What does this mean in plain english?

mel.b

Can someone please explain the bold bit to me in plain english?

In addition, the Court found that HP represented to retailers that it was not liable to indemnify the retailer if the retailer failed to obtain authorisation from HP before giving a consumer a refund or replacement.

Thanks

athlone573

mel.b wrote: »

Can someone please explain the bold bit to me in plain english?

In addition, the Court found that HP represented to retailers that it was not liable to indemnify the retailer if the retailer failed to obtain authorisation from HP before giving a consumer a refund or replacement.

Thanks

If the retailer gave a refund before checking with HP, the retailer might not get the money back from HP

mel.b

Thanks so much. So essentially, the court have said HP (or the retailer), isn’t allowed to do this? See link below for full context. As i’m dealing with a shop at the moment about a refund for a faulty laptop (already repaired once under warranty, now same fault 3mths later) and the shop have said exactly this to me, and have also said that HP must try to repair it 3 times before allowing a refund. HP were fined in 2013 by the ACCC for saying that consumers must have items repaired multiple times before issuing refunds.

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/hp-to-pay-3-million-for-misleading-consumers-and-retailers

runawaybishop

mel.b wrote: »

Thanks so much. So essentially, the court have said HP (or the retailer), isn’t allowed to do this? See link below for full context. As i’m dealing with a shop at the moment about a refund for a faulty laptop (already repaired once under warranty, now same fault 3mths later) and the shop have said exactly this to me, and have also said that HP must try to repair it 3 times before allowing a refund. HP were fined in 2013 by the ACCC for saying that consumers must have items repaired multiple times before issuing refunds.

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/hp-to-pay-3-million-for-misleading-consumers-and-retailers

That's Australia? Not relevant here.

Your contract is with the shop, not HP. They are responsible. Any repair must be permanent. While it can be faster and easier to get a repair under warranty you are under no obligation to do so and such a repair cannot remove your statutory rights. Insist that the retailer sort you out with a refund or a replacement.

wench

They cannot insist on multiple repairs of the same issue

If an item has a fault and the business offers to fix it, the repair should be permanent and the problem should not reoccur. Where the same fault happens again, you can ask for a replacement or a refund. The business is not allowed to insist on doing a certain number of repairs before they offer you a replacement or refund.

https://www.ccpc.ie/consumers/shopping/faulty-goods/

28064212

Forget about HP. The retailer has a relationship with HP, you do not. Your relationship is with the retailer (assuming you're exercising your legal rights as a consumer, as opposed to claiming under a warranty or guarantee). If HP won't compensate the retailer, that's their problem, not yours. The retailer has obligations to you that they are required to meet

mel.b

Thanks all. Sorry, should have made it clear i’m in aus now and following aus consumer guidelines, dealing with the retailer currently. Just there’s no awesome boards equivalent in aus and i knew here i’d be able to get that passage interpreted as i wasn’t sure what it meant (and understanding what it meant is universal). The retailer is saying HP must repair the item 3 items before refunding...its quite clear that is not the case and that the retailer don’t need authorisation from HP first to refund it, so that’s what i’ll be going back to them with now as they are stonewalling me at the moment.