Goods Damaged in Delivery

DubiousDude

A quick question.
I bought a cooker from a main retailer 2 weeks ago. It was on a promoted price of 200 euro. The original price was around 700, but the store was selling a whole lot of (brand new/unused) clearance items.
I paid in full and paid for delivery. One week later when they were delivering the cooker it fell off the truck and broke.
The store wants to give me a a refund of 200 euro. I however am refusing a refund and am insisting on a like for like replacement cooker.

They say it was the last one and will only give me a refund for what I paid.

I say I am the legal owner of a cooker with these specific specs which they broke, and I expect a replacement cooker of similar specs. (which means its going to be in the region of 700 euro, since that is the range my original cooker is in)

Anyone know what my consumer rights are on this?

snappieT

While I understand where you're coming from, you paid them to supply a cooker, which they have failed to do, rendering the contract void and requiring them to pay back your half of the contract.

You can argue that you owned the item once you paid, but i doubt you would get anywhere with this. What would happen if, for example, you bought a €100 PS3 in Argos that got broken on the way out? You'd get your €100 back and that would be it.

P. Breathnach

I don't quite agree with snappie T's analysis, but I arrive at the same conclusion from a different angle.

The contract is not voided, but the cooker that was being delivered to you was, by the time it arrived, not fit for purpose. The vendor has an obligation to remedy the situation, but has, within reason, a choice of three ways to do so: replacement, repair, or refund. It is for the vendor to decide which of the three paths to follow.

dudara

The vendor can offer you a replacement, repair or refund. Both the customer and the vendor have to reach a mutual decision. If you feel that the vendor is not making a fair or reasonable offer, then you can of course persue the case in the Small Claims Court. But you will need to demonstrate how the vendor was not reasonable in order to have a chance of winning the claim.

Morlar

Sounds like a genuine good faith mistake on their part. I don't think they are liable to return to you anymore than you paid for it, along perhaps with some store vouchers to cover your time and inconvenience. Possibly that would be an alternative both parties could accept.

DubiousDude

The thing is I am not asking for "more" than what I already owned. I'm not asking for €700. All I want is for my original cooker which I owned to be replaced by a similar product. Surely I am not being unreasonable?
Was I not the legal owner of this cooker, which this store was just storing for me until delivery? It's not my fault they dropped the cooker in my driveway.

I am really going to stick to my guns here, but I would like to know where I stand legally. So that I know I am not waisting my time here. Obviously the store is going to want to give me €200 back because this is their cheapest option.
Just from the way they are treating me and giving me the run a round (rude on the phone and not taking my calls) I am going to dig my heels in here.
This is also a MAJOR retailer here.

I really think that what I paid for the cooker be it 200 or 700 is not the point. The point is I owned this said cooker and they broke it and so I want a replacement with similar.

knighted_1

if you maintain that you own the cooker than the shop can tell you to buggar off - none of the major electrical retailers here own thier own delivery service (fact) so the sttore didnt damage it he delivery guys did -

so if you own it they damaged your cooker on your premises and you want the store to swap it for a 700 quid one ? you will lose

accept that you dont own the title to the goods until you sign for the delivery ,either way you will just get back what you paid ,and as another poster stated maybe a good will voucher

DubiousDude

The delivery service is contracted to the retailer - they must have an arrangement in place for goods damaged in transit. When the delivery guy tried to off-load the cooker the lip of the platform wasn't totally flush with the road so there was a 5-10cm gap and when the cooker was rolled off the glass shattered.
However its not my concern who pays for the replacement cooker, the retailer or the delivery company. I will only deal with the retailer and they can sort it out themselves.

I liken it to this example. What if you take a 4 year old 50" flat panel TV to a firm for repair. They fix the TV and while returning it to you the delivery guy drops it. Surely they will need to replace the TV with a current 50" regardless of the current value of the 4 year old TV. They are 100% responsible for your goods while in transit and before you accept the delivery, is that not so?

Wow what a protracted experience and all I wanted was a cooker!! They not even returning my calls, thats service for you. Am waiting since last Wed for them to get back to me. I also had disconnected my old cooker had it in the back garden for them to collect and now had to bring it back in and rewire it up.

