TV from the CO OP

[gyzmo]

Err - they sold it so it has EVERYTHING to do them them. Your contract is with the co-op and no-one else, and it is for them to sort it out. the warranty is neither here nor there - you have statutory rights which override any warranties.

 

You need to quote s. 14 of Sale of Goods Act which is about implied terms as to quality, durability etc. As it is more than 6 months, it is for you to prove that the goods are faulty, and not for the store. In such a case, it is sufficient to argue that the goods should not do this after a short period of time, you could not have done anything to cause it, therefore there is a breach.

 

 

As for the remedy, it will be either a repair, replacement or refund in that order - it will depend on which is most proportionate and least convenient (but it is the sellers choice).

 

Stand your ground and be firm but polite with them. Your conduct should say that you will not be bullied.

 

Good luck

[gyzmo]

The only refund will be partial if at all. It is for the store to sort this out - not anyone else. And phoning the number is not required - it is a fob off.

[gyzmo]

Common sense went out the window when the Government gave up a very good opportunity to stop stores fobboing customers of with this kind of behaviour. This debate has raged on previously with a certain other person - there is also a sticky on the matter about why you should use statutory rights.

 

The issue is that the problem is a breach of statute which Co-op is trying to wash their hands of by using the "warranty" method. It is not acceptable. The contract is with Co-op. They sold the item, they are responsible for it being compliant with the contract. Put it this way:

 

If I owed you £1000 and you asked for it back, would you be happy if I told you to phone someone who owes me the same amount of money and get it from them? I should hope not, but that is exacty what is being advocated here.

 

Another reason is that the wrranty may not cover what is given by statute, and using the warranty will be restricting possible remedies that would otherwise be available.

[gyzmo]

I think the point has been made numerous times and I am not going to repeat them.

[gyzmo]

That's what i'm wondering. I have given the answer several times. The fact that you don't like it does not make it wrong.

[gyzmo]

firstly, can we do without the personal insults? Secondly, if you care to read my posts on this thread, you will find that I have already supplied the answer. But just in case...

 

The contract is between teh OP and the store. Legislation and basic contract law states that it is the seller who is responsible for providing a remedy - and that means actually doing something instead of passing it on to the customer. The manufacturer is not the seller - there is no contract with them.

[gyzmo]

No - the store should have dealt with it there and then. I am making the presumption taht it is the manufacturer. The assistant said its nothing to do with them (it is) - so who is this number for exactly if it is not the co-op itself?

[gyzmo]

exactly. That is the nature of the legislation.

[gyzmo]

Common sense went out the window when the Government gave up a very good opportunity to stop stores fobboing customers of with this kind of behaviour. This debate has raged on previously with a certain other person - there is also a sticky on the matter about why you should use statutory rights.

 

The issue is that the problem is a breach of statute which Co-op is trying to wash their hands of by using the "warranty" method. It is not acceptable. The contract is with Co-op. They sold the item, they are responsible for it being compliant with the contract. Put it this way:

 

If I owed you £1000 and you asked for it back, would you be happy if I told you to phone someone who owes me the same amount of money and get it from them? I should hope not, but that is exacty what is being advocated here.

 

Another reason is that the wrranty may not cover what is given by statute, and using the warranty will be restricting possible remedies that would otherwise be available.

 

That is the problem, especially the last point.

[gyzmo]

The whole point is that the seller should be doing what they have asked the customer to do. That is what the legislation is there for. It gives rights that cannot be overridden whatsoever, yet companies try to wash their hands of their obligations. As long as this continues, consumers will be herded into the most inconveniten route for the seller, and will have to fight to get their basic rights.

 

So yes, the shop should have arranged for the repair if they accept that it is non-conforming.

[gyzmo]

Oh FFS. The cery fact that they said "nothing to do with us" is proof positive that they are trying to screw the consumer. Tell you what, Please lend me a few thousand quid, and when you ask for it back, I'll just use use your arguments. Then you will know about being screwed.

 

In fact, I'm beginning to think you are a guise for a certain someone else....

[gyzmo]

They are saying that is what they prefer. What one wants and what one can get are two different things. The remedy is either damages for breach of warranty, or using the additional consumer rights of repair / replacement / (partial) refund which is down to the SELLER dependant upon minimal convenience to the consumer and it being proportional to the other options. The point is that it is for the SELLER to do this and not fob them off.

 

Why is this so bloody difficult to understand?

[gyzmo]

The consumer can do that if they so wish. They could also throw the TV in the canal if they so wished, or accept that it is nothing to do with the store - it does not make it right.

 

And what's this about phoning up someone, seeing what they say and then seeing what the store has to say?

 

Why not just get the store to say it will be corrected under their STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS. The store has already said it had nothing to do with them (which of course is possibly untrue but then I am not going round calling everyone a liar - (and before you start I'm not saying you are either) - is it just here that you are sitting on the fence or is it with everyone?).

 

The information I have provided in this thread is factually correct. I know that because I am doing a degree in this area (and doing very well in it thank you very much). I know what I am talking about. Others seem not to, which is the purpose of these forums - to help those that do not know better.

 

Unfortunately, this seems to be totally wasted on some, hence the comparison to Fred / RPOV who consistenly falls into the same boat.

[gyzmo]

I think I have read quite well what you said and answered appropriately. As for the degree, how on earth do you think Traing Standards get their job? Or solicitors? They don't do it by reading a few Which? guides or advice notes fom the CAB. The point was to demonstrate that I know what I am talking about and not making thing up, inapproprately quoting legislation and generally making a thread to be 10 times longer than is necessary by continually posting incorrect information and arguing points without the ability to back it up.

 

As for the common sense bit, can you please advise why every single bit of advice (as well as the legislation) states that it is not acceptable for sellers to refer those with problems to the manufacturer or claim that it is not their responsibility?

 

I'm getting fed up of posting on here just to correct factual inaccuracies so I will stop (continue if you wish). I will leave it for people to make their own minds up. If they do not want to use the rights granted to them by Parliament, designed to protect them, then that is their choice. Some people simply will not listen no matter what. That seems to be the case here.

[gyzmo]

I have given up long ago on this one. Like I said - some simply do not want to listen.

[gyzmo]

This is the problem that wehave had with acertain someone else who continued to argue points invalidly. Threads went on for ages and usually ended up completey off topic. I have no problem with people who disagree or who get things wrong. I do have a problem with those who either do not back up what they say or refuse to learn. There are many a times where I have been corrected or did not know anything, and someone has come along and put me right - that's how we learn. Just repeating a point despite information to the contrary is of no use to anyone. I would hope that people, when we do come across something we do not understand or disagree with, have a reasoned debate about it.

[gyzmo]

Thank you storm, I wholly understand the principles concerned, however gyzmo couldn't actually say what you said and instead he waffled on about soga without saying why.

 

Could it be, perhaps, because that is the legislation which covers these situations? That's a bit like defending someone in a theft case and asking why the solicitor is waffling on about the Theft Act.

 

As for you gyzmo please read what people are actually saying instead of reading what you want to believe they are saying. And when asked a question please answer it instead of going round the houses and evading them. You have a lot to learn yet, a degree is only the start of things. When you have put it into practice in the real world then we shall see how clever you really are.

 

I do put this into practice in the real world (I wont go into detail due to conflict of interest) , and I have read all the comments and answered them without evading. You havent, hence this thread now being stretched onto three pages. And if you had read my last post, you would also have read that I am willing to learn because no-one can know everything.