| General > General Technical Chat |
| Amazon box-shifting amateurs |
| << < (5/5) |
| PlainName:
--- Quote ---That is not their choice. --- End quote --- What makes it not their choice? |
| Monkeh:
--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on October 14, 2020, 06:42:09 pm --- --- Quote ---That is not their choice. --- End quote --- What makes it not their choice? --- End quote --- The right to require a replacement or repair, and the fact the law requires you to do this before you can require a refund or rejection? --- Quote ---(5)A consumer who has the right to a price reduction and the final right to reject may only exercise one (not both), and may only do so in one of these situations— (a)after one repair or one replacement, the goods do not conform to the contract; (b)because of section 23(3) the consumer can require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; or (c)the consumer has required the trader to repair or replace the goods, but the trader is in breach of the requirement of section 23(2)(a) to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer. --- End quote --- If Amazon still have the product stocked they have no argument under 23(3). They can, indeed, offer a refund, but the right to require a replacement (or repair) is with the consumer. They cannot make the choice for the consumer. Unless I've missed a clause allowing them to duck out of all obligations because they're inconvenient. |
| PlainName:
That section is defining what the consumer can and can't do, not what the supplier can (or can't). That part is also conditional: "A consumer who has the right to a price reduction and the final right to reject may...", so what about a consumer who doesn't have the right to a price reduction, and what has triggered this right to the price reduction? I think you are also assuming that the right to require replacement or repair is exclusionary. To take it to extremes for effect, if the supplier offered to give him £1m and 20 virgins instead of replacing or repairing the part-empty Biro, your take is that that's not on. Would a court tell the supplier not to fart around with all that money and just give him a new pen? And, BTW, pay the £40 fees on your way out too... Finally, at least briefly, "...and without significant inconvenience to the consumer." I would suggest that a refund is actually a better solution for the consumer since it means he can obtain the services of a different, hopefully better, supplier and/or product. Certainly, I don't see a full refund as significantly inconvenient (particularly compared to, say, a repair). |
| Monkeh:
--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on October 14, 2020, 07:51:53 pm ---That section is defining what the consumer can and can't do, not what the supplier can (or can't). That part is also conditional: "A consumer who has the right to a price reduction and the final right to reject may...", so what about a consumer who doesn't have the right to a price reduction, and what has triggered this right to the price reduction? --- End quote --- You could read the whole lot to answer that. --- Quote ---To take it to extremes for effect, if the supplier offered to give him £1m and 20 virgins instead of replacing or repairing the part-empty Biro, your take is that that's not on. --- End quote --- They can offer whatever they like. What they're obliged to do if the consumer wishes to utilize his rights is different. --- Quote ---Finally, at least briefly, "...and without significant inconvenience to the consumer." I would suggest that a refund is actually a better solution for the consumer since it means he can obtain the services of a different, hopefully better, supplier and/or product. Certainly, I don't see a full refund as significantly inconvenient (particularly compared to, say, a repair). --- End quote --- That is the option to use the right of refund if they have failed to first fulfill their obligation to replace or repair. |
| PlainName:
OK, well to take a different tack, let's assume that you have a faulty product and want a replacement. Won't settle for refund or repair. Ignoring that a replacement could be a refurb, you ask for such and are told that's not an option. Fine, you know your rights and aren't one of the more than 90% that won't actually follow through on a 'see you in court' bluff. You go through the motions and wind up a single form away from directing the full might of the law against them. All you have to do is state what your claim is and what will fix it. So, what will fix it? (Clue: this is a civil thing so 2 years in some penal colony isn't appropriate.) Clearly, a replacement would be good. How to force them to give you that? Well, other than an armed hold-up the accepted route would be to go out and buy one yourself, then claim the cost from them. But... you can't go and buy that Ebay 'not in stock so we'll price it at 1000x to put people off' special. You have to take reasonable care and if one is available at the same price (or less!) without undue hassle then that's what you have to get. Congratulations: you just got yourself a full refund. Except that instead of getting it upfront you've had to write letters, fill in forms, research consumer law and wait a few months to find out if you will succeed. And probably become persona non grata at your original supplier. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Previous page |