consumer law question regarding replacing faulty items
Discussion
I have been shafted 4 times recently, funnily enough only by american companies and it is an issue I have never come across before or heard of in my entire life, I was wondering if it was legal or not.
When purchasing electronic goods, which seem to be ever declining in quality and durability at the moment, 4 times recently I have had an item develop a fault within the first couple of months. when I have went to return the item for an exchange the retailer has refused to exchange and offered a refund instead. normally this would not be a problem, but in these cases the price of the item has risen by anywhere from 10% to 40% in the meantime and they will not honour the price of the item that went faulty and expect a lot of extra money just to get exactly the item I paid for originally. Usually the item has went up in price everywhere else too in the meantime so because they originally supplied me with defective goods and I was unaware it was going to fail and the price was going to rise they have effectively denied me the opportunity to get the goods elsewhere at the original price.
They should just be returning the goods to their supplier anyway so exchanging wouldn`t put the retailer out of pocket to me it appears to be a scam to get extra money from the original purchase. If I hadn`t already purchased accessories to go with these items I would change to a different brand, but replacing the accessories would add even more cost.
I have never had this treatment from any other retailer but it has happened twice at 2 different US headquartered companies that pretend to be all about customer service, is this legal, is it fair and is it common? Hve I only just noticed this because rapidly increasing prices seems to be a recent phenomenon?
I have had in the past a uk retailer doing the opposite which was disappointing but fair, I had an item fail which had come down a lot in price since I bought it, I would have liked a refund then and I could have bought a new one and had change in my pocket but they only offered an exchange, again disappointing, but ultimately fair and what I would prefer in this situation.
When purchasing electronic goods, which seem to be ever declining in quality and durability at the moment, 4 times recently I have had an item develop a fault within the first couple of months. when I have went to return the item for an exchange the retailer has refused to exchange and offered a refund instead. normally this would not be a problem, but in these cases the price of the item has risen by anywhere from 10% to 40% in the meantime and they will not honour the price of the item that went faulty and expect a lot of extra money just to get exactly the item I paid for originally. Usually the item has went up in price everywhere else too in the meantime so because they originally supplied me with defective goods and I was unaware it was going to fail and the price was going to rise they have effectively denied me the opportunity to get the goods elsewhere at the original price.
They should just be returning the goods to their supplier anyway so exchanging wouldn`t put the retailer out of pocket to me it appears to be a scam to get extra money from the original purchase. If I hadn`t already purchased accessories to go with these items I would change to a different brand, but replacing the accessories would add even more cost.
I have never had this treatment from any other retailer but it has happened twice at 2 different US headquartered companies that pretend to be all about customer service, is this legal, is it fair and is it common? Hve I only just noticed this because rapidly increasing prices seems to be a recent phenomenon?
I have had in the past a uk retailer doing the opposite which was disappointing but fair, I had an item fail which had come down a lot in price since I bought it, I would have liked a refund then and I could have bought a new one and had change in my pocket but they only offered an exchange, again disappointing, but ultimately fair and what I would prefer in this situation.
I didnt get to keep anything, I had to return the items at my own cost in time and fuel. in the case of 2 of the purchases I ended up paying the higher price because I already bought accessories that I couldn't return and if I changed platform I would need to buy them again.
If you buy something with a years guarentee it should last for a year they should replace it at no cost to you surely, not demand extra money just to get the exact same thing you already paid for?
If you buy something with a years guarentee it should last for a year they should replace it at no cost to you surely, not demand extra money just to get the exact same thing you already paid for?
The sellers are in breach of contract, and remedies for breach look forwards rather than backwards. I.e. they should put you in the position you would have been had the contract been performed properly (rather than put back to the position you were in before you started).
So yes, theoretically if they don’t repair or give you a replacement then you can also pursue damages for the difference in price.
But in the real world, the strict legal position means little if the other person doesn’t know what it is or does know but chooses not to go along with it, unless you’re prepared to risk time and money enforcing through the courts (clue - unless it’s an incredibly valuable item/significant price rise, it ain’t worth it!)
So yes, theoretically if they don’t repair or give you a replacement then you can also pursue damages for the difference in price.
But in the real world, the strict legal position means little if the other person doesn’t know what it is or does know but chooses not to go along with it, unless you’re prepared to risk time and money enforcing through the courts (clue - unless it’s an incredibly valuable item/significant price rise, it ain’t worth it!)
The strict legal position is that you would need to prove what the exact terms of your contract were and how they were broken. Did the contract have a "no returns" clause? Were the goods sold at a discount? Did the contract exclude consequential losses?
I am aware that many of those clauses are not enforceable in the UK as a result of the CRA, but the effect of that is that you fall back to the CRA minimum rights, which is to either repair it or give you your money back. So yes, what they have done is legally correct and no, you don't have a claim.
You can have a legally binding contract between a trader and a consumer that provides better rights to the consumer than those set out in the CRA but you have to prove that contract exists and what the precise terms are. Price matching would be an example - "If you find this item on sale locally at a lower price in the last 7 days we'll refund you the difference" is a term sometimes used in sale contracts, and is enforceable if you bought under that term. But you don't have some inherent right to reclaim the difference if you weren't offered it at the point of sale.
I am aware that many of those clauses are not enforceable in the UK as a result of the CRA, but the effect of that is that you fall back to the CRA minimum rights, which is to either repair it or give you your money back. So yes, what they have done is legally correct and no, you don't have a claim.
