As much as that might be misleading though, he hasn't bought it from Asus, his contract is with the reseller and Asus have no obligation to him based on them advertising the availability of a spec other than that which he received from someone else.
Trading Standards are hardly going to be able to force Asus to refund him when he didn't even buy it from them.
Agreed, although in this case, the misinformation provided by the manufacturer led directly to the sale of the product. Asus would likely be liable for damages, at least to the amount the OP lost.
Edit: Just done a bit more research into this. Section 14 of the
Sale of Goods Act 1979 seems relevant.
(2A) For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.
(2B) For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—
(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b) appearance and finish,
(c) freedom from minor defects,
(d) safety, and
(e) durability.
(2C) The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory—
(a) which is specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made,
(b) where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or
(c)in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample.]
[F13(2D)If the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, if a contract of sale is a consumer contract, the relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2A) above include any public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods made about them by the seller, the producer or his representative, particularly in advertising or on labelling.
(2E)A public statement is not by virtue of subsection (2D) above a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2A) above in the case of a contract of sale, if the seller shows that—
(a)at the time the contract was made, he was not, and could not reasonably have been, aware of the statement,
(b)before the contract was made, the statement had been withdrawn in public or, to the extent that it contained anything which was incorrect or misleading, it had been corrected in public, or
(c)the decision to buy the goods could not have been influenced by the statement.
In particular, (2D) which explicitly includes statements made on the characteristics of the goods by the seller, or the producer. The goods the OP received were, therefore, of unsatisfactory quality, or at least that's how I read it. No idea if there is any precedent for this issue.
Edit 2: Sorry, late at night. (2E)a. explicitly outrules statements of which the seller was unaware. Presumably the OP never informed the seller that he had been told by the manufacturer that it was upgradeable, although the manufacturer's website might still play into this.
