[Closed] Faulty item, sale of goods act etc....

Replacement or money back, innit?

Or send your very own Customer Service Liaison Officer down there....

Repair / replace / refund - your choice. Dainese is a quality product and yo have paid a quality price. No ifs buts or ands - you want a replacement you get it.

As an aside tho I always had my gloves over my jacket

PP, forget that rubbish they said, within 6 months the regs say you can demand a replacement. The 28 days is just their own internal b*****s.

TJ, I was hoping you would reply! 🙂

Thanks for the advice, sounds about right to me
(This is a textile jacket. Gloves ALWAYS should go inside or the water runs down the arms and into your gloves. The cuffs are very wide and designed to be worn this way. For leather, yes, I agree)

SUGDENR
Cheers again for the advice. Is there a link to something I can print out and take in with me by any chance?

Or send your very own Customer Service Liaison Officer down there....

Are you volunteering? 🙂

I wouldn't go in there armed with pages from the SOGA, just go in knowing your are right and try to be diplomatic as they are less likely to take a defensive attitude.

just politely remind them of their duty should you deem the item to be faulty. now they can't say the item isn't faulty and that is that. but if, like you say it is un-stitching through general use and this is a protective peice of clothing, then I highly doubt they will try to argue otherwise given that it is obviously not 'fit for purpose'

consumer direct website or google for sale of goods act

Just re-read my OP. I wasn't clear, sorry.
They will REPAIR it no problem, but as I'm out of the 28 days they don't automatically REPLACE. I'd rather have a replacement.

I've just done some reading and the only references I can find to the 6 month thing say "repair or replace"

BIS.GOV.UK "http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf"

I have always found this to be quite a powerful one to produce.

it doesn't matter if it's outside THEIR 28 days. SOGA superceeds this 'benefit'.

it is faulty, they should replace it or give you your money back.

thatz da law innit

Disnae copy and paste well but its clearly laid out in that link

I should add that they can ask to send the item off for testing etc in order to confirm that it is faulty.

an item should be fit for purpose and last a reasonable amount of time. it would appear to me that the item doesn't satisfy either of these statemnts and I would be surprised if they find it not to be.

Relevant bits are;

If a product that was faulty at the time of
sale is returned to the retailer, the buyer
is legally entitled to:
P a full refund, if this is within a reasonable
time of the sale ("reasonable time" is not
defined in law but is often quite short); or
P a reasonable amount of compensation
(or "damages") for up to six years from
the date of sale (five years after discovery
of the problem in Scotland).

There is one exception. This is when the
buyer is a consumer and returns the goods
in the first six months from the date of the
sale, and requests a repair or replacement
or, thereafter, a partial or full refund. In that
case, the consumer does not have to prove
the goods were faulty at the time of the
sale. It is assumed that they were. If the
retailer does not agree, it is for him to prove
that the goods were satisfactory at the time
of sale.

First 6 months assumed faulty at start and you can demand a full refund - hence accept a relacement instead.

it is faulty, they should replace it or give you your money back.

thatz da law innit

I'm no so sure as it is, to be honest. It keeps saying REPAIR OR REPLACE.

Hey-ho. At least if they repair it should be stronger than a new one!

I think you need to allow them the opportunity to fix it to good as new, if not then you can ask for/demand a replacement, and then a refund if the problem persists.

Repair / replace / refund - your choice. Dainese is a quality product and yo have paid a quality price. No ifs buts or ands - you want a replacement you get it.

As an aside tho I always had my gloves over my jacket

It's not your choice. If the shop offers to repair it in a reasonable time then you have to let them do that.
If they can't repair it then its replace or refund.

PP agreed that is confusing, but you are assuming that it is the retailer who gets to choose whether it is repair or replace, there is nothing there that gives the retailer the decision. The accepted rule is that within 6m it is assumed that the goods were duff at the start and so you may demand what you bought - a new undamanged item, after pereriod a repair can be acceptable if the goods can be sucessfully repaired so as to be as good as new.

It keeps saying REPAIR OR REPLACE.

by 'it' you mean them [dianese]. it doesn't matter what they say, just what your rights are and your rights, assuming the item is genuinely faulty, are such that you can demand a replacement or refund.

It's not your choice.