You can have a legally binding contract between a trader and a consumer that provides better rights to the consumer than those set out in the CRA but you have to prove that contract exists and what the precise terms are. Price matching would be an example - "If you find this item on sale locally at a lower price in the last 7 days we'll refund you the difference" is a term sometimes used in sale contracts, and is enforceable if you bought under that term. But you don't have some inherent right to reclaim the difference if you weren't offered it at the point of sale.
hutchst said:
The strict legal position is that you would need to prove what the exact terms of your contract were and how they were broken. Did the contract have a "no returns" clause? Were the goods sold at a discount? Did the contract exclude consequential losses?
Not really - this sounds like a pretty clear breach of the term implied by CRA that goods must be of satisfactory quality. And it can't be excluded by means of contractual terms.hutchst said:
I am aware that many of those clauses are not enforceable in the UK as a result of the CRA, but the effect of that is that you fall back to the CRA minimum rights, which is to either repair it or give you your money back. So yes, what they have done is legally correct and no, you don't have a claim.
This isn't correct. The remedies provided by the CRA are in addition to other remedies provided by law (see section 19(9) and 19(10)). That includes damages for breach (mentioned specifically in s19(11)).Further, the rights provided by the act are things that the buyer is entitled to exercise - i.e. it's their choice. The trader doesn't get to dictate that the buyer must use a right to reject rather than take a repair/replacement. That's unless repair/replacement would be impossible/disporoprotionate compared to other remedies the act provides (s23(3)), but in that case, damages would still be available in addition if the refund wasn't enough to adequately compensate (as would be the case in the OP's example).
Yes, but the first rule of suing for a breach of contract is establishing that a contract exists, and that it has an explicit term (or terms) that have been breached.
The CRA (and other legislation such as UCTA) provide general remedies and protection, breach of contract requires specifics, with evidence.
The CRA (and other legislation such as UCTA) provide general remedies and protection, breach of contract requires specifics, with evidence.
hutchst said:
Yes, but the first rule of suing for a breach of contract is establishing that a contract exists, and that it has an explicit term (or terms) that have been breached.
The CRA (and other legislation such as UCTA) provide general remedies and protection, breach of contract requires specifics, with evidence.
With respect, you’re over-complicating this.The CRA (and other legislation such as UCTA) provide general remedies and protection, breach of contract requires specifics, with evidence.
A contract did exist - the OP purchased goods. So there’s a contract for the sale of goods, without any shadow of a doubt.
Said contract had a term, implied into by the CRA, that the goods would be of satisfactory quality.
A claim relating to faulty goods is therefore a claim for breach of contract - pretty much every such claim will be.
The presumption that any defect becoming apparent within the first 6 months were there at the time of purchase would mean that it would be for the retailer to prove it was not, rather than the OP needing to prove that it was. And it doesn’t sound like there’s any disagreement about whether or not the goods were in fact defective, because they refunded him for them.
True, the OP would need establish what his losses were but it doesn’t sound like it would take much in the circumstances.
Whether or not any of this is worth pursuing is a completely different point (very unlikely!!).
I'm not sure that I'm overcomplicating things when I say if you got your money back then that's it. I think that's pretty simple.
Going into implied terms and presumptions is where it gets complicated. You might be right, and I might be wrong, or vice versa) These issues are usually decided by a District Judge in a County Court (or MCoL these days), without benefit of judicial precedence. And their decisions can be 'interesting' at times. I think its very unlikely that a court would interpret 23(3 & 4) in the way you assume, but they might.
What I do agree with is that anybody that pursues a claim in court after being given a full refund has a lot more time and money than sense.
Going into implied terms and presumptions is where it gets complicated. You might be right, and I might be wrong, or vice versa) These issues are usually decided by a District Judge in a County Court (or MCoL these days), without benefit of judicial precedence. And their decisions can be 'interesting' at times. I think its very unlikely that a court would interpret 23(3 & 4) in the way you assume, but they might.
What I do agree with is that anybody that pursues a claim in court after being given a full refund has a lot more time and money than sense.
the amounts range from £20-50,so not worth losing a days work over, but if it was possible to fire off a couple of emails quoting what laws they were breaking I would give it a go.
As it sits I will avoid doing any more business with them unless its a no brainer and if i get the opportunity to abuse them in any way I will take it.
As it sits I will avoid doing any more business with them unless its a no brainer and if i get the opportunity to abuse them in any way I will take it.
Laws being broken is the wrong way to think of it. There’s nothing illegal here, it’s a civil matter and the question is what remedies are available for their breach of contract. That’s all set out above.
TBH, you’ve probably lost your chance to argue on these ones - the best approach would have been not to accept the refund and demand a replacement in the first place. One to chalk down to experience and remember for next time :-)
TBH, you’ve probably lost your chance to argue on these ones - the best approach would have been not to accept the refund and demand a replacement in the first place. One to chalk down to experience and remember for next time :-)
hutchst said:
What I do agree with is that anybody that pursues a claim in court after being given a full refund has a lot more time and money than sense.
In these circumstances, completely agree. But if we were talking about a major contract for sale of goods it would be a different kettle of fish. Such a contract would probably be in a B2B context rather than consumer, but the principles are the same. And if the cost of obtaining goods to replace the defective items is more than the original price, a refund is far from the end of the story.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff