Rhino blender; faulty after 18 months, very expensive blender

[d3v]

Hi all.

 

I purchased a £259 high powered blender from http://www.juiceproducer.com/rhinoblenderblack.php in 22/12/2008

 

The warranty is 3 years.

 

On 17/09/2010 the blender developed a fault. I was VERY angry becuase it had only recieved moderate use, about 1-2 times a week IF THAT!

 

I sent it off to xxxx at juiceproducer.com for repair and it ran great up until a couple weeks ago when the blades now don't spin at all, so this means I will have to spend another £15 to send this recorded delivery for repair.

 

No way am I going to send this off to repair every year when the reason I spent so much on a blender in the first place was to not have to buy another ever again.

 

Their webpage for the Rhino blender is misleading becuase it instills confidence in the customer that the unit is a solid durable and reliable piece of kit when actually it is a cheap rip off

 

 

I do NOT want a replacment unit but a refund instead. Please let me know if this can be achieved under the sales of goods act.

 

Thanks in advance,

Jim.

Edited August 16, 2011 by d3v

[rebel11]

Hi D3

 

Have a read of 10,12 and 13 in my signature.

[d3v]

Read the links, thanks for such a nice list of good information.

 

I guess I can get a partial refund under the SOGA "durability fit for purpose" clause.

Is this correct?

 

I'm about to send this LETTER via RECORDED delivery. Is it worded correctly?

 

Dear Mr. JOHN DOE

 

REF: Partial Refund of White Rhino Blender

 

Regarding the Rhino blender you sold to me on the 22/12/2008. After carefully reading the Sales of Goods Act (SOGA) of 1972 and 1980 and due to two mechanical faults manifesting on the dates 17/09/2010 and 10/08/2011; as well as your marketing webpage applauding the extraordinary solid quality and durable construction.

I feel I’ve been misled in to believing that I was buying a blender that would last a lifetime, or at the very least many decades to come. Furthermore after a few quick Google web search I realise that I’m far from alone in my negative experiences with the Rhino blender.

I am now aware that I'm entitled to a partial refund under the SOGA regulations which orders that a consumer product must be "durable and fit for purpose".

I am rightfully rejecting any further repair work OR outright replacement of a new Rhino unit and instead will only be willing to accept a monetary settlement of £155.40 (which equates to 60% of the £259) I paid you for the Rhino blender; which is a fair and balanced percentage considering I have had some use from the Rhino blender but that the two faults have both happened well-within the products 3-year warranty which is due to expire 22/12/2011.

As a consumer this is my statutory right under the SOGA of which you as a limited trading company are bound to adhere to under contract law.

I would ask for an additional £10 to spare me the cost of sending back this faulty unit to you for a second time. In total, then, I am asking you for £165.40 and in return I will send you the faulty Rhino blender.

I sincerely hope you will settle this matter here and now rather than have me take this any further.

 

Thank you and I await your timely response within the next 7 working days of receiving this letter.

Sincerely,

 

MY NAME HERE.

Edited August 16, 2011 by d3v

[perplexity]

You might get away with that but it is not really a sound claim.

 

"durable"is a term that does not so much as appear in any part of the Sale of Goods Act.

 

You may complain that the seller's repair work or replacement takes too long or is inconvenient but the seller is entitled to his own opinion of that.

 

I never rely on advice, from the OFT or anywhere else, without a reference to the actual terms of the legislation, for fear of this sort of confusion.