Wrong, this is a common misunderstanding and this is what was changed principally by the 'sale of goods regulations', there is nothing that give the seller that power of decision and in fact in the first 6m it is upto the consumer.

weirdnumber

Nope its the consumers choice you do not have to accept a repair - read the link above

Remedies
If a product that was faulty at the time of
sale is returned to the retailer, the buyer
is legally entitled to: a full refund,

its very clear - no ifs buts an ands

Are you volunteering?

Well, I am available for a small fee*.

*It's beer. I won't lie. I am easily bought. 😳

once again TJ completely ignores the 'reasonable timescale' part of the sale of goods actthis provides the retailer with wriggle room as it has [b][u]NEVER[/u][/b] been tested in law, whilst i agree at this time scale you should get a refund/replacement, who's idea of 'reasonable timescale' is open to interpretation by both you and the retailer and may differ
.

TBH its a crappily written law that provides unscrupulous retailers with wriggle room

Hope you get the right resolution PP, sorry to have to write the above but you need to know what COULD happen

weirdnumber

Nope its the consumers choice you do not have to accept a repair - read the link above

Remedies
If a product that was faulty at the time of
sale is returned to the retailer, the buyer
is legally entitled to: a full refund,

its very clear - no ifs buts an ands

The right to reject goods and get a refund if usually only a few weeks after which the buyer is assumed to have accepted the goods, and not that 6 months outlined where you are then entitled to a repair or a replacement.
The seller can offer a repair first and you have to allow them the opportunity to repair the product.

Weirdnumber - where do you get that from? A fault is assumed to be a manufacturing fault if it appears in the first 6 months and a manufacturing fault means repair / replace / refund the buyers choice - the law is very clear on this - read the link above

Are you a retailer?

TJ could you define the reasonable time scale for me in which you can demand a refund as I cant see it in the SOGA you must know it as you always bang on about it........

if it is faulty, you can demand a repair or replacement or a refund. there is not expiry time on this other than the one regarding the lifetime of the product which is very subjective. given that this item is designed to protect a rider from the tarmac, I would expect it to last a good number of years and if it was falling apart after a few months I would be asking for a new one

Teh hustler - it depends on the circumstances and the expoected lifetime of the item. a £250 portective jacket shuld last more than 28 days.

Q2. Do I only have rights for 30 (or some other figure) days after purchase?

No. Depending on circumstances, you might be too late to have all your money back after this time, but the trader will still be liable for any breaches of contract, such as the goods being faulty. In fact, the trader could be liable to compensate you for up to six years.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets

Q4. I know I can demand my money back within a "reasonable time" but how long is that?

The law does not specify a precise time as it will vary for most sales contracts as all the factors need to be taken into account to be fair to all sides. The pair of everyday shoes may only have a few days before the period expires but a pair of skis, purchased in a Summer Sale, may be allowed a longer period by a court.
Q5. After the "reasonable time" has passed, what can I do?

You may seek damages, which would be the amount of money necessary to have the goods repaired or replaced. Frequently retailers will themselves offer repair or replacement. But, if you are a consumer (not making the purchase in the course of a business) you have the statutory right to seek a repair or replacement as an alternative to seeking damages.

TJ, Yes I work in retail. It's not my own company though.

Two seconds worth of googling for consumer information...

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/consumer_advice/consumer_law_sale_of_goods_emp.shtml ]Watchdog[/url]
[url= http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/making-a-complaint/dealing-with-faulty-goods/your-rights---repair-refund-or-replace/ ]Which[/url]

Also TJ the reasonable time a product should last and therefore be replaced or repaired differs from the time in which you have to [i]reject[/i] a sale and get a refund.

I thought you would work in retail as you are doing the usual attempts to weasel out by a retailer.

Please not I have quoted from the government guidence on the law

From your links

If you buy something which doesn't meet these conditions, you have the potential right to return it, get a full refund, and if it will cost you more to buy similar goods elsewhere, compensation (to cover the extra cost) too.

Note, however, that the right to reject goods and get a full refund only lasts for a relatively short time after which a buyer is deemed to have 'accepted' goods. This doesn't mean that the buyer has no legal redress against the seller, just that he/she isn't entitled to a full refund.

Instead a buyer is first and foremost entitled to have the goods repaired [b]or replaced.[/b] If these remedies are inappropriate, then you're entitled to a suitable price reduction, or to return the goods and get a refund (reduced to take account of any wear and tear).

hows that tar brush there TJ?

