Consumer right to a refund?

Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
18,022
Location
London & Singapore
If Mr Bloggs bought some RAM and then 2 months later it starts BSODing... he RMAs it but the retailer won't offer a refund only a replacement. But Mr Bloggs doesn't want a replacement because he has since learnt that the RAM in question is crap and that even a replacement is highly likely to die as well in the same fashion.

What would be his rights in this situation?

Ta :)
 
I will probably go and be proved wrong now.
However as far as I know they only have to offer you a replacement/repair.
You have no automatic right to a refund.
 
I will probably go and be proved wrong now.
However as far as I know they only have to offer you a replacement/repair.
You have no automatic right to a refund.

This. Unless you can prove it's a design fault and the replacement is just as likely to fail and hence you have lost all confidence in the product.

However, once you have bother with an engineer's report and argued against their statistics on failures, it's just not worth the hassle unless serious money involved like the Samsung (i think) american fridges which kept failing.

Best to get the replacements and sell as new, unopened if you don't want the ram anymore.
 
I thought the law had changed some time back. Prior to the change one had to prove the item was faulty on purchase or not made to the required standard. Now it is the responsibility of the seller to prove that the Item is fit for purchase or must provide a refund? :confused:
 
(for example)

Buying Goods by Description and Online

With the Internet being such a big player in the shopping lives of many people, it is important to understand just what your rights are. Under section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, all contracts for sales of goods by description (which covers most, if not all, goods purchased on the Internet) have a condition attached that the goods delivered to the buyer will actually match the description provide
Because this is a condition, as opposed to a warranty, the buyer is granted four specific rights when faced with a defective product:

* the right to return the goods;
* the right to a refund;
* the right to claim damages (but only when the product has caused a loss); and
* the right to terminate the contract.

Basically
The seller is trying it on, if they dont refund, so you can take them to court.
 
Refund.

Under the SOG you can claim upto 6 years after purchase so a 1 yr warranty means squat if it is reasonably expected for the product to last longer than that :)
 
If Mr Bloggs bought some RAM and then 2 months later it starts BSODing... he RMAs it but the retailer won't offer a refund only a replacement. But Mr Bloggs doesn't want a replacement because he has since learnt that the RAM in question is crap and that even a replacement is highly likely to die as well in the same fashion.

What would be his rights in this situation?

Ta :)

None, The consumer needs to give the retailer a chance to remedy the fault, whether it is repair or replacement (which ever is more convenient to the retailer, not the consumer.

Refund is a discretion, not a right.

This applies to everything, even cars, can you imagine buying a car and then radio breaks down and you want a refund on the car because you also realise after driving it for 2 months it is a pile of poo?

It's not fair on the dealer is it? rather than losing on the £50 radio, they have lost thousands on the car as it is now considered second hand.
 
(for example)

Buying Goods by Description and Online

With the Internet being such a big player in the shopping lives of many people, it is important to understand just what your rights are. Under section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, all contracts for sales of goods by description (which covers most, if not all, goods purchased on the Internet) have a condition attached that the goods delivered to the buyer will actually match the description provide
Because this is a condition, as opposed to a warranty, the buyer is granted four specific rights when faced with a defective product:

* the right to return the goods;
* the right to a refund;
* the right to claim damages (but only when the product has caused a loss); and
* the right to terminate the contract.

Basically
The seller is trying it on, if they dont refund, so you can take them to court.

That covers you for something arriving defective but not sure it applies to something which later becomes defective. Yep, you must check whether it's faulty within a "reasonable" time. Two months means the retailer has the right to repair or replace. No rights to a refund for the consumer (yet)

In the first instance and if considered appropriate, the seller must offer to at least repair the goods. They must do this within reasonable time, at no additional cost to you and without causing any significant inconvenience. If any inconvenience is caused you should be given a replacement item on a ‘like for like’ basis (and not simply the cheapest and most basic model). Many consumer complaints relate to the length of time the item is away being repaired – and although you must allow reasonable time for repair, the law does not say what ‘reasonable time’ is. It very much depends on the item itself and the nature of the problem. For most things, shops would usually allow you to exchange the item or give you your money back straight away. However, if the damage is minor and can be repaired easily, then the shop can insist on this as a first option, although this will not stop you from taking it back if the repair is unsatisfactory or there is something else wrong with it.

If a repair is impossible or unfeasible, you must then be offered a replacement. Due to the emphasis on proportionality in this legislation, you must give the seller reasonable time to repair or replace before demanding your money back and you should be aware that any refund given may well take account of any use you have had of the goods since you took possession of them. If you do not want the seller to repair or replace, or they have told you they are unable to, you can then request they reduce the purchase price to an appropriate amount, although this does not affect your ability to take return the item if something else goes wrong
 
Refund.

Under the SOG you can claim upto 6 years after purchase so a 1 yr warranty means squat if it is reasonably expected for the product to last longer than that :)

Wrong. You can claim for a repair, not a refund straight away. Only if they can't/won't fix it can you then try for a refund (less your usuage of from it in the time you owned it)
 
Cavet Emptor also applies, changing your mind is not a reason but a return (except the store has such policy), and if the goods are replaced and you are getting exactly what you originally paid for, you have not suffered any loss.

That said, I would still try and ask, they can only say no.
 
Last edited:
Sorry
You would lose in court

Buyer has a right to refund, that is the LAW

Wrong. Prove that you are right please? Yes, the buyer has a right to refund an a brand new item which is faulty but after that he doesn't. Two months is not faulty on delivery.
 
Sorry
You would lose in court (depends on which web site you look at)

Buyer has a right to refund, that is the LAW (depends on which web site you look at)

I don't look at websites, I looked at my books and lecture notes.

and the buyer has been offered a remedy to his problem, refund is a last resort, and only if the retailer cannot fix or replace the goods with a similar item then a right of refund comes in. Before that it is a discretion.
 
Wrong. You can claim for a repair, not a refund straight away. Only if they can't/won't fix it can you then try for a refund (less your usuage of from it in the time you owned it)

As someone who has won in court against a LARGE national retailer i think i KNOW i right :D

I have the refund, the compensation and the costs to prove it.
 
Sorry
You would lose in court (depends on which web site you look at)

Buyer has a right to refund, that is the LAW (depends on which web site you look at)

This post is so contradictory i don't know where to begin.

You are basically saying I will lose in court, and they says i will win in court.

Then you are saying it is the law, and then saynig its not the law.

I could easily reword it as:



"You are 100% right
You would win in court (depends on which web site you look at)

Buyer has a no right to refund, that is the LAW (depends on which web site you look at)
"

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
As someone who has won in court against a LARGE national retailer i think i KNOW i right :D

I have the refund, the compensation and the costs to prove it.

That once case against millions, yours didn't even make it to the High Court and is not case law. The statement is almost as valid as "I read it in the Daily Mail."

I'll try and dig up my books when i get home for caselaws if i remember but off my head, i do remember the principle that the replacement and repair comes FIRST.
 
It doesnt have to be high court. I use basic consumer law of the Sale of Goods Act and proved my case and won because its right you muppet, it doenst have to be caselaw or a president.
 
Back
Top Bottom