Refund up until when for faulty goods?

summereire

Hi, how long do you have to get a refund for a faulty item?

If it is faulty on day one I know you can get one, 1 year in if it has a 12 month warranty I know they're not obliged to give you one, where is the line in the middle where a refund entitlement becomes repair etc?

Thanks

Nody

There is no line; contact the store and see what they say.

summereire

Consumer law seems to require that a refund, rather than just a repair, has to be offered at least up until some point- is this just down to the retailer and the courts if there is disagreement then?

JigglyMcJabs

summereire wrote: »

Consumer law seems to require that a refund, rather than just a repair, has to be offered at least up until some point- is this just down to the retailer and the courts if there is disagreement then?

No it doesn't. You're entitled to refund, replacement or repair, the choice of option is up to the retailer. You only have this right for faulty goods. 12 months is a typical warranty period offered by a manufacturer but this is not law, if something should realistically last for longer than that and it breaks after 12 months, you could still be entitled to one of the 3 r's

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

summereire wrote: »

Consumer law seems to require that a refund, rather than just a repair, has to be offered at least up until some point- is this just down to the retailer and the courts if there is disagreement then?

New one on me. Have you a specific article of law in mind there?

summereire

It's unreasonable to buy a brand new product, to discover its faulty in the first few weeks, and then they send it off to repair which may take weeks. My understanding was that there was consumer law to prevent against this- the website below seems to suggest something like this though the language is vague regarding timeframes.

Reject item - Full refund

If you agreed to buy something and it simply does not work from the outset, then you are entitled to reject the goods and get a refund from the seller. Examples include a new washing machine which fills with water but does not spin or drain, or a new TV set which the audio doesn’t work on. In both of these examples, the consumer has discovered a major problem/fault with the item as soon as they go to use it for the first time. In the shop they agreed to buy it, but clearly there is something wrong with the one they were given. The consumer has not “accepted” the item – they brought the item home but it does not do what it said it would and the consumer had the right to reject it. They can return it to the shop and demand a full refund. This will terminate the contract they had for the item with the seller.

- See more at: http://www.consumerhelp.ie/faulty-goods#sthash.XBzU8Fcz.dpuf

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

That's immediate. First use. No more and no longer.

summereire

The issue seems to be legislatively about having "accepted" the item and unless anyone has any sources this seems vague. What if you buy the item, but only use it a few days, or weeks later for the first time?

If you start using the item for some time then it is deemed that you have accepted the item. - See more at: http://www.consumerhelp.ie/faulty-goods#sthash.XBzU8Fcz.dpuf

JigglyMcJabs

summereire wrote: »

The issue seems to be legislatively about having "accepted" the item and unless anyone has any sources this seems vague. What if you buy the item, but only use it a few days, or weeks later for the first time?

If you're not happy with how the retailer interprets the guidance, You go to small claims court and make your case.

Nody

summereire wrote: »

It's unreasonable to buy a brand new product, to discover its faulty in the first few weeks, and then they send it off to repair which may take weeks. My understanding was that there was consumer law to prevent against this- the website below seems to suggest something like this though the language is vague regarding timeframes.



- See more at: http://www.consumerhelp.ie/faulty-goods#sthash.XBzU8Fcz.dpuf

The law don't state that however; this is a quango making **** up. The law states the redresses as already listed and there's no time limit for when a specific one is to be used.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

You seem to be clutching at straws. Have you something specific in mind? If it does display a fault immediately you have accepted the item by using it.

This really could go on forever without a concrete example.

summereire

That's why I was wondering if there was specific legislation- this is something that comes up all the time when you buy a product. I'd imagine you wouldn't be too happy if you bought say a new electrical item, brought it back, and they said they'd send it away for repair and you'll get it in a few weeks. Are you saying that that is entirely acceptable within the current legislation? The question of acceptance seems unclear- does that mean walking out of the shop with it, the first time you use it (which could be weeks later), a set period of time after- etc etc.

Tefral

OP you have as long as the item is reasonably expected to last and this supersedes any warranty.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

cronin_j wrote: »

OP you have as long as the item is reasonably expected to last and this supersedes any warranty.

Not for a straight refund. The question was regarding a refund rather than repair or replace.

JigglyMcJabs

summereire wrote: »

That's why I was wondering if there was specific legislation- this is something that comes up all the time when you buy a product. I'd imagine you wouldn't be too happy if you bought say a new electrical item, brought it back, and they said they'd send it away for repair and you'll get it in a few weeks. Are you saying that that is entirely acceptable within the current legislation? The question of acceptance seems unclear- does that mean walking out of the shop with it, the first time you use it (which could be weeks later), a set period of time after- etc etc.

Acceptance seems quite clear to me, as said earlier, if you disagree with the interpretation, you can take a case to small claims court. I'm not saying that a repair is acceptable, the law is, quite clearly. In practice however, a replacement is usually forthcoming for the likes of electrical appliances.