No he's right though; too many retailers try to bullshit their customers, and often even act unlawfully.

Some retailers are good and do meet their legal requirements and more TBC 🙂

So they bloody should, It's us customers what keep them in business!

Also TJ the reasonable time a product should last and therefore be replaced or repaired differs from the time in which you have to reject a sale and get a refund.

Exactly so whats the argument about? the fact remains the item is believed to be faulty and therefore should be offered either a repair, refund or replacement regardless of whether he's accepted the sale.

the two facts are separate. you dont relinquish your rights by accepting the sale.

the above comments assume that TJ or the OP are the ones that can define the reasonable timescale, unfortunately this isn't the case it is open to interpretation by both the purchaser and the retailer and therefore negates the automatic right to a refund until such time as someone tests it in law, thew reasonable time scale differs by product, but show me where it says 1 day, 1 week 1 month or 1 year in law, it doesn't......as I said B4 its a crappily written law that gives unscrupulous retailers wriggle room as their interpretation of reasonable will often be alot different to that of the consumer this is the reality and is pretty crappy

Oh dear, yes weasel out of it that is what I am doing.
I am trying to offer accurate advice on the sales of goods act to the best of my ability. I work in retail but I also buy things, the difference is I know my rights and don't make them up then get angry when my made up rights aren't met.

Yes repaired [b]or[/b] replace. A retailer doesn't have to replace if they can repair in a reasonable time. The law doesn't specify which they have to offer over the other.

I didn't write the law and I am not claiming that it is especially pro-consumer but neither am I going to give inaccurate information on it.

Final link then, from the [url= http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/treating-customers-fairly/sogahome/sogaexplained/ ]Office of fair trading[/url] website. It actually makes it really clear and is useful to read.

Under Section 5 your customers rights.

[i]Acceptance

Customers are entitled to reject goods if they are faulty (do not match the description, are not of satisfactory quality, or are not fit for purpose) and receive a full refund if they have not yet accepted the goods.

Before a customer is believed to have accepted the goods they have purchased, the law allows customers a reasonable opportunity to inspect or examine the goods and this should take place within a [b]reasonable time.[/b]

The law does [b]not[/b] give a time limit for acceptance. When trying to decide if a customer has had a reasonable opportunity to inspect their goods, consider what an impartial person in a court would think reasonable for that product in the circumstances.

Faulty goods that have been accepted

If the item does not conform to contract (is faulty) for any of the reasons outlined and the customer has accepted the goods, the law says the customer is entitled to claim a repair or replacement of the goods in the first instance.[/i]

Now the 6 months part that you keep going on about.

[i]Requesting a repair or replacement

If a customer has accepted the goods and is requesting a repair or replacement because the goods are faulty, the onus on who is required to prove the problem depends on how long ago they purchased the item.

[b]Under six months[/b] - the customer does not have to prove the item was faulty when they bought it from you. If you disagree it is up to you, the retailer, to prove the item did conform to contract (or that the fault did not exist) at the time of sale.

[b]Over six months[/b] - you are entitled to ask the customer to prove the item was faulty when they bought it from you. If they are able to do this they are entitled to a repair or replacement.[/i]

Also TJ the reasonable time a product should last and therefore be replaced or repaired differs from the time in which you have to reject a sale and get a refund.

Exactly so whats the argument about? the fact remains the item is believed to be faulty and therefore should be offered either a repair, refund or replacement regardless of whether he's accepted the sale.

the two facts are separate. you dont relinquish your rights by accepting the sale.

Your rights change after you have accepted the sale.
Once the item has been deemed to be accepted then you are not entitled to a refund. As per your rights you are entitled to repair or replacement.

The hustler - if the fault is an [b]inherent fault[/b] you have an absolute right to reject it and the remedy is replace / repair / refund your choice. this is very clear in the law as quoted above

Where you are getting confused is if the fault is one that develops subsequently - then things alter.

However its assumed to be an inherent fault for the first six months

so for the retailer to not have to replace the item they would have to show that the buyer had accepted it as satisfactory and that the fault was not an inherent one. difficult to do so.

yet again you miss ouyt those two words reasonable timescale from your interpretation which yet again you are unable to define

TJ the law is [b]NOT[/b] clear. You can reject the item in a reasonable time so that you are able to inspect the goods. As mentioned several times this is not outlined. A retailer could easily argue that after 28 days he has had enough time to inspect the goods and as such has accepted them.

