagree

 

You say in respect of 48C(2):-

Or the buyer can rescind/reduce price if it is too much of an inconvience (not its going away for a week and I need my nintendo ds now), or you are making them run around for this replacement or repair. If they spend 2 months to screw a bolt on then they have taken to long and you are entilited to rescind.
..which apart from being unsupported and confused opinion, HAS ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING TO DO WITH 48C(2). In fact 48C(2) from your own quote says:-

 

48C

(1) If section 48A above applies, the buyer may rescind the contract with regard to those goods if the condition in subsection (2) below is satisfied.

(2) The condition is that by virtue of section 48B(3) above the buyer may require neither repair nor replacement of the goods or the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods.

......which is self-evident.

 

You, sir, are being a dougnut, sir.

 

You then follow on with stuff about repairs/replacements which is entirely irrelevant to the issue of refund/recission and can only serve to muddy the waters unnecessarily.

 

More irrelevant, misleading, unsupported and false stuff:-

(3) The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is— (You cannot force the retailer into a replacement or repair, note this is down to the retailer NOT YOU)

(a) impossible, or (You can't fix it, no replacement exists fair enough)

(b) disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or

(The RETAILER decides its going to cost to much)

© disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below. (the RETAILER decides this will be cheaper)

Note all of above is down to the seller, not the buyer you do not get to decide that its going to cost them too much.

But a question emerges:-

Therefore if the retailer decides they want to give you a replacement, where can you force a refund on them?
Right here (again):-
48C

(1) If section 48A above applies, the buyer may rescind the contract with regard to those goods if the condition in subsection (2) below is satisfied.

(2) The condition is that by virtue of section 48B(3) above the buyer may require neither repair nor replacement of the goods or the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods.

....and then you go on to accuse me of ignoring parts of the legislation which smacks of hypocrisy and spout more uninformed opinion without reference to the law we're supposed to be discussing:-

You can't just ignore parts of this act because it suits you, or it doesn't mention a refund. Its like going to watch a movie and telling the cashier you don't want to pay today. In a normal day to day case a replacement or repair is cheaper, if its not the retailer can offer you a refund.
...then have a go at my "FREE lawyer" who is in fact a Senior Associate with Pinsent Masons and the Editor of OUT-LAW.com

Just because a FREE laywer said you might be onto something, doesn't make it law
...then more uninformed opinion without anything to back it up whatsoever where you try to drag somebody else into the mess you've made...

you have 2 people here trying to explain as best they can to you that you can not force a refund onto the retailer. It doesn't matter whether its within the 6 months or not, unless the seller cannot fix it or replace it, and the goods can be repaired/replaced within a suitable period, and without alot of hassle, you have no grounds to demand a refund. You are only entitlied to a refund, when rejecting goods within a reasonable amount of time, due to a inherent fault.
Enough!
Link to post
Share on other sites

48C

(1) If section 48A above applies, the buyer may rescind the contract with regard to those goods if the condition in subsection (2) below is satisfied.

(2) The condition is that by virtue of section 48B(3) above the buyer may require neither repair nor replacement of the goods or the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods.

 

(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

© disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.

 

----

It doesn't mention refund/rescind, you CANNOT ignore the conditions, it doesn't mention them as you are entitled to them when the conditions are not met. Most the irrelevant misleading stuff is the SOGA, and my notes next to the SOGA how the heck is that then unsupported.

 

I have gone on about repairs/refunds as that is in the conditions set, to follow before you are can get a refund.

 

b) the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods, but the seller is in breach of the requirement of section 48B(2)(a) above to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

- Is where (I may ramble) I go on about section 48BC(2)

 

Note everything under the line above is uneditted and only bolded SOGA 48A-C

Ex-Retail Manager who is happy to offer helpful advise in many consumer problems based on my retail experience. Any advise I do offer is my opinion and how I understand the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4/10 - Could try harder. May I suggest (as we are at an impasse) that you go and get some legal advice and quote your source before passing Go or collecting £200 ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will research and restructure, provide full sources etc, when I have time. However as a side note please do not link to this thread as law, and state that they are entitled to a refund within 6 months, whilst TS, DTI, Consumer Direct are still saying within a reasonable time.