JigglyMcJabs

Jonas Rough Robot wrote: »

Not for a straight refund. The question was regarding a refund rather than repair or replace.

Jaysus, we're going in circles here!

summereire

JigglyMcJabs wrote: »

Acceptance seems quite clear to me, as said earlier, if you disagree with the interpretation, you can take a case to small claims court. I'm not saying that a repair is acceptable, the law is, quite clearly. In practice however, a replacement is usually forthcoming for the likes of electrical appliances.

How are you defining acceptance? Leaving the store with it, the first use of it, the first extensive testing of all key features, or a particular period of time?

JigglyMcJabs

summereire wrote: »

How are you defining acceptance? Leaving the store with it, the first use of it, the first extensive testing of all key features, or a particular period of time?

I'm not defining anything.

summereire

You said "Acceptance seems quite clear to me". It doesn't seem clear to me.

JigglyMcJabs

summereire wrote: »

You said "Acceptance seems quite clear to me". It doesn't seem clear to me.

But it's not really up to you, is it?

summereire

I'm not following you now- I'm trying to clarify the legislation as it appears clear that at some point it is compulsory to offer a refund, but no on seems clear as to when that is, or to have a clear definition of acceptance.

JigglyMcJabs

summereire wrote: »

I'm not following you now- I'm trying to clarify the legislation as it appears clear that at some point it is compulsory to offer a refund, but no on seems clear as to when that is, or to have a clear definition of acceptance.

Is this a wind up?

slimjimmc

There is a vague definition of acceptance but (as already stated) consumer law does not specify any time, period or duration for acceptance or for the offering of refunds.
Many factors affect it such as what was agreed in the contract and what's considered reasonable in the given circumstances.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1980/act/16/enacted/en/print.html

Acceptance.

35.—The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or, subject to section 34 of this Act, when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller or when, without good and sufficient reason, he retains the goods without intimitating to the seller that he has rejected them.

Mod mode, if you have a specific consumer issue you would like us to help you with then now is the time to outline it. Otherwise if you just want to discuss the intricacies of legal concepts then the thread may be better suited to Legal Discussion.

P. Breathnach

summereire wrote: »

I'm not following you now- I'm trying to clarify the legislation as it appears clear that at some point it is compulsory to offer a refund, but no on seems clear as to when that is, or to have a clear definition of acceptance.

I see a problem in what you say. You are "trying to clarify the legislation", yet you haven't cited any legislation to be clarified.

summereire

Thanks for the above- by clarify the legislation I mean to ascertain what legislation pertains as well as its interpretation. I don't mean this in an abstract legal sense, I've simply had a number of faulty items recently and am curious as to when a refund is required and when it is optional.

Nody

summereire wrote: »

Thanks for the above- by clarify the legislation I mean to ascertain what legislation pertains as well as its interpretation. I don't mean this in an abstract legal sense, I've simply had a number of faulty items recently and am curious as to when a refund is required and when it is optional.

Then lets make it clear; Refunds are never required and always optional. Clear enough?

Now the above comes with a few caveats such as if repairs are not permanent etc. but from a legal stand point all three options are equal; there is never a case for one having to be used over the other two except when the contract is being made null & void (i.e. if they can't deliver you item A that you ordered they have to refund you the money rather then offer you a repair if you're not willing to accept an alternative). However if you are not happy with what the store offers (let's say repair on a brand new item you've had for a week) you can take it to SCC to dispute the resolution the store offered.

summereire

Thanks. By sounds of things the SCC could do little if all 3 remedies are equal in legislation and one was offered.

Nody

summereire wrote: »

Thanks. By sounds of things the SCC could do little if all 3 remedies are equal in legislation and one was offered.

The judge will make a ruling of what they deem suitable of the three; for example you bring a case for your mobile phone which is a year old, has been sent for repair twice and still not fixed the problem (failure of repairs are to be permanent). Standard mobile store policy is three repairs before replacement and you can dispute that and the SCC may rule you should get a new one anyway. Or the shop wants to repair your month old laptop; you want a new one and they may rule in your favor on it as well; it all comes down to what the judge deems reasonable solution basically. The major problem with SCC is the time it takes to get a judgement done (i.e. you may wait a few months) which is not always makes it suitable.

P. Breathnach

summereire wrote: »

Thanks. By sounds of things the SCC could do little if all 3 remedies are equal in legislation and one was offered.

That's about right for the first instance of a problem.

If you purchase something that turns out to be faulty, a court is unlikely to support you if you refuse one remedy because you would prefer a different one.

If, however, the first remedy fails, the court is much more likely to support you if you refuse the same type of remedy a second time. As a rough guide, you can say that a seller is allowed one shot at repair, one shot at replacement, and if things are still not right, you can demand a refund.

Common sense and reasonableness come into it. It's manifestly unreasonable to "repair" a broken or cracked piece of glassware. It's also unreasonable to expect a dealer to replace a car because a courtesy light does not work, and the first attempt at repair isn't right.