The six months is a time period in which a burdon of proof is put on the retailer. It is not defacto accepted that it is inherently faulty.
The retailer just has to proove that the goods were of satisfactory condition when they were purchased.
After six months it's up to you to provide proof that they were faulty when purchased.

I bought a jacket last Winter time, about January. Recently some stitching's coming away at the cuff. No big deal, I'll just sew it up bosh bosh job done.

Now, had it started unravelling just a few weeks after I'd bought it, ittuduv gone back asap. And I'duv got a full refund. But seeing as how it's bin a while, and I coon't prove it were owt more than 'wear and tear', then I'd probbly not stand much chance of getting a refund, as ittud be very difficult to prove manufacturing defect.

Poddy's jacket is expensive and you'd expect it to last a good while, speshly considering it's a 'safety' garment of sorts. You don't want such a thing falling apart on you at high speed, do you?

I'duv just walked in and said 'replace pliz thx bai'. And tha wooduv bin it. No arguments, no mucking about. Give to me new one or money back now.

And if they'd even [i]dared[/i] wibbling about it, I'duv had a poo on their counter. 😐

From your link

Faulty goods that have been accepted

If the item does not conform to contract (is faulty) for any of the reasons outlined and the customer has accepted the goods, the law says the customer is entitled to claim a repair [b]or replacement[/b] of the goods in the first instance.

It really is clear - its just some retailers try to weasel out of it.

Faulty goods - refund / replacement / repair the buyers choice so long as the timescale is reasonable which is not defined.

weirdnumber - you are making some valid points, but it all depends on the context. The only area I firmly disagree is (a) the idea that the retailer has the choice, in fact the legislation states that consumers can require....repair or replacement. That puts the onus on the consumer to choose, and (b)the concept that once you have accepted the goods you cannot reject them, that is a misconception. How long until you can reject them is dependent on time and goods in consideration.

Oh bugger. 2 pages now!

I'm trying to sell bikes for profit on ebay here!

I'll read it all later but

by 'it' you mean them [dianese].

No, by 'it' I mean the laws, not the shop.

No...

Faulty goods - Refund [b]prior[/b] to goods being accepted. Repair [b]or[/b] replacement [b]after[/b] the goods have been accepted.

The law says that the buyer cannot require the seller to do one over the other if the cost is disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies. For example you can't demand they replace a £1000 tv if they are offering to repair it because the cost of replacing it is disproportianately more expensive than repairing it.

If repairing it cannot be carried out without significant inconvenience to the buyer then the same applies. The seller can't demand a repair over a replacement.

PeterPoddy - Member

£250 Dianese jacket

I expect it to hold together when I'm sliding down the road

Wrong brand unfortunately. Cheapest Dainese are pretty tough, but the more expensive they are the worse protection they offer, generally- they turn all their attention to looks, comfort and feel but that lovely supple leather tears more easily, so seams are more likely to burst. (some of their jackets have loads of exposed stitching too which makes things even worse)

Lovely kit but substandard in a crash, generally.

@sugdenr see my post above regarding which has to be offered.

weirdnumber - I think the point you are trying to make by acceptance is the point at which reasonable attempt at repair without undue inconvenience comes before replacement can be demanded.

This may be true as a general rule, however the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations amended the position such that, absent contary factors or demonstration othewise, the presumption in the first 6m is that the goods were faulty 'at time of sale' - thus the buyer can reject because he/she is in essence rejecting at the time of sale. And since you would not buy a faulty item (without price reduction), you may demand a refund. At your choice you may instead take a discount (compensation) or a new replacement.

I know not of anything in any legislation that states that the seller may decide repair or replace, in fact it mostly states that (after 6m) the buyer can require the seller to repair or replace. What is reasonable at that time (for the buyer to demand) is as you correctly envisage and it is a true point that 9with consumer goods) you (generally) cant make someone repair if they decide to replace.

