refunds law?

  nuke 13:56 20 Feb 2006

Just want to know if by law you are entitled to get your money back within 28 days if an item develops a fault rather than get credit vouchers or an exchange.

Thank you your help will be greatlty appreciated.

  HondaMan 14:13 20 Feb 2006

take a look at this, it tells you all you need to know,

click here

  nuke 14:24 20 Feb 2006

HondaMan Thank you for your reply.

I have already read this and a few other articles but couldn't find the exact answer I was looking for: Am a entitled to a full refund within 28 days by UK law rather than accept a repair, exchange or credit vouchers?

  namtas 14:37 20 Feb 2006

I think that if an article is judged "not fit for purpose that it was made for" then you can get your money back of course your idea of "being fit for" and the sellars may be different. For any other reason
it is at sellars discretion but usulally at worst you will get a voucher.

In fact this answers that.

click here

  spuds 15:09 20 Feb 2006

If you purchased goods from an internet, telephone or mail order source, then you have the rights to return the goods within seven days under the distance selling regulations for a refund, excluding postage costs.If you purchased direct from a store or shop,and the item was definitely faulty, the company cannot state or imply "no refunds given".They must offer a monetary refund,replacement or a repair (if you agree).It's for them, to prove the item was not faulty within the first six months from purchase.

If it looks like a tricky situation, then contact ConsumerDirect click here for further advice.

  Forum Editor 17:19 20 Feb 2006

unless you have no legal alternative.

By giving you a voucher the retailer ensures that you can't walk away with your money - it stays in the till, and the profit is assured.

  ade.h 17:35 20 Feb 2006

I'd to clarify one bit of wording; Namtas said "not fit for the purpose for which it was made". This should actually be "not fit for the purpose for which it was purchased" with the proviso that you must have informed the seller of your needs. I understand that case law precedents have backed this up. For example; you tell an assistant that you'd like a TV that will handle HD, and you get sold a standard TV; their mistake, so you have full comeback.

  Forum Editor 18:20 20 Feb 2006

for the purpose for which it was SOLD.

If I make a plain and simple refridgerator, and sell it to a retailer as a working refrigerator, I have fulfilled the contract - the fridge was fit for the purpose (of being a fridge).

If the retailer subsequently gets a customer who says "Can this fridge also freeze food?" and the retailer says "yes", and the customer buys it, then the fridge will subsequently prove not to be "Fit" (for the purpose for which it was sold), although it will still be perfectly fit for the purpose for which it was made.

The customer expressed a pre-condition to the contract (that the fridge could freeze food), and the retailer entered the contract with full knowledge of the precondition. The customer would be entitled to a full refund.

If the retailer had put a card on the fridge door saying "Fridge/freezer" then the goods would have been misrepresented, and any contract of sale would be void - again the customer would be entitled to a full refund.

  nuke 16:43 24 Feb 2006

Dear Forum editor and others I have been following the advice you guys have been giving which is great.

The problem I have is this:
My sister bought a psp from Game (less than 28 days) and whislt playing games the psp kept freezing.

Not realising the psp was faulty she exchanged (with reluctance from the manager who wouldn't even come out to spak to her butkept sending another employee) the game for the same games.

When she come back home the same thing happened again and the psp kept freezing.

Now she has gone back to Game to request a refund.
Game have responded they will not refund her (apparently their policy is not to to issue refunds) and they will exhange the PSP for her (she'll rather have the money back) and further if the new PSP they give her develops a fault she will have to deal with Sony and not with them (ie: Game) which is contrary to what the forum editor has said and cosumer law says: The contract is between the consumer and reatiler and not the consumer and manufacturer!

I thought by law you could request a full refund rather than have the alternatives ( item as stated above is less than 28 days)

Please would you give me further advice how to proceed.

Thank you

  nuke 16:50 24 Feb 2006

Forgot to add:
They tested the psp and it was still frezing whilst the custmer advisor was playing the psp.

  Forum Editor 17:17 24 Feb 2006

After 28 days you are not automatically entitled to a full refund.

If an item is faulty you may reject it as "not fit" and obtain a full refeund, but you must do this within a reasonable time. The law doesn't define what is reasonable in this context, and the period may be shorter or longer, depending on circumstances.

If a reasonable period has passed, and the item develops a fault you still have rights however. Consumer law says that if a fault develops within six months of the date of purchase it will be assumed that the fault was present on the day of purchase, and the onus is on the retailer to demonstrate otherwise. In practice it's usually very difficult, if not impossible for a retailer to prove an item was not faulty, and in law you are entitled to a replacement item, or a repair - although the retailer has the right to choose which. If the retailer chooses to repair the item it must be returned to you, fully functional, within a reasonable time - there's that word again.

No retailer may operate a policy of not issuing refunds - the law is quite clear on that. A refund MUST be given if the goods are rejected within a reasonable time. Neither may a retailer say that if a replacement item fails the customer must deal with the manufacturer.

If your sister accepts the replacement PSP (and I recommend that she does) the retailer will still be liable to her in law - under no circumstances does she have to deal with Sony direct. Please tell her to make it quite clear to the retailer that she understands her rights in law on this point - her contract is still with them.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

The Evil Within 2 review-in-progress

InVision Studio takes on Adobe XD and Sketch

iPhone X news: Release date, price, new features & specs

Comment transformer un iPhone en borne Wi-Fi ?