I'm pretty sure what you say about refunds is correct. I'm pretty sure that you will be entitled to a refund under breach of contract as long as it is within a reasonable time etc.
It's a grey area in law in that there's nothing in the sale of goods act to constitute a formal "cooling off period" by which you can be deemed to have "accepted" the goods, other than a "reasonable" time must not have passed.
SOGA implies that the goods have to conform to contract when purchased and that it is the retailer's responsibility to ensure they do, and if they don't it is their responsibility to restore conformity. If they are unable to restore conformity then they have to rescind the contract as they are unable to fulfil its terms.
I don't see why a retailer shouldn't give a refund say if long term goods (ie high value) haven't lasted more than say 28 days.
It's a common misapprehension (and lawyers who post on CAG will concur) that during the first six months if goods are faulty you are entitled to a refund. Even with the 2k2 amendment, you are only not required to prove the fault was there when you bought the item (it's presumed to have been faulty unless the retailer can prove it did so conform), unlike the old situation (which used to apply from sale, and now applies six months from sale) where in the event of a fault it is down to the buyer to prove it was faulty at time of purchase.
In fairness I don't think SOGA gives enough protection, there are too many areas which are open to different interpretations.
As for the scots law, then I'd be interested to see where the quote says the Act I linked to only applies to Scotland and not the rest of the UK.
I don't see why a retailer shouldn't give a refund say if long term goods (ie high value) haven't lasted more than say 28 days.
The 'grey area' is based on case history and this goes back to a case about a new car when the judge deemed in that case 'acceptance' had taken place after a short time.
The 'grey area' is based on case history and this goes back to a case about a new car when the judge deemed in that case 'acceptance' had taken place after a short time.
Yes, case history seems to show it's judged on individual merits, or on "typical" periods.
Tbh unless it's expensive I don't return things, I research before I buy if it's suitable and if its not it's my stupid fault.
Just a thought ...... I have known someone to discreetly unpick the stitching and then take the goods back and complain that they are damaged / not of merchantable quality etc etc. Works every time. Allegedly!
Just a thought ...... I have known someone to discreetly unpick the stitching and then take the goods back and complain that they are damaged / not of merchantable quality etc etc. Works every time. Allegedly!
unless it's expensive I don't return things, I research before I buy if it's suitable and if its not it's my stupid fault.
me too! People have no consideration for the shop (especially small shops) why should they refund something they worked hard to sell? A shop is a small business not a try before you buy facility for the public
I bought an item from the carphone warehouse online, the item itself was free but had to pay postage of £15, anyway i cancelled the order before anything was even dispatched. they charged me £15 for postage and would only refund me as a store credit at my local store
I bought an item from the carphone warehouse online, the item itself was free but had to pay postage of £15, anyway i cancelled the order before anything was even dispatched. they charged me £15 for postage and would only refund me as a store credit at my local store
I'm sure that's illegal, but it might depend on what the item was and other circumstances. But you have paid for a service you've not received, though I suppose it's taken them time to process it and to some people time is money.
I suppose you did cancel and it wasn't their fault but I'm wondering the state with that and DSR
If you buy goods from a trader, The Sale of Goods Act says they must be:
* of satisfactory quality - which means the product you buy should be reasonably reliable.
* fit for purpose - which means it should perform the function you bought it to do.
* as described - means it should be exactly what the trader told you it was.
If something you buy doesn't meet these standards, and you return it to the trader quickly, you're entitled to a refund, replacement or repair.
The sale of goods act is crystal clear about entitlement to a refund and is not dependent upon repair/replacement being offered if reported quickly.
A few points:
- Both those links don't reproduce what the law actually says but recasts them into a more "plain English" format.
- SOGA 1979 has been superseded by the 2002 amendments, and parts of it are deprecated.
- The DTI are essentially correct but that is more a notion of the "accepted goods" timeframe I mentioned earlier - you are entitled to a refund provided you haven't been classed as having "accepted" the goods. Afterwards the s.48 situation applies.
Don't have time to sift through this but if you're citing SOGA 1979 you need to be citing the actual law because of what I mentioned above. http://www.johnantell.co.uk/SOGA1979.htm
If you can find where that page says that..
The BBC link doesn't really give any useful information.
- Both those links don't reproduce what the law actually says but recasts them into a more "plain English" format.
- SOGA 1979 has been superseded by the 2002 amendments, and parts of it are deprecated.