I would have to pull rank on you as regards understanding of the law i'm afraid. Suffice to say, PP as I am local and (unwittingly) sold you a dodgy scooter once and still feel I owe you, if you have any problems email me and I will make sure you get a nice new jacket. 😈

sugdenr - Ok clearly you do understand the law and I appreciate a rational discussion. The retailer has the opportunity to show that the goods conformed to contract at the point of sale.

If a tv functions without problems for 5 and a half months then the backlight stops working. The seller can show that the goods did conform at the date of purchase so the right of the buyer to reject is invalid.
Or is that assumption incorrect?

If it's incorrect then every retailer I have worked for, or purchased from has been in breach of the law.

weirdnumber - Member

No...

Faulty goods - Refund prior to goods being accepted. Repair or replacement after the goods have been accepted.

The law says that the buyer cannot require the seller to do one over the other if the cost is disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies. For example you can't demand they replace a £1000 tv if they are offering to repair it because the cost of replacing it is disproportianately more expensive than repairing it.

Wrong again - what the law says is the buyer cannot insist on a repair if the cost of repair is more than the good are worth.

Teh maximum liability of the retailer is the cost of the goods. So yes in that case the buyer is entitled to a new £1000 tv. what they cannot insist on is repair if the repair is more than the £1000

go and read the law

sugdenr - Just reread your post. As to the point about the buyer being able to request repair or replacement, the act explicitly states that the buyer cannot require one remedy over the other if that remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies. Then describes that one remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable.

That seems reasonably clear to me that as a seller I can deny replacement if the cost is greatly more than the repair that I am offering.

Again thoughts and your reason as to why you disagree if you do are appreciated, if my reasoning if wrong I would like to learn why.
Thanks 🙂

sugdenr - Just reread your post. As to the point about the buyer being able to request repair or replacement, the act explicitly states that the buyer cannot require one remedy over the other if that remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies.

it simply does not.

what it sates is the maximum liability is the cost purchase or rplacement thus the buyer cannot insist on repair if that is more than the cost of replacement

Find me the bit that claims what you say.

Q11. The retailer has said that a repair is "disproportionately costly" and insists I accept a replacement as an alternative. Must I accept this?

Yes, and vice versa if you request a replacement and this is "disproportionately costly". However, remember any remedy has to be carried out "without significant inconvenience" and within a "reasonable time" for the consumer. Remember that you could also seek damages instead.
Q12. Neither repair nor replacement of the goods are possible. What can I do?

You may either pursue the old route of damages or a partial or full refund. Probably either would give you exactly the same amount of money. You would seek a full refund in scenarios such as those where you had enjoyed absolutely no benefit from the goods. If you had benefited from them then you would seek a partial refund as a fair remedy. This is exactly the reasoning that would be employed if you sought damages.
Q13. What does the "reversed burden of proof" mean for the consumer?

It means that for the first six months the consumer need not produce any evidence that a product was inherently faulty at the time of sale. If a consumer is seeking any other remedy the burden of proof remains with him/her.

If a tv functions without problems for 5 and a half months then the backlight stops working. The seller can show that the goods did conform at the date of purchase so the right of the buyer to reject is invalid.
Or is that assumption incorrect?

That is definitely where it gets grey, but take your example and the buyer may be able to get a new telly, unjust as it might be, because he is in the 6m, even though 5.5m suggests that it was correct at sale and repair is justified in the circumstances.

Unfortunately there are 2 elements, your rights, and how effectively you can enforce those rights. Before the subjective kangaroo lottery that are the small claim courts, one judge may be draconian and one very reasonable. You pays your money and takes your chance!

However PP's jacket stitching is clearly designed to last years and has failed after a matter of weeks, so its a no brainer that it must be replaced.

Unfortunately a mail order motorbike business owner once told me that anyone who doesnt like what they just bought simply picks at some stitching and sends it back and there is little or nothing he can do to fight it!

TJ - The bit you just quoted from my post was taken directly from the sales of goods act.

(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller—

(a)to repair the goods, or

(b)to replace the goods.

(2)If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—

(a)repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;

(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

[b](3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—[/b]

(a)impossible, or

[b](b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or[/b]

(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.

[b](4)One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—[/b]

(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,

(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and

(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

(5)Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined by reference to—

(a)the nature of the goods, and

(b)the purpose for which the goods were acquired.

Then the bit that you posted;

Q11. The retailer has said that a repair is [b]"disproportionately costly"[/b] and insists I accept a replacement as an alternative. Must I accept this?

