Harvey Norman Headphone return

murphl89

Hi, I bought a €300 pair of headphones from HMV on wednesday, the worked fine but are now for some reason not working
Theres no physical damage or evidence as to why theyre not working and I was wondering if I'll be entitled to a refund or replacement?
As far as they know they were faulty coming out of the box but also headphones that expensive shouldnt break after 3 days considering I bought them for their durability, they were only used at a desk
Any feedback/Advice would be appreciated

Snake

you're entitled to a refund if it's a manufacturer fault just tell them they weren't working out of the box and you had no way in and if you bought them in HMV why are you returning them to Harvey Norman

murphl89

Typo, returning them to HMV
I'm sure I couldn't have broken them if I'm being honest so it must have been a manufacturing fault,
thanks!
L

slimjimmc

Depending on the nature of the item and the defect, any fault arising within the first 6 months is presumed to be there from day #1 unless proven otherwise. 'Tis the law.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/si/0011.html Sect 8.

So, unless the seller can prove otherwise, it's very likely you got a faulty set of headphones.

TimeToShine

What brand are they? There should be a warranty.

dudara

TimeToShine wrote: »

What brand are they? There should be a warranty.

Your consumer rights are stronger than a warranty, and they should be the firt thing you exercise.

Warranties are just additional niceness

Slippin Jimmy

GrayFox208 wrote: »

you're entitled to a refund if it's a manufacturer fault just tell them they weren't working out of the box and you had no way in and if you bought them in HMV why are you returning them to Harvey Norman

Grayfox, is it not up to the retailer to decide on refund, replacement, or repair or does this only apply after a certain amount of time?

dudara

Duffff-Man wrote: »

Grayfox, is it not up to the retailer to decide on refund, replacement, or repair or does this only apply after a certain amount of time?

You are entitled to one of the 3 Rs: repair, replacement or refund. It is up to the retailer which one to offer, but it should be acceptable to both parties.

murphl89

Got it sorted,
thanks
full refund because they didn't have it in stock

Snake

dudara wrote: »

You are entitled to one of the 3 Rs: repair, replacement or refund. It is up to the retailer which one to offer, but it should be acceptable to both parties.

Not true. It's up to the retailer. You're not entitled to an automatic refund for example

whiterebel

GrayFox208 wrote: »

Not true. It's up to the retailer. You're not entitled to an automatic refund for example

The retailer can offer, but you don't have to accept.

Snake

whiterebel wrote: »

The retailer can offer, but you don't have to accept.

Then it's your loss, you don't get the refund because that's what YOU want. If you refuse his offer of repair or replacement and they won't offer refund that's your loss

Bepolite

whiterebel wrote: »

The retailer can offer, but you don't have to accept.

GrayFox208 wrote: »

Then it's your loss, you don't get the refund because that's what YOU want. If you refuse his offer of repair or replacement and they won't offer refund that's your loss

Where the remedy of repair or replacement is provided the repair or replacement shall be completed within a reasonable time and without any significant inconvenience to the consumer, taking account of the nature of the goods and the purpose for which the consumer required them.

While Grayfox is correct (at least in the first instance) the above must always be taken into consideration.

Snake

Bepolite wrote: »

Where the remedy of repair or replacement is provided the repair or replacement shall be completed within a reasonable time and without any significant inconvenience to the consumer, taking account of the nature of the goods and the purpose for which the consumer required them.

While Grayfox is correct (at least in the first instance) the above must always be taken into consideration.

Of course if they're unfixable and a replacement can't be offered a refund is to be given. But people just assume they're entitled to one, which is not the case.

murphl89

they had none in stock which is why I got the refund

dudara

GrayFox208 wrote: »

Not true. It's up to the retailer. You're not entitled to an automatic refund for example

I agree, you're not entitled to an automatic refund. You are entitled to be offered one of the three options, at the retailer's discretion. The offer should be acceptable to both parties. If it was a reasonable offer and you reject, then you are mitigating any future chance you have at resolving the issue.

whiterebel

GrayFox208 wrote: »

Then it's your loss, you don't get the refund because that's what YOU want. If you refuse his offer of repair or replacement and they won't offer refund that's your loss

It is not your loss, if their offer is unreasonable. You can then let a judge decide.

Bepolite

The legislation lays down that a repair/replacement is the first course of action. There is no right to repudiate the contract in the first instance.

Thankfully time limits have now been introduced (reasonable time and without inconvenience to the consumer) but there is still no right to a refund unless a repair or replacement has failed to resolve the issue.

whiterebel

Bepolite wrote: »

The legislation lays down that a repair/replacement is the first course of action. There is no right to repudiate the contract in the first instance.

Thankfully time limits have now been introduced (reasonable time and without inconvenience to the consumer) but there is still no right to a refund unless a repair or replacement has failed to resolve the issue.

I never said you're entitled to a refund straight off. What I said was you don't have to accept the offer the retailer makes you, and that is still correct. And yes that might tell against you IF a judge reckons you have been unreasonable.
And doesn't the law allow for the 3 r's? Repair, replacement or refund?

Bepolite

whiterebel wrote: »

I never said you're entitled to a refund straight off. What I said was you don't have to accept the offer the retailer makes you, and that is still correct. And yes that might tell against you IF a judge reckons you have been unreasonable.
And doesn't the law allow for the 3 r's? Repair, replacement or refund?

It's all all below, it's not the easiest of reads but parsing it a couple of times will answer your questions. Don't get too bogged down in warranty and conditions, just read them as 'faulty'.

21.—For section 53 of the Act of 1893 there shall be substituted the section set out in the following Table:

TABLE

Remedy for breach of warranty.

53.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), where there is a breach of warranty by the seller, or where the buyer elects, or is compelled, to treat any breach of a condition on the part of the seller as a breach of warranty, the buyer is not by reason only of such breach of warranty entitled to reject the goods, but he may—

(a) set up against the seller the breach of warranty in diminution or extinction of the price, or

(b) maintain an action against the seller for damages for the breach of warranty.

(2) Where—

(a) the buyer deals as consumer and there is a breach of a condition by the seller which, but for this subsection, the buyer would be compelled to treat as a breach of warranty, and

(b) the buyer, promptly upon discovering the breach, makes a request to the seller that he either remedy the breach or replace any goods which are not in conformity with the condition,

then, if the seller refuses to comply with the request or fails to do so within a reasonable time, the buyer is entitled:

(i) to reject the goods and repudiate the contract, or

(ii) to have the defect constituting the breach remedied elsewhere and to maintain an action against the seller for the cost thereby incurred by him.

(3) The onus of proving that the buyer acted with promptness under subsection (2) shall lie on him.

(4) The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting, in the ordinary course of events, from the breach of warranty.

(5) In the case of breach of warranty of quality such loss is prima facie the difference between the value of the goods at the time of delivery to the buyer and the value they would have had if they had answered to the warranty.

(6) The fact that the buyer has set up the breach of warranty in diminution or extinction of the price or that the seller has replaced goods or remedied a breach does not of itself prevent the buyer from maintaining an action for the same breach of warranty if he has suffered further damage.