consumer rights question

[TW]Fox · 29 May 2007 at 16:07

Dj_Jestar said:
O rly? Then why did my former employer (largest electronic retaileir in the UK) lose out of a large law suit because they refused to refund people who were not happy with the perfectly working appliances they had purchased? No, it wasn't because they were lied about the performance/ability - they literally were just not happy with it.

If they sold perfectly functional appliances, advertised correctly, with no faults, no build quality issues etc to customers paying cash and then later refused to refund them simply because the customer had decided they were not happy, they did NOT lose a law suit for doing it.

If, on the other hand, the appliances were sold on credit...

Can we have a source for this 'suit'? Going on what you've posted, I refuse to believe such a suit existed. Sounds like there is more to the story.

Use some logic, why should a consumer be able to return an item which works perfectly, was sold correctly, simply becuase they change their mind? Retailers are not a charity case.

dirtydog · 29 May 2007 at 16:09

Dj_Jestar said:
No, the word that follows that.

Satisfactory means it does the job it is supposed to do, not necessarily that it is to the satisfaction of the purchaser.

sgx.saint · 29 May 2007 at 16:09

[TW]Fox said:
If, on the other hand, the appliances were sold on credit...

Yep. Consumers have an added level of protection under the CCA 1974.

But, in saying that, there has to be a legitimate reason for wanting a refund or return of a purchased item.

From the scenario put forward by "Dj_Jestar", his former employer should not have lost a Court case based on the aforementioned facts.

Dj_Jestar · 29 May 2007 at 16:09

[TW]Fox said:
If they sold perfectly functional appliances, advertised correctly, with no faults, no build quality issues etc to customers paying cash and then later refused to refund them simply because the customer had decided they were not happy, they did NOT lose a law suit for doing it.

If, on the other hand, the appliances were sold on credit...

Can we have a source for this 'suit'? Going on what you've posted, I refuse to believe such a suit existed. Sounds like there is more to the story.

Can't say the name as it is a competitor, and it was over 7 years ago since I left (and the law suit was a year or two before that so we are talking 8 or 9 years ago.) The law suit was in a few national papers such as The Times and The Telegraph.

No, I didn't save the clippings.

sgx.saint · 29 May 2007 at 16:10

dirtydog said:
Satisfactory means it does the job it is supposed to do, not necessarily that it is to the satisfaction of the purchaser.

Again, yep, this is what I have stated in my previous posts.

Rotty · 29 May 2007 at 16:22

jas72 said:
what about clothes bought for someone else that were too big/small etc.

We had an arguement with a shop after christmas as we bought out goods on 14th December for my niece as a christmas present. The clothes didn't fit her but when we returned to the shop on the 3rd Jan they said the 15 day period was up and the clothes were now on sale with 40% off so they could only offer us a coupon for the sale price. After much argueing with the management (in full view of the shop's customers were they to relent.)

So if clothes are the wrong size then they clearly aren't fit for purpose.

no they aren't, the buyer purchased the wrong size

[TW]Fox · 29 May 2007 at 16:26

Dj_Jestar said:
Can't say the name as it is a competitor, and it was over 7 years ago since I left (and the law suit was a year or two before that so we are talking 8 or 9 years ago.) The law suit was in a few national papers such as The Times and The Telegraph.

No, I didn't save the clippings.

So, if you have no further information and cannot cite any sources, then I have no choice but to assume the 'case' didn't exist, or you are mistaken in your recollection of the facts.

From a legal point of view, it would never have got to court.

Dj_Jestar · 29 May 2007 at 16:42

[TW]Fox said:
So, if you have no further information and cannot cite any sources, then I have no choice but to assume the 'case' didn't exist, or you are mistaken in your recollection of the facts.

From a legal point of view, it would never have got to court.

Guilty before innocent? Where are your citations and sources?

Raymond Lin · 29 May 2007 at 16:46

Dj_Jestar said:
Guilty before innocent? Where are your citations and sources?

You first

parties involved and year of judgment please.

Dj_Jestar · 29 May 2007 at 16:51

Raymond Lin said:
You first parties involved and year of judgment please.

Look up

Actually thinking about it, it was only 6 years ago I left - so we are talking 99/00 was the law suit. They were fined quite heavily, about half a million pounds.

They had Linda Barker (Parker?) on their adverts with a big pair of scissors not that long ago - "The choice for you"

Burnsy2023 · 29 May 2007 at 17:03

Well this case with DSG Retail seems to be somewhat illusive although they've had more litigation then Jeffery Archer....

Burnsy