[b]Yes[/b], and [b]vice versa if you request a replacement and this is "disproportionately costly"[/b]. However, remember any remedy has to be carried out "without significant inconvenience" and within a "reasonable time" for the consumer. Remember that you could also seek damages instead.

Appears to agree with my point.

Ok thanks sugdenr, so essentially you are saying that either case in my example could be argued validly and the law is as grey as I assumed.

To clarify my points though, I was never referring specifically to the issue the OP had, just the law in general.

Yes read what you quote.

One remedy is to replace the goods -the buyer cannot insist on repair if it costs more than replacement.

If section 48A above applies, [b]the buyer[/b] may require the seller—

(a)to repair the goods, or

(b)[b]to replace the goods[/b].

disproportionate in comparison [b]to the other[/b] of those remedies

so under that subsection its teh buyers choice repair or replace so long as the cost of repair does not exceed the cost top replace replace

It says disproportianate to the cost of the other.
It does not simply say that it has to cost more.

)One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—

(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,

Ie if the cost of repair is more than the goods cost it is disproportionate.

It is not that you can repair if its cheaper than replace, its that you cannot be forced to repair if its more expensive than replacement.

So what about the OP's jacket?

@Cougar - sugdenr has offered to get him a new one 😈

@TJ The value the goods would have is taken into consideration. So repair would not have to be carried out if a replacement is cheaper or vice versa. That is valid but it does not exclude the consideration that the seller may also refuse one over the other if they are disproportianate in comparison to the other even if both cost less now than the value of the goods at the time of the contract.

I disagree with your assertion and interpretation that a replacement can [b]only[/b] be declined if it costs more than a replacement, and I have yet to come across any consumer advice, government or otherwise that explicitly states this.

And the act as I read it allows for a replacement or a repair to be declined with respect to the value of the goods or to be declined with the respect to the proportianate cost of the other.

Well its quite clearly stated in the regs and advice quoted as I have explained to you and quoted at length.

Have a read of this - it explains your obligations as a retailer. It cannot be any clearer.

BERR.GOV.UK "http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf"

Oage 7 has a flow cahrt that explains it well
Remedies
If a product that was faulty at the time of
sale is returned to the retailer, the buyer
[b]is legally entitled to:
P a full refund[/b], if this is within a reasonable
time of the sale ("reasonable time" is not
defined in law but is often quite short); or
P a [b]reasonable amount of compensation
(or "damages") for up to six years from
the date of sale [/b](five years after discovery
of the problem in Scotland).
This does not mean all goods have to last
six years! It is the limit for making a claim in
respect of a fault that was present at the
time of sale. It is not equivalent to a
guarantee.
Additional rights for consumers
Alternatively, [b]consumers[/b] (see definition in
the "Introduction")[b] can choose to request
instead:
P a repair or replacement.[/b]
The retailer can decline either of these if he
can show that they are disproportionately
costly in comparison with the alternative.
However, any remedy must also be
completed without significant
inconvenience to the consumer. [b]If neither
repair nor replacement is realistically
possible, consumers can request instead:
P a partial or full refund, [/b]depending on
what is reasonable in the circumstances.

infact here it is for you
[url= http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6036/6427665403_6476f1eb1d_o.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6036/6427665403_6476f1eb1d_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/25846484@N04/6427665403/ ]flow chart[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/25846484@N04/ ]TandemJeremy[/url], on Flickr

Don't listen to that lot up there ^^

Just go in with some Poddy delicious home-baking and they'll be eating out of your hand literally. 😀

Let me highlight the salient points that you are completely choosing to ignore.
You are right it cannot be any clearer.

Well its quite clearly stated in the regs and advice quoted as I have explained to you and quoted at length.

Have a read of this - it explains your obligations as a retailer. It cannot be any clearer.

BERR.GOV.UK "http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf"

Oage 7 has a flow cahrt that explains it well
Remedies
If a product that was faulty at the time of
sale is returned to the retailer, the buyer
is legally entitled to:
P [b]a full refund, if this is within a reasonable
time of the sale ("reasonable time" is not
defined in law but is often quite short);[/b]
or
P a reasonable amount of compensation
(or "damages") for up to six years from
the date of sale (five years after discovery
of the problem in Scotland).
This does not mean all goods have to last
six years! It is the limit for making a claim in
respect of a fault that was present at the
time of sale. It is not equivalent to a
guarantee.