Welease

As has been stated a couple of times, legally the three options are replacement, refund or repair. The vendor has offered one, if you disagree you can seek a judgement in the small claims court. However, in general if the vendor has offered a solution (which they have), the judge may be inclinded to side with the vendor..

Personally I think the judge would likely side with the vendor.. It was a clearance sale, you know and acknowledge that. It was a vastly reduced clearance price, and the vendor has offered to ensure you got your money back.. The cooker you wanted and paid for no longer exists. It's unfortunate, but the vendor has looked to remedy the situation.. They are already out of pocket due to the mistake, I dont see the judge forcing further losses on them when they have been very reasonable.

As for your example above.. is it a real example if you don't know the answer? My guess is no.. they don't owe you a new TV, they owe you the value of a 4 year old TV.. When some numbnut crashed into my 3 year old truck, I didn't get the value of a new one

Like it or not, those are your consumer rights. If you don't agree pay your 15 Euro and see what the judge says

whippet

To be honest you would be wasting your time taking this to the small claims court.

The retailer has offered a full unconditional refund, you have refused this. Any judge in this country would consider this fair and reasonable by the retailer and would not force the retailer to supply you with a 700 quid cooker for 200 notes.

It my be a pain in the ass that you thought you were getting a top of the range cooker for a entry level price, but as you knew when you entered in to the contract that this was a limited offer with limited stock. Therefore you were agreeing to buy one of a limited number of units. Since these units are no longer available the contract cannot be fulfilled and therefore a refund is the only option.

Chalk it down to experience and keep on the look out for another bargain.

JimsAlterEgo

bottom line you are no worse off before you bought the cooker, no judge is going to side with you

dudara

I think a lot of this might depend on when the transfer of ownership took place.

DubiousDude

dudara, that is EXACTLY my point. The moment I paid in full for the product, I believe it rightfully becomes my property. They then damaged my property and I want a replacement.
They have plenty cookers available with the similar spec as the one I purchased and I believe they should just replace it with a similar cooker. Im not looking to benefit or to gain more out of this - I just expect to recieve what I had originally purchased in good faith.
Im not looking for damages for being put out.

If I was to pay the purchase price on delivery of the unit I totally would agree I have no leg to stand on because it never became my ownership. They were however delivering an item which already belonged to me.

Nody

Sorry but I can not see you winning this claim in the SCC; they offer a full refund which you refused. I'd expect a judge to throw your claim out after that since you did not take the goods with you.

Yes, you paid 200 EUR but you did not take posession of the goods and since the contract can no longer be delivered the situation is reverted back to the previous state with 200 EUR back to you.

whippet

DubiousDude wrote: »

If I was to pay the purchase price on delivery of the unit I totally would agree I have no leg to stand on because it never became my ownership. They were however delivering an item which already belonged to me.

Acutally I would have a different read on this. IF it is a case whereby you had legal title to the goods when they were damaged then it is a whole different ball game.

In this case you would have to figure out who is liable, the delivery company or the retailler.

If you had title to the goods when they were in transport the retailler has no further obligation to you and in theory could say they don't have to refund you a penny, telling you to deal with the transport company who would more than likely have in their Terms and Conditions that their liability for any loss or damage is limited to €127 or thereabouts (I know this as it has happened to me)

If you can prove ownership before the goods were put on the truck they would have become your responsibility and the onus would have been on you to ensure that you were happy with the terms and conditions of the nominated transport company.

I would still stand over my contention that unfortunatly you don't really have much recource from a legal point of view apart from accept the €200 back from the seller and hope for a gesture of good will.

The item that you actually agreed to buy no longer exists, therefore the contract of sale becomes null and void as the seller cannot perform his end of the contract, meaning that a refund is the only option available.

DubiousDude

Whippet I hear what you saying. However I paid the delivery charge to the retailer not the delivery company, so my contract is with the retailer and they can deal with their contracted delivery company. All money exchanged was with the retailer only, they are the responsible party from where I stand.

It seems from what most people are saying here that I don't have a chance on this. Maybe I don't.

