DVD was scratched

evil-monkey

I rented a DVD the other day in XtraVision and it didn't work. The disc was scratched to bits.

When I went back to the store they said I couldn't have a refund, that I had to take either credit or another DVD (a different one at that, they didn't have another copy of that film).

Is this legal?? Do they not have to give me a refund because they failed to provide the service that I paid for??

Biggins

The law states repair, replace (with same) or refund in that order. They can't argue with that.

iTom

Yes the should have given you a re fund if the could not give a replacement DVD to watch. As this happened to me a while ago and the gave me my money back,now it was no the same store as your's.

evil-monkey

Biggins wrote: »

The law states repair, replace (with same) or refund in that order. They can't argue with that.

ya this is what i thought alright. when i said to her that the law states this, she replied "not the law in xtra vision"

Nody

Biggins wrote: »

The law states repair, replace (with same) or refund in that order. They can't argue with that.

It states equalent product, that is not the same thing.

Biggins

evil-monkey wrote: »

ya this is what i thought alright. when i said to her that the law states this, she replied "not the law in xtra vision"

She can state that but in a court, which would take precedent!
One is a "company rule".
The other is a "state law"
- No contest!

Tell her to stop bullcrapping you. Go get a small claims form, show it to her all filled in at the counter and tell her she can explain her "rules" to the judge! Tell here "See you in court - enjoy the publicity" - and wish her "a nice day". Then leave!

Here is the form:
Click here Doc format.
Click here PDF Format.

Small claims Website: Click here

Gillo

Biggins wrote: »

The law states repair, replace (with same) or refund in that order. They can't argue with that.

At the discretion of the, so once she offered a replacement she was within her rights.

ball ox

Ah, this debate brings back bad memories alright. I don't know if it's still the same but the way it worked in xtravision when I was working there (3 years ago) is that
As someone above has mentioned, a replacement need not necessarily be the same DVD. Is this legal? No idea. Would you win in a small claims court? Yes...ish, because it wouldn't get that far. It would cost Xtravision too much to have the relevant people from head office go to court for a day every time there was a small claim (or so i was told). They will settle pretty quick when your solicitor does his thing.........
Oh yeah, presenting an in store employee with a small claims form in an attempt to scare them is pointless. They couldn't give a toss, it's not them your claiming against. They will smile and promptly point you in the direction of head office.
Anyway, my advice is that if this really gets to you just don't go there. Otherwise you will find yourself wasting lots of time for the price of a DVD....

Biggins

So yet again be treated like dirt, accept the twisted truths from the manager your saying?

Producing the forum, has two messages for the manager: its shows your not going to be lied to, made a fool of and legal rights walked upon and two, someone further up the chain WILL ask the appropriate questions as to what the hell the store manager was up to to refuse to follow the state legal rules of Repair, Replace and Refund.

We Irish will continue to be walked upon as long as others see they can try to take advantage of us and most times get away with it.
It might cost the purchaser 15 euro (which she also gets back when she wins her case) to send in a claim form but the next 1 or 2 or 50 that comes in after her with a similar situation, the manager will think twice thereafter before trying to pull a fast one.

I have personally paid that 15 euro to sent out that message myself and I have no regrets. (Many have subsequently thanked me by the way - the message was sent and lessons were learned)
We are too willing to accept any old crap from those trying to pull a fast one (in general). Well guess what - some of us refuse to take it any more!
Meanwhile others will just continue accept any old rubbish from the mouths of folk not willing to stick to the latter of the law!
Its no wonder some get walked upon! Nothing will change while some still behave like dumb sheep to be herded daily in circles, forever going around the same situation!

p.s. Dear Ball ox - You DON'T need a solicitor for a small claims court. Its expected that one will not be there.
All that is asked for is just the claimant and her reasons for not wishing to made a fool of, to be told to the court.

Get the forum fill it in, show it to the manager filled and if she still won't follow the law, post it.

consultech

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=57619835&posted=1#post57619835

Guy:Incognito

Without meaning to point fingers but are people going in with the right attitude when dealing with these things or storming in with a "world owes me something for wronging me" one?

I ask because I've never had an issue with dealing with any shop when I have a valid case and have been polite.

Biggins

I too mave been polite many, many times. It opens more doors and hearts than storming in, definitely.
Its only the 1 in the 100 that folk should be tougher about. The ones that too think "they have the right" and always are right in thinking they are allowed to rip the rest of us off.

Steve

This boils down to
1. Staff in the retail sector not knowing what the rules are (apart from being poorly paid and unmotivated to provide a decent service).
2. Management not giving a toss.
3. Consumers who are happy to put up with it.

It should be mandatory to have a basic understanding of the SOG act before being allowed to engage in transactions that are covered by it.
You can't get a basic labouring job on a building site without a 'safe pass' so why can't retail be the same?

Absolam

Hmmm.. since the transaction was a rental surely there is legislation other than the Sales Of Goods Act to consider? Since goods were not sold..

Guy:Incognito

SteveC wrote: »

It should be mandatory to have a basic understanding of the SOG act before being allowed to engage in transactions that are covered by it.

The same should be true for consumers so. They are as involved as the person in the shop.

ball ox

Biggins wrote: »

So yet again be treated like dirt, accept the twisted truths from the manager your saying?

Producing the forum, has two messages for the manager: its shows your not going to be lied to, made a fool of and legal rights walked upon and two, someone further up the chain WILL ask the appropriate questions as to what the hell the store manager was up to to refuse to follow the state legal rules of Repair, Replace and Refund.

But the fact is, the manager could not care less what documents you produce in store because anything like that is a head office issue. Head office deal with this stuff on a weekly basis and rarely investigate any of it, they just do whatever it takes to make the customer happy. For instance, when I was there they used to have hundreds of free rental vouchers in H/O which were specifically for giving to customers over complaint cases etc. They gave them out like lolly pops, all you had to do was write to them. No inquiries, no staff disciplining, no questions, just do what it takes to shut the customer up. It's just easier for them that way. You're not going to change how the company operates just because you, like hundreds before you, have put in a small claim......

Gillo

ball ox wrote: »

But the fact is, the manager could not care less what documents you produce in store because anything like that is a head office issue.

True, you might as well show the threaten the manager with calling Joe Duffy, the manager is doing his or her job, it's the head office that deal with the legal side.

Shelflife

whats wrong with a store credit? thats effectively a replacement isnt it?

and how does the manager know that you didnt damage it yourself or just say its damaged just to get a freebie?

its €6 ffs and youve been offered a replacement. that really should suffice.

Steve

Absolam wrote: »

Hmmm.. since the transaction was a rental surely there is legislation other than the Sales Of Goods Act to consider? Since goods were not sold..

S28 of the SALE OF GOODS AND SUPPLY OF SERVICES ACT, 1980 covers implied quality of goods for hire.
Bacically, it says any defects must be pointed out at the time of hire, otherwise the goods must be fit for purpose.

Stekelly wrote: »

The same should be true for consumers so. They are as involved as the person in the shop.

I agree. The retailer is seldom the aggrieved party in these situations though and they should know what they are obliged to do.

The consumer is dealing with a business, it does not matter which employee they deal with, their gripe is with the business. It's also not unreasonable for the employee to say that they have to wait for a manager to deal with it (e.g. in a video rental store where managers knock off at 5).
There is no legal obligation for them to deal with a complaint "there and then" - it must, however, be dealt with within a 'reasonable' time frame.

by8auj6csd3ioq

evil-monkey wrote: »

ya this is what i thought alright. when i said to her that the law states this, she replied "not the law in xtra vision"

I hope you complained to the consumer people, they may be able to explain to her is is the law everywhere