[b]rejection of sale, covered this several times[/b]

Additional rights for consumers
Alternatively, consumers (see definition in
the "Introduction") can choose to request
instead:
P a repair or replacement.
[b]The retailer can decline either of these if he
can show that they are disproportionately
costly in comparison with the alternative.[/b]

[b]So the retailer can decline either if it is disproportionately costly in comparison with the alternative. Reads exactly like the point I was making a few posts up.[/b]

However, any remedy must also be
completed without significant
inconvenience to the consumer. If neither
repair nor replacement is [b]realistically[/b]
possible, consumers can request instead:
P a partial or full refund, depending on
what is reasonable in the circumstances.

[b]If the retailer can't repair or replace then they have to offer a partial or full refund, this has never been in dispute[/b]

And then the flow chart you post exactly demonstrate the points I was making.

Is there a fault?
YES>
Is it within a reasonable amount of time (usually a fairly short period)? [b]rejection of sale, again covered this[/b]
YES>
Refund is allowed as sale is rejected. [b]again covered this[/b]

Is there a fault?
YES>
Is it within a reasonable amount of time? [b]rejection of sale declined, again covered this[/b]
NO>
Is it within six years and a period in which the goods can reasonably last?
YES>
A repair or replacement should be offered or a refund if this [b]can't[/b] be offered. [b]covered this already[/b] Within the first six months the burdon of proof is on the retailer [b]again, covered this[/b]

So in summary;

Product faulty within a short period of time = refund due to rejection of sale - [b]Check[/b]
After that period and within six months the retailer has to demonstrate the goods conformed to contract at the time of sale - [b]Check[/b]
If they can then they offer a repair or replacement - [b]Check[/b]
They can decline either repair or replacement if they can show one is disproportiantly more expensive than the other. - [b]Check[/b]

So err, thanks for demonstrating my explanation the sales of goods act I guess. 😐

No - it shows you are wrong and have been all along. You claimed that the retailer had the choice - they do not. you claimed the retailer could repair if cheaper - they don't have that right.
[img] [/img]

To quote your own source of information TJ

Alternatively, consumers (see definition in
the "Introduction") can choose to request
instead:
- a repair or replacement.
The retailer [b]can decline either of these if he
can show that they are disproportionately
costly in comparison with the alternative.[/b]

That clearly says the retailer can declince replacing it if they can show that it is disproportianatly more expensive than repairing.

I'm done, this is pointless. Have the final say, I couldn't disagree with you more and every source you have quoted makes the same points I have made.
Others if they can be bothered can read the posts draw their own conclusions.

Yes and it defines that as if the cost of the replacement or repair is more then the value of the goods it is disproportionately costly

editted - pointless - indeed people can read the clear and simple advice to find the truth.

Repair and Replacement
Consumers (see definition above) can,
if purchases do not conform to contract
and they do not wish (or are not entitled)
to reject the goods or claim compensation,
specifically request a repair or a replacement.
example
Confronted with a five-year-old piano
with an inherent fault, the consumer
can request that it be repaired rather
than pursuing compensation to pay for
a repair that he then has to arrange
himself. Alternatively, he could request
a replacement five - year-old piano of
the same/similar specification,
assuming that finding one was
practicable (perhaps only so for a
dealer of both new and second-hand
products).
11

Its the buyers choice not the retailers.

25 Dainese textile jackets have been made during this double pager!

My vote:TJ wins the argument

Timshel 🙁

All sorted. Picked a new jacket up today, no quibbling at all.

I posted this just in case they argued (And I was bored) but they didn't and as such I'm 100% happy with the customer service.

For the record, the store in question is Infinity/The Motorbike Shop on Lynchford Road in Farnborough.

I've used them for years since they were Motorcycle City and had a rep like Evans do on STW, but, like Evans, I've always found them helpful, reasonably priced (Tyres especially) and willing to do a deal to get a sale. I got a free £70 Dianese back protector with this jacket and trousers, simply for asking, for instance. I've bought 2 bikes from them, at least 2 helmets, boots, gloves, 3-4 jackets and countless spares and tyres over the years and I'll keep going back
Me = Happy 🙂