The matter which is most annoying however is that they are rude, don't call me when they say they would -I was promised a call last week Wed and I am still waiting, they dont answer their phone. I have been calling a different branch and asking them to get the other branch to call me back and yesterday they clearly said to me in no uncertain terms not to call them again because they have nothing to do with this issue, and they don't have time to chase the other branch to contact me. I told them they do have something to do with this because they are the same company.

Anyhow, lets see what happens...

DubiousDude

These large retail companies have a certain arrogance which leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

whippet

DubiousDude wrote: »

Whippet I hear what you saying. However I paid the delivery charge to the retailer not the delivery company, so my contract is with the retailer and they can deal with their contracted delivery company. All money exchanged was with the retailer only, they are the responsible party from where I stand.

It seems from what most people are saying here that I don't have a chance on this. Maybe I don't..

If you paid the retailler for delivery then their side of the contract can't be fulfilled until the unit is delivered and in acceptable condition (validated by your signature on the delivery docket).

Again I think this boils down to the fact that the 'actual' unit you agreed to buy at the knock down price got damaged 'before' the seller could perform his end of the contact in full. Therefore the contract is void and you are only entitled to your money back.

At this stage I would forget about calling the company on the phone and send a registered letter to their head office detailing what has happened. I doubt they will offer what you are looking for but maybe a token of goodwill on top of your refund.

After that I still don't see any legal recource that you may have.

knighted_1

DubiousDude wrote: »

These large retail companies have a certain arrogance which leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

unfortunatly ,it is you who is coming across arrogant in this thread .

everything they have told you is correct -you just want to push the issue and demand getting 700 euro for 200 euro -not going to happen

as for ringing another branch ,you are just annoying other members of the company-

if you try to claim off the delivery guys you will still only get 200 euro off thier insurance company

consumer law is in place to protect the customer but equally and fairly it also protects the rights of the retailer

whippet

DubiousDude wrote: »

These large retail companies have a certain arrogance which leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

actually I wouldn't describe it as arrogance, it is more to do with a hierarchy of command internally which usually results in things out of the ordinary taking an age to resolve.

If something happens that isn't in the standard operating procedure nobody can isolate an individual to take charge of the matter. By the time someone does take control the customer has generally been left waiting for far too long and is angry and frustrated which results in a bad taste regardless of the outcome.

There is a lot to be said for dealing with the small fella up the road. Think about it, if you had done this deal with Joe Soap's Electrical on High Street, you could have walked back in and actually had a chat with Mr. Soap over the counter and have the issue concluded there and then by the actually owner who can do what ever he likes with his own business.

Grindylow

You paid €200 for a cooker on clearance, therefore the value of the cooker was €200, not €700 or whatever the previous price was.
The cooker was damaged, hence they can offer you a refund, replacement on repair. You're seeking a replacement, so no they don't have to supply a cooker of similar spec's, they have to supply a cooker of similar value, hence €200.

mackmuffin

"The moment I paid in full for the product, I believe it rightfully becomes my property. They then damaged my property and I want a replacement."



Thing is, if you were to approach a court case from this angle, there is a pretty simple answer. "We broke something you own, our insurance will give you back the price you paid on the receipt." In cases like this, that's generally how something like that works. So whichever angle you approach it from, you're not going to get more than 200 back anyway.

Phoenix3

DubiousDude wrote: »

These large retail companies have a certain arrogance which leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I think your username says everything

3DataModem

You had a contract for the delivery of a cooker, they fail to honour it, they refund your money.

Your contention that the cooker is "yours" probably makes no difference; the value of the item has been set at €200 by you and the retailer, and by offering you full redress they are fulfilling their duty to you as a consumer. If you say that "your" cooker was worth more than what you paid for it, then you should have ensured it was adequately insured or that your "storage and delivery" contract with the retailer reflected this inflated value.

The example of the telly is interesting - however a retailer could offer a second hand telly of similar age / value / specs. When you send an item in for repair you can bet your ass the docket has terms and conditions or even a stated value of goods to cover exactly this situation.

In my opinion you come across a little self-righteous in your posts - I can appreciate your disappointment but to answer your original question; no - legally your position is pretty unsound. A judge would give you €200.

yoshytoshy

I thought i mistakenly clicked on the humour forum ,but nope ,I didn't.

This isn't funny.