- The DTI are essentially correct but that is more a notion of the "accepted goods" timeframe I mentioned earlier - you are entitled to a refund provided you haven't been classed as having "accepted" the goods. Afterwards the s.48 situation applies.
Don't have time to sift through this but if you're citing SOGA 1979 you need to be citing the actual law because of what I mentioned above. http://www.johnantell.co.uk/SOGA1979.htm
If you can find where that page says that..
The BBC link doesn't really give any useful information.
So basically after reading those links you "are" entitled to a refund... as I stated, as long as its reported quickly... as I also stated, though they do confuse themselves abit with the "faulty at point of sale" part, and refunds, in one sentence they say that wear and tear can be taken into account for something 5 months old, but in another they have basically said that unless a retailer can prove they product was not inherantly faulty within the first 6 months you are entitled to a full refund
- Both those links don't reproduce what the law actually says but recasts them into a more "plain English" format.
- SOGA 1979 has been superseded by the 2002 amendments, and parts of it are deprecated.
- The DTI are essentially correct but that is more a notion of the "accepted goods" timeframe I mentioned earlier - you are entitled to a refund provided you haven't been classed as having "accepted" the goods. Afterwards the s.48 situation applies.
Don't have time to sift through this but if you're citing SOGA 1979 you need to be citing the actual law because of what I mentioned above. http://www.johnantell.co.uk/SOGA1979.htm
If you can find where that page says that..
The BBC link doesn't really give any useful information.
So basically after reading those links you "are" entitled to a refund... as I stated, as long as its reported quickly... as I also stated, though they do confuse themselves abit with the "faulty at point of sale" part, and refunds, in one sentence they say that wear and tear can be taken into account for something 5 months old, but in another they have basically said that unless a retailer can prove they product was not inherantly faulty within the first 6 months you are entitled to a full refund
Surely you've disproven your own point. If the retailer is proving it is wear and tear then they are satisfying the 6 month criteria.
The chimp often seems to like stating what he believes the law to be but is unable to ever actually cite the actual law.
Well quoting the DTI website is a pretty good place to start law wise on these matters (1-0 chimp)
Surely you've disproven your own point. If the retailer is proving it is wear and tear then they are satisfying the 6 month criteria.
No they havent proved its wear and tear, it states they are allowed to make an allowance for wear and tear in the refund as you have had use of it for 5 months (2-0 chimp)
Well quoting the DTI website is a pretty good place to start law wise on these matters (1-0 chimp)
Not necessarily. The dti is only giving advise based on its interpretation of the law. A good place to start would be to find the appropriate legislation or case.
No they havent proved its wear and tear, it states they are allowed to make an allowance for wear and tear in the refund as you have had use of it for 5 months (2-0 chimp)
Yes, they deduct an amount from the refund if the item has been worn for 5 months. This does nothing about the presumption that the item was faulty when sold if taken back within 6 months.
If the shop can prove that any damage is due to wear and tear and wasn't present when bought then they have satisfied the 6 month rule.
Not necessarily. The dti is only giving advise based on its interpretation of the law. A good place to start would be to find the appropriate legislation or case.
That is precisely what I did. And somehow people think that re-casting of an original document is a more reliable source to cite than the original document itself? Weird.
So basically after reading those links you "are" entitled to a refund... as I stated, as long as its reported quickly...
Well, to all intents and purposes that is what I originally said.
Once the "reasonable time" to accept the goods has elapsed, a time which is legally undefined, then you have the choice of a repair or replacement (depending on the goods it may be unreasonable to expect a choice on these remedies if it is disproportionate for the retailer) and if this is neither required nor has been appropriately carried out then you are entitled to rescind.
The main issue with that recast is that I have yet to locate the notion of "accepting goods" in the 2002 SOGA.
Comments
It's a grey area in law in that there's nothing in the sale of goods act to constitute a formal "cooling off period" by which you can be deemed to have "accepted" the goods, other than a "reasonable" time must not have passed.
SOGA implies that the goods have to conform to contract when purchased and that it is the retailer's responsibility to ensure they do, and if they don't it is their responsibility to restore conformity. If they are unable to restore conformity then they have to rescind the contract as they are unable to fulfil its terms.
I don't see why a retailer shouldn't give a refund say if long term goods (ie high value) haven't lasted more than say 28 days.
