Incomplete order - Right to a replacement?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by xanhugh, Sep 18, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kelvin1950

    kelvin1950 UKBF Ace Free Member

    1,226 398
    It seems pretty clear that the OP has a chip on his shoulder re. Tesco.

    Accept the refund, don't shop there again, buy a telly elsewhere, move on with your life.

    Conversely, you could carry on with this. In which case I recommend your next purchase is one of these: http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/9279409.htm

    :p
     
    Posted: Sep 19, 2013 By: kelvin1950 Member since: Jul 19, 2011
    #21
  2. Root 66 Woodshop

    Root 66 Woodshop UKBF Big Shot Free Member

    4,898 1,317
    Just a quickie... what level of legal training do you have?

    Kulture's pretty adverse in crap that other's can't be bothered with... :D - he said, she said blah blah blah...

    Perhaps instead of posting on a business forum you should be speaking to Tesco's who as you already know have covered their own backside by offering to take your unwanted second hand TV away in good faith and give you the money back without question, when in reality you could have sold the 3D glasses to a neighbour and used the cables for another TV.

    The CAB is about as useless as it's acronym.
     
    Posted: Sep 20, 2013 By: Root 66 Woodshop Member since: Nov 22, 2011
    #22
  3. Steve_g

    Steve_g UKBF Regular Free Member

    194 25
    Can't believe this person, what an absolute backside!

    I think you should do the business community a favour and remove yourself from eBay, this forum and the general outside world.

    Steve
     
    Posted: Sep 21, 2013 By: Steve_g Member since: Jun 19, 2012
    #23
  4. kulture

    kulture UKBF Legend Staff Member

    7,935 2,163
    Whilst I appreciate the support can we please keep the topic to the legalities of the Sales of Goods Act and the rights of a customer vs the remedies offered by the retailers rather than the personalities involved.

    It is useful to see how some customers can be very forceful in defending their rights, whether or not they are correct, but as business people it is better to keep it professional.
     
    Posted: Sep 21, 2013 By: kulture Member since: Aug 11, 2007
    #24
  5. arcon5

    arcon5 UKBF Ace Free Member

    2,559 496
    SOGA is changing the point relating to 'acceptance' of goods this year so state goods not confirming to contract can be rejected within 28 days as apposed to the current working giving 'reasonable time' to check conformity which is very ambiguous.

    To argue Soga doesn't apply until acceptance takes places is barmy, otherwise your saying it won't apply for a month after receiving goods. Soga in fact covers your differing rights before and after acceptance takes place so most certainly does cover consumer contracts as soon as its formed.

    If they are unable to fulfil then of course you could pursue them under the concept of 'loss of bargain'. Which seems to be quite an unproven and not very well documented concept
     
    Posted: Sep 21, 2013 By: arcon5 Member since: Sep 6, 2006
    #25
  6. kulture

    kulture UKBF Legend Staff Member

    7,935 2,163
    The 28 days bit is news to me, what is your source. Whilst I agree it will be good to have a fixed acceptance period as it removes ambiguity, it seems a long time. It will give more scope to scammers to buy something, use it for a month, and then not accept it.

    The DSRs have just 7 working days from delivery, so why the difference?

    The loss of bargain approach is interesting and I can see how it applies. The trouble is the OP has gone and we do not know the value of the missing items, nor the discount achieved by buying a reconditioned TV, so it is difficult to judge the merits.
     
    Posted: Sep 21, 2013 By: kulture Member since: Aug 11, 2007
    #26
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.