when is "used" used?

[No1newts]

No, it cannot. I cannot go out and buy a tennis ball and then get a refund because it's not suitable for use as a football.

What a poor example.

He has went out to purchase a DVD player, to use as a DVD player but it is not a suitable DVD player because it is not compatible with his TV.

Why should the retailer bear the cost of the consumers mistake and lack of homework?

Because the law says so?

If the law was tilted the other way in favour of the big businesses people would be arguing

Why should the consumer bear the cost of the retailers mistake and lack of homework?

because surely the retailer should be finding out exactly what type of TV you have and have enough knowledge of every single piece of goods they sell and how it is compatible with any other single item out there on the market...

 

[[TW]Fox]

What a poor example.

He has went out to purchase a DVD player, to use as a DVD player but it is not a suitable DVD player because it is not compatible with his TV.

It's his responsbility to ensure the goods he are buying are compatible with what he already has UNLESS he specifically asks the retailer for help, when it becomes their repsonsibility.

Besides, read his post. It sounds like a portable player anyway and he gave the reason for return as:

Well the dvd recorder was pants so I repacked it and took it to the store.

It's rubbish. Well tough luck - the Apple iPhone is rubbish does that mean I can get a refund if I buy one? No.

Because the law says so?

No it doesn't.

because surely the retailer should be finding out exactly what type of TV you have and have enough knowledge of every single piece of goods they sell and how it is compatible with any other single item out there on the market...

The retailers are there should you wish to ask them about compability. If you don't find somebody and ask them it is not their fault if the product isn't right for you!

Remember, its totally different if a member of staff has advised that it will work..

 

[JBuk]

DO you have anything to back this up or you just believing what the shops tell you? I think it will be the second, everyone believes they have no rights when it comes to shops and refunds etc they play off your ignorance.

One of the first things I was taught when studying contractual law.

Yes some stores play off ignorance but in this instance they are not legally obliged to do anything

snip

Goods have to conform yes but when a consumer choses & buys a product then decides they don't like it that does not come under "not fit for purpose"

fit for purpose means if you buy an oven then it should be capable of cooking food, if you buy a dvd player it should be capable of playing dvds

Buying a product then getting it home only to find it isn't compatible with your tv or doesn't have a feature you really needed is your own fault and does not come under the fit for purpose rule

Give me some time to do some further reading, I'm sure that all returns poicies etc are illegal, or if not illegal then certainly non applicable in British law. The law is the law as stated The Sale of Goods Act 1979 and not what some random store puts on a piece of paper in the window.

Returns policies are legal but they do not affect a consumers statutory rights and this has to be clearly stated, generally a returns policy offers additional benefits to the customer than the law does but it does not overide the sales of goods act

have a read of this to re-cap on your law training http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf

 

[No1newts]

It's his responsbility to ensure the goods he are buying are compatible with what he already has UNLESS he specifically asks the retailer for help, when it becomes their repsonsibility.

Goods have to conform yes but when a consumer choses & buys a product then decides they don't like it that does not come under "not fit for purpose"

fit for purpose means if you buy an oven then it should be capable of cooking food, if you buy a dvd player it should be capable of playing dvds

Buying a product then getting it home only to find it isn't compatible with your tv or doesn't have a feature you really needed is your own fault and does not come under the fit for purpose rule

I will have a look for some case law to try and sort who is in the right on this issue as I am not too sure (remember we are trying to hrelp the OP ). But from what I remember you are able to claim back a refund on goods if they are not compatible with your needs. I agree you cannot claim back if you just don't like them but not if you cannot get them to work at all.

 

[JBuk]

I will have a look for some case law to try and sort who is in the right on this issue as I am not too sure (remember we are trying to hrelp the OP ). But from what I remember you are able to claim back a refund on goods if they are not compatible with your needs. I agree you cannot claim back if you just don't like them but not if you cannot get them to work at all.

You cannot simply return something because it is incompatible with your existing products, it is upto the consumer to know this before making a purchase , if on the other hand the retailer had advised the consumer then they would be within their rights as the product would have been mis-sold.

An example of non conformity could be a box specifies the DVD player has an HDMI port yet on opening the box there is none, the goods now do not conform so the consumer is within rights to return the item for a full refund.

 

[Dolph]

I will have a look for some case law to try and sort who is in the right on this issue as I am not too sure (remember we are trying to hrelp the OP ). But from what I remember you are able to claim back a refund on goods if they are not compatible with your needs. I agree you cannot claim back if you just don't like them but not if you cannot get them to work at all.

Only if they are missold. Buy a TV that requires an external ariel connection when you don't have one? Tough, unless you were told by the shop that you don't need it.

In this case, it would appear that the purchasers ariel is not good enough to supply sufficient signal (this is quite common especially if the new box is freeview), that's not an issue with the DVD recorder and unless they were told it was fine with poor signal and would function in such an enviroment, the shop is under exactly zero obligation to take it back.

 

[me227]

Fox is right. The DVD player is fit for its purporse. It plays DVDs.

If the shop said it'd work fine on his TV then that's a whole other matter. Should've paid attention in class.

 

[No1newts]

You cannot simply return something because it is incompatible with your existing products, it is upto the consumer to know this before making a purchase , if on the other hand the retailer had advised the consumer then they would be within their rights as the product would have been mis-sold.

An example of non conformity could be a box specifies the DVD player has an HDMI port yet on opening the box there is none, the goods now do not conform so the consumer is within rights to return the item for a full refund.

[/QUOTE]
Fitness for purpose, s14(3)
If the buyer expressly or impliedly makes his purpose for the goods known to the seller, the seller is obliged to make sure the goods provided are fit for that purpose, if it is reasonable for the buyer to rely on the seller's expertise. An example of the application of this provision can be found in Godley v Perry

Godley v. Perry [1960] 1 All ER 36 QB, p. 324
§ P bought a catapult from D and was injured when using it. D third partied the wholesaler and the wholesaler 4th partied an agent of its supplier and the importer. D said that when goods arrived in shop she tested the elastic. 3rd party called in the usual way at D’s business to sell the goods (both parties tested the toy). Previously, 4th party had called in usual way at 3rd party’s business (3rd party tested the elastic).
§ Court held that, b/w D and 3rd and 4th party, this was clearly a sale by sample and that the implied condition accordingly existed. Court found that goods, in breach of a condition, were so defective as to be unmerchantable. Counsel for 4th party submitted that the defect would have been noticed on a reasonable examination of the sample and that no condition should be applied.
Þ All that is required is reasonable examination, not every possible form of examination. In this case, pulling back the elastic was reasonable. Where there was no examination that was common in the trade, common sense standard of what would be expected in every day life is OK.
Þ 3rd and 4th parties were in breach of s. 15(2)(c) of the Act.
[/QUOTE]

You are right mate it seems that because he has not asked the vendor about whether the goods are suitable or not it is unlikely he will get the money back. Only small chance he has is;

[/QUOTE]
If the buyer expressly or impliedly makes his purpose for the goods known to the seller, the seller is obliged to make sure the goods provided are fit for that purpose
[/QUOTE]

The wording, at least to me, seems to suggest that the vendor has an obligation to make sure that the goods are going to work when the consumer purchases them. i.e. they are required to provide their expertise, I can think of an example that whenever I purchase a PC game over the counter they always ask me if my PC is suitable for the product.

Unfortunately there is no case law on this area.

OP you can blaze a new legal trail and argue this in court! You will have a legal case named after yourself but for all the hassle of that you may be better off just accepting your fate and taking the £200 loss.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Fitness for purpose, s14(3)
If the buyer expressly or impliedly makes his purpose for the goods known to the seller, the seller is obliged to make sure the goods provided are fit for that purpose, if it is reasonable for the buyer to rely on the seller's expertise.

The wording, at least to me, seems to suggest that the vendor has an obligation to make sure that the goods are going to work when the consumer purchases them. i.e. they are required to provide their expertise,

It says nothing of the sort! It actually says 'If the buyer expressly or impliedly makes his purpose for the goods known '

I can think of an example that whenever I purchase a PC game over the counter they always ask me if my PC is suitable for the product.

This is purely because they are fed up with people like you buying Crysis for a 286 then blaming the retailer.

 

[JBuk]

If the buyer expressly or impliedly makes his purpose for the goods known to the seller, the seller is obliged to make sure the goods provided are fit for that purpose

This could be as simple as telling the supplier you need a dvd player for your home tv,in which case they may advise the bog standard DVD player , yet unless the buyer expressly makes it known that he needs a certain feature for compatibility then the seller has fulfilled his obligations and is not accountable.

 

[z0mbi3]

This is purely because they are fed up with people like you buying Crysis for a 286 then blaming the retailer.

gave me chuckle.