 

Sale of Goods Act Quick Facts - DTI

Trading Standards Central - Trading Standards and Consumer Protection information for the UK

 

As if your argument is true, it means these company's have it all wrong.

 

Btw my source has always been: Sale of Goods Act 1979 as amended up to date to 1/10/2003

which is the actual act, and no fact sheet quotes etc have been quoted. There is no better source to provide then the act itself, so how any of the quotes are unsupported I have no clue.

Ex-Retail Manager who is happy to offer helpful advise in many consumer problems based on my retail experience. Any advise I do offer is my opinion and how I understand the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obvious:

 

Please understand this. I am taking a degree in this field (just finished 2nd year). I have Solicitors, Trading Standards Officers, a (retired) High Court judge amongst others as my lecturers. I am doing very well in the course, and I have used my materials from university in my posts.

 

Are you now saying, and I am not being funny here, that what all these lecturers are saying is incorrect? That they have messed up a rather significant piece of legislation?

 

You have just taken apart Blitz's last post and said that it is rubbish. Can you please explain why? I have not found any inaccuracies in what Blitz has said about the Act. The points made by Blitz and myself have not yet been proven to be other than stated. Simply telling people that they are wrong, without any backup to support such a statement is unhelpful.

 

48C which you are specifically referring to states :

 

"(1) If section 48A applies, the buyer may [meaning can do so, but does not have to if they do not so wish]

(a) requite the seller to reduce the price of the goods....

OR

(b) rescind the contract with regard to those goods

IF the condition in subsection 2 (below) is satisfied.

(2) the condition is that-

(a) by virtue of section 48B(3), the buyer may require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; [this bit means that, where replacement or repair is impossible, or disproportionate, then and only then the buyer may ask for a refund]

(b) the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods but the seller is in breach of the requirement of section 48B(2)(a).......

the part about recission (48C(1)(b) applies ONLY IF the other remedies are impossible or disproportionate to the cost of recission, OR the seller has breached the requirements on repairing / replacing within reasonable time and with minimum inconvenience.

 

I really do not see what the problem is in understanding this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a very short (but free) opinion today from a real live specialist e-commerce lawyer (I dont think there are many firms of those around in the UK). The question was:- and the reply came:-

 

"I wonder if you could offer any comment on whether web retailers should be confident in offering 30 day refund policies for faulty goods in light of the six month period in SOGA 1979 Part 5a?

 

In a nutshell does this mean that consumers can enjoy for the most part a six month period in which a refund can be requested should a fault develop?

 

My lay interpretation is that 48A (copied below for reference) would seem to be without any requirement for the issue of Acceptance as detailed in part 35 and that a contract of sale will in almost all cases have at the very least an implied 'fitness for purpose for a reasonable period' within it so I can't see subsection (4)(a) applying 99% of the time either."

 

and the reply came:-

 

Quote:

"Broadly speaking you are right."

 

I'm going to approach DTI, OFT and Trading Standards now and see if anything gives re amending guidelines and advice leaflets. It'll probably take a long time and may well come to nothing but what the hell. In for a penny and all that.

 

 

 

If the above is true then would that hold for say a used car bought on HP, if so who would be responsible the garage or the HP company, and if so then we need the written examples to show other people

Long time ago in a galaxy FAR FAR AWAY, there lived an elf who shot banks for a living.........

Now through the power of the internet there is the CONSUMER ACTION GROUP,

 

Watch out they are getting crafty those pesky CRITTERS!

 

Banks will tell you their charges are transparent!

So is the invisible man but that does not mean he is fair or lawful.

 

DONT GIVE UP! FOLLOW THE CAG ADVICE AND RECLAIM YOUR CHARGES.

CAPITAL BANK! YOU ARE NEXT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

no idea, but gyzmo was right, the OP was failign to distinguish between tier one and tier two rights under the soga. And failing to actually understand the statute. It often helps to read the statute alongside decided case law. The situation is quite clear. the 6 months refers only to the burden of proof for tier two rights (repair, replace, reduction in price) and not tier one (rejection).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was always disappointed obvious never came back to respond. 1 point to Gyzmo and I, right? - BiS are now redeveloping consumer law anyway, I really should look at the proposals sometime

Ex-Retail Manager who is happy to offer helpful advise in many consumer problems based on my retail experience. Any advise I do offer is my opinion and how I understand the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...