Crosswords0 min ago
consumers rights
six weeks after buying a new tv the sound became distorted and could not be put right with the sound menu, the set also took a long time to warm up right from the start, the retailer sent out a service crew who said it could not be fixed on the spot, they asked if we had the original packing, we did, so they packed it up and took it away, the next day we got a phone call from the retailer to say the set was not repairable and to go in and choose another set, we hoped to get another like the original but were told that they could not get one as they were discontinued, we choose another set but had to pay £50 more for it as it was "slightly better", should we have paid this, as it was not our fault the first set went wrong or that it was no longer made, should the retailer have just replaced it with no extra payment?
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cecil39. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
" as it was not our fault the first set went wrong or that it was no longer made"
It's not the retailers fault either
No, they did not have to let you have a more expensive TV for the same amount you paid for your original one - sometimes stores may do this as a customer service exercise but you were not entitled to it
If you didn't want tp pay the extra why did you not a) question it in store and b) just accepted a refund?
It's not the retailers fault either
No, they did not have to let you have a more expensive TV for the same amount you paid for your original one - sometimes stores may do this as a customer service exercise but you were not entitled to it
If you didn't want tp pay the extra why did you not a) question it in store and b) just accepted a refund?
yes we paid outright, we were not offered a refund, the retailer did not have an alternative of the same price in store and actually asked £100 extra, and we talked it down by £50, but we also saved them money by taking the set with us and installing it, so I suppose it was not a bad deal on all sides.
I just wanted to check that the Sale of Goods Act (SoGA) applies, and not some alternative piece of legislation.
In a contract like yours, the rights of the buyer are found within section 48; you can view the section if you google SoGA 1979 s.48.
There's no provision for the seller being required to cover additional purchase costs in the event of failure under s.48. In this case, what would have been best is for you to have returned the TV and had your total purchase price refunded. As you didn't, you've now entered into a new contract for a 'better' TV, so I think that's just a lesson learned.
In a contract like yours, the rights of the buyer are found within section 48; you can view the section if you google SoGA 1979 s.48.
There's no provision for the seller being required to cover additional purchase costs in the event of failure under s.48. In this case, what would have been best is for you to have returned the TV and had your total purchase price refunded. As you didn't, you've now entered into a new contract for a 'better' TV, so I think that's just a lesson learned.
I didn't really answer your question: I guess the answer is 'yes', the retailer should have taken the hit as a measure of goodwill towards his customer in this case. I've no doubt he still would've made a profit even if he had covered the full £100 cost. He's under no legal obligation to though, which was my point.
1 to 7 of 7
Latest Posts
Crosswords1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Technology9 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