It's a common misapprehension (and lawyers who post on CAG will concur) that during the first six months if goods are faulty you are entitled to a refund. Even with the 2k2 amendment, you are only not required to prove the fault was there when you bought the item (it's presumed to have been faulty unless the retailer can prove it did so conform), unlike the old situation (which used to apply from sale, and now applies six months from sale) where in the event of a fault it is down to the buyer to prove it was faulty at time of purchase.
In fairness I don't think SOGA gives enough protection, there are too many areas which are open to different interpretations.
As for the scots law, then I'd be interested to see where the quote says the Act I linked to only applies to Scotland and not the rest of the UK.
The 'grey area' is based on case history and this goes back to a case about a new car when the judge deemed in that case 'acceptance' had taken place after a short time.
Yes, case history seems to show it's judged on individual merits, or on "typical" periods.
Tbh unless it's expensive I don't return things, I research before I buy if it's suitable and if its not it's my stupid fault.
I think the poster misread Section 48A
"48A Introductory
(1) This section applies if -
(a) the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, there is a consumer contract in which the buyer is a consumer,"
I get the feeling the poster read "the buyer deals as consumer in Scotland
I think so, too, but I was trying to set it up.
Yes, and it's also fraud, and fraud is illegal.
Awww.. I'm sorry!!!
If they gave back money you'd be likely to spend some of it somewhere else.
me too!
I'm sure that's illegal, but it might depend on what the item was and other circumstances. But you have paid for a service you've not received, though I suppose it's taken them time to process it and to some people time is money.
I suppose you did cancel and it wasn't their fault but I'm wondering the state with that and DSR
http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/buying-selling/sale-supply/sale-of-good-act/page8600.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/x-ray/x_guides/consumer_law/12-1.shtml
The sale of goods act is crystal clear about entitlement to a refund and is not dependent upon repair/replacement being offered if reported quickly.
A few points:
- Both those links don't reproduce what the law actually says but recasts them into a more "plain English" format.
- SOGA 1979 has been superseded by the 2002 amendments, and parts of it are deprecated.
- The DTI are essentially correct but that is more a notion of the "accepted goods" timeframe I mentioned earlier - you are entitled to a refund provided you haven't been classed as having "accepted" the goods. Afterwards the s.48 situation applies.
Don't have time to sift through this but if you're citing SOGA 1979 you need to be citing the actual law because of what I mentioned above.
http://www.johnantell.co.uk/SOGA1979.htm
If you can find where that page says that..
The BBC link doesn't really give any useful information.
Edit: but, for example, Watchdog basically are correct here http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/your_rights/goods.shtml
Edit2: And TS basically concur http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/calitem.cgi?file=ADV0043-1011.txt
So basically after reading those links you "are" entitled to a refund... as I stated, as long as its reported quickly... as I also stated, though they do confuse themselves abit with the "faulty at point of sale" part, and refunds, in one sentence they say that wear and tear can be taken into account for something 5 months old, but in another they have basically said that unless a retailer can prove they product was not inherantly faulty within the first 6 months you are entitled to a full refund
Ok my bad
The chimp often seems to like stating what he believes the law to be but is unable to ever actually cite the actual law.
Surely you've disproven your own point. If the retailer is proving it is wear and tear then they are satisfying the 6 month criteria.
No they havent proved its wear and tear, it states they are allowed to make an allowance for wear and tear in the refund as you have had use of it for 5 months (2-0 chimp)
Good day
Not necessarily. The dti is only giving advise based on its interpretation of the law. A good place to start would be to find the appropriate legislation or case.
Yes, they deduct an amount from the refund if the item has been worn for 5 months. This does nothing about the presumption that the item was faulty when sold if taken back within 6 months.
If the shop can prove that any damage is due to wear and tear and wasn't present when bought then they have satisfied the 6 month rule.
Well, to all intents and purposes that is what I originally said.
Once the "reasonable time" to accept the goods has elapsed, a time which is legally undefined, then you have the choice of a repair or replacement (depending on the goods it may be unreasonable to expect a choice on these remedies if it is disproportionate for the retailer) and if this is neither required nor has been appropriately carried out then you are entitled to rescind.
The main issue with that recast is that I have yet to locate the notion of "accepting goods" in the 2002 SOGA.
within 30 days you can ask for a refund after this they can replace /repair first.
Specifically the "30 days".