«

I purchased an expensive portable mp3 player last year, and had to
send it back to the shop , due to a number of problems that it
developed, including freezing up on me. It was returned to me a month
later with the problems unfixed, and with no information of what they
even did to it!. I sent it back again, and eventually they diagnosed
the problem (after I had to explain it to the manufacturer in depth on
the phone). This meant I had been without it for about 6 weeks. I
asked them that I would like it switched for a new one, as I didn't
want to mucked around any more, and the time that it had taken them
was unreasonable, and it would have taken them at least o=another week
or two to repair it (if they could repair it). They eventually did
agree to send me a new one, but actually they told me that they would
have preferred to have just switched over the internal parts, so that
they wouldn't have to modify the serial numbers in their system. When
I picked it up from the retailer, the brand new mp3 player had two new
different problems, including being scratched on the casing. I asked
if it could be switched with another new one, but they declined saying
that it would have to be sent back to be fixed, and have the casing
replaced.

At this stage, I said that I would like a full refund, as it would
take another week or so before I would get it back . Eventually after
getting onto the manager, they agreed to give me a 'store credit',
which they said they would be handled the same way as gift vouchers,
so I could choose another model or brand, however exactly what a store
credit was, was never explained to me, and I had no idea that it would
be handled differently to cash purchase.
After a bit of research, I did choose another model (a model up from
my original) through the same retailer, but I also found that the same
model of mp3 player was been sold for $100 less at another shop just
down the road. I asked the retailer to match the price, which would
have made it about the same price as my original mp3 player, but they
said they wouldn't, and said that they would charge me the full RRP,
less the credit I already had. They said that if I was paying in cash
that they would have certainly matched it, but in my case they
wouldn't, as they have a policy where they don't give discounts for
people with store credit. They also said I was getting a far better
mp3 player, and the prices had come down since I had first purchased
my original player.They also questioned why I was asking them to match
the price, and in fact were slightly insulting asking what was I
complaining about, as I have got a far better player out of it?

Does this sound right? Every other shop I had seen it being sold at,
was at least $100 less than what this retailer charged me, which the
retailer said was the RRP.

Another thing is, I actually also purchased a case separately for the
old mp3 player, but the new mp3 player I have chosen is too big for
the case, so the case I have is useless, should they switch over the
case, or refund me the money on the case too? I currently don't have a
case for this new player.

Under the CGA, I believed that if a product was unable to be repaired
within a reasonable period of time (in my case it was a total of about
2 months), that the consumer was entitled to a full refund plus any
consequential losses(eg the case I purchased) I did ask them for this
and they gave me the store credit, which I assumed could be used in
the same way.
Should I have expected a full refund from this retailer?

I would appreciate any advice over this as I will be getting back to
them tomorrow, as I do feel a little ripped off by them.. I have
specifically not included details of brand, or the retailer.

Thanks, I will be getting onto it tommorrow, and may get in contact
with the CAB about it.

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:00:50 +1200, Peter <>
wrote:

>this quote is from Rob of Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:50 :
>> Should I have expected a full refund from this retailer?
>
>Yes - but IANAL
>Basically, if you buy something from a shop, it has got to do the job it is
>supposed to. They should promptly fix it, replace it or give you your
>money back.
>I've been on the receiving end of these sorts of store credits (vouchers)
>before. Really, the retailer is mistreating its customers.
>
>Maybe you should get advice from CAB, Consumer or your lawyer.
>
>HTH
>
>Peter

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:43:22 +1200, Master Tech ©
<> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:50:27 +1200, Rob <> wrote:
>
>>I purchased an expensive portable mp3 player last year, and had to
>>send it back to the shop , due to a number of problems that it
>>developed, including freezing up on me. It was returned to me a month
>>later with the problems unfixed, and with no information of what they
>>even did to it!. I sent it back again, and eventually they diagnosed
>>the problem (after I had to explain it to the manufacturer in depth on
>>the phone). This meant I had been without it for about 6 weeks. I
>>asked them that I would like it switched for a new one, as I didn't
>>want to mucked around any more, and the time that it had taken them
>>was unreasonable, and it would have taken them at least o=another week
>>or two to repair it (if they could repair it). They eventually did
>>agree to send me a new one, but actually they told me that they would
>>have preferred to have just switched over the internal parts, so that
>>they wouldn't have to modify the serial numbers in their system. When
>>I picked it up from the retailer, the brand new mp3 player had two new
>>different problems, including being scratched on the casing. I asked
>>if it could be switched with another new one, but they declined saying
>>that it would have to be sent back to be fixed, and have the casing
>>replaced.
>>
>>At this stage, I said that I would like a full refund, as it would
>>take another week or so before I would get it back . Eventually after
>>getting onto the manager, they agreed to give me a 'store credit',
>>which they said they would be handled the same way as gift vouchers,
>>so I could choose another model or brand, however exactly what a store
>>credit was, was never explained to me, and I had no idea that it would
>>be handled differently to cash purchase.
>>After a bit of research, I did choose another model (a model up from
>>my original) through the same retailer, but I also found that the same
>>model of mp3 player was been sold for $100 less at another shop just
>>down the road. I asked the retailer to match the price, which would
>>have made it about the same price as my original mp3 player, but they
>>said they wouldn't, and said that they would charge me the full RRP,
>>less the credit I already had. They said that if I was paying in cash
>>that they would have certainly matched it, but in my case they
>>wouldn't, as they have a policy where they don't give discounts for
>>people with store credit. They also said I was getting a far better
>>mp3 player, and the prices had come down since I had first purchased
>>my original player.They also questioned why I was asking them to match
>>the price, and in fact were slightly insulting asking what was I
>>complaining about, as I have got a far better player out of it?
>>
>>Does this sound right? Every other shop I had seen it being sold at,
>>was at least $100 less than what this retailer charged me, which the
>>retailer said was the RRP.
>>
>>Another thing is, I actually also purchased a case separately for the
>>old mp3 player, but the new mp3 player I have chosen is too big for
>>the case, so the case I have is useless, should they switch over the
>>case, or refund me the money on the case too? I currently don't have a
>>case for this new player.
>>
>>Under the CGA, I believed that if a product was unable to be repaired
>>within a reasonable period of time (in my case it was a total of about
>>2 months), that the consumer was entitled to a full refund plus any
>>consequential losses(eg the case I purchased) I did ask them for this
>>and they gave me the store credit, which I assumed could be used in
>>the same way.
>>Should I have expected a full refund from this retailer?
>>
>>I would appreciate any advice over this as I will be getting back to
>>them tomorrow, as I do feel a little ripped off by them.. I have
>>specifically not included details of brand, or the retailer.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Its all your fault as you let them **** you around, Take them to court the
>Only way for them to learn.
>


I can see where you're coming from, but I had to get them the
opportunity. If I didn't, they would say at the disputes tribunal,
that I had been unreasonable, and would throw the case out.

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:39:39 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
< (remove eye)> wrote:

>
>"Rob" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> I purchased an expensive portable mp3 player last year, and had to
>> send it back to the shop , due to a number of problems that it
>> developed, including freezing up on me. It was returned to me a month
>> later with the problems unfixed, and with no information of what they
>> even did to it!. I sent it back again, and eventually they diagnosed
>> the problem (after I had to explain it to the manufacturer in depth on
>> the phone). This meant I had been without it for about 6 weeks. I
>> asked them that I would like it switched for a new one, as I didn't
>> want to mucked around any more, and the time that it had taken them
>> was unreasonable, and it would have taken them at least o=another week
>> or two to repair it (if they could repair it). They eventually did
>> agree to send me a new one, but actually they told me that they would
>> have preferred to have just switched over the internal parts, so that
>> they wouldn't have to modify the serial numbers in their system. When
>> I picked it up from the retailer, the brand new mp3 player had two new
>> different problems, including being scratched on the casing. I asked
>> if it could be switched with another new one, but they declined saying
>> that it would have to be sent back to be fixed, and have the casing
>> replaced.
>>
>> At this stage, I said that I would like a full refund, as it would
>> take another week or so before I would get it back . Eventually after
>> getting onto the manager, they agreed to give me a 'store credit',
>> which they said they would be handled the same way as gift vouchers,
>> so I could choose another model or brand, however exactly what a store
>> credit was, was never explained to me, and I had no idea that it would
>> be handled differently to cash purchase.
>> After a bit of research, I did choose another model (a model up from
>> my original) through the same retailer, but I also found that the same
>> model of mp3 player was been sold for $100 less at another shop just
>> down the road. I asked the retailer to match the price, which would
>> have made it about the same price as my original mp3 player, but they
>> said they wouldn't, and said that they would charge me the full RRP,
>> less the credit I already had. They said that if I was paying in cash
>> that they would have certainly matched it, but in my case they
>> wouldn't, as they have a policy where they don't give discounts for
>> people with store credit. They also said I was getting a far better
>> mp3 player, and the prices had come down since I had first purchased
>> my original player.They also questioned why I was asking them to match
>> the price, and in fact were slightly insulting asking what was I
>> complaining about, as I have got a far better player out of it?
>>
>> Does this sound right? Every other shop I had seen it being sold at,
>> was at least $100 less than what this retailer charged me, which the
>> retailer said was the RRP.
>>
>> Another thing is, I actually also purchased a case separately for the
>> old mp3 player, but the new mp3 player I have chosen is too big for
>> the case, so the case I have is useless, should they switch over the
>> case, or refund me the money on the case too? I currently don't have a
>> case for this new player.
>>
>> Under the CGA, I believed that if a product was unable to be repaired
>> within a reasonable period of time (in my case it was a total of about
>> 2 months), that the consumer was entitled to a full refund plus any
>> consequential losses(eg the case I purchased) I did ask them for this
>> and they gave me the store credit, which I assumed could be used in
>> the same way.
>> Should I have expected a full refund from this retailer?
>>
>> I would appreciate any advice over this as I will be getting back to
>> them tomorrow, as I do feel a little ripped off by them.. I have
>> specifically not included details of brand, or the retailer.
>
>You expect them to supply a new product in good working order - it wasn't.
>If the problems happened straight away, proper store would've replaced it.
>If that was stuffed, you would've been better to get the deal canceled
>instead of being buggered around. ****ing around with another product over
>your original hire purchase (by the sounds of it) is your fault, and to
>expect it to be cheaper is a joke.
>Getting completely out of the deal would've been the best option. What if
>the shoe had been on the other foot, meaning that you couldn't make the
>payments, do you think you could **** round with the conditions of the sale
>like the retailer has done. You expected the new product to work as it
>should've, nothing short of that would do.
>Simply tell them that you're not paying for faulty goods along with the poor
>service of those goods.
>Sounds like a Mickey Mouse outfit, not a proper retail store.
>
>E. Scrooge
>


Sorry, I should have explained that it was purchased outright with
cash, and not on hire purchase. I never purchase anything on hire
purchase.

Actually they are a very well known store, and have stores nationwide,
and have big ads in the newspaper, and are also sometimes on TV. I do
know however that there has been some controversy in the past with
this store, and their procedures of handling defective people in my
situation.

Rob allegedly said:

>
> I would appreciate any advice over this as I will be getting back to
> them tomorrow, as I do feel a little ripped off by them.. I have
> specifically not included details of brand, or the retailer.

Do you want a fight with this retailer or do you want an MP3 player that
does what you want and sounds good?

Stay focused on what you REALLY want...and the shortest, most cost-effective
way to get there.

Maybe you should have bought a better model in the first place and spared
yourself all this hassle and disappointment.

--
Steve

"Rob" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:39:39 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
> < (remove eye)> wrote:
> >
> >You expect them to supply a new product in good working order - it
wasn't.
> >If the problems happened straight away, proper store would've replaced
it.
> >If that was stuffed, you would've been better to get the deal canceled
> >instead of being buggered around. ****ing around with another product
over
> >your original hire purchase (by the sounds of it) is your fault, and to
> >expect it to be cheaper is a joke.
> >Getting completely out of the deal would've been the best option. What
if
> >the shoe had been on the other foot, meaning that you couldn't make the
> >payments, do you think you could **** round with the conditions of the
sale
> >like the retailer has done. You expected the new product to work as it
> >should've, nothing short of that would do.
> >Simply tell them that you're not paying for faulty goods along with the
poor
> >service of those goods.
> >Sounds like a Mickey Mouse outfit, not a proper retail store.
> >
> >E. Scrooge
> >
>
>
> Sorry, I should have explained that it was purchased outright with
> cash, and not on hire purchase. I never purchase anything on hire
> purchase.
>
> Actually they are a very well known store, and have stores nationwide,
> and have big ads in the newspaper, and are also sometimes on TV. I do
> know however that there has been some controversy in the past with
> this store, and their procedures of handling defective people in my
> situation.

That sorts that out then. Paying for the thing outright should give you
more leverage. You shouldn't have to put up with goods that don't work.
Swapping over the guts of it just to save from altering the paper work of
serial numbers doesn't make sense. Giving you another one while they send
the buggered one back to the manufacturer would be the better solution.
You either better to get what you paid for or money back.

E. Scrooge

> You expect them to supply a new product in good working order - it wasn't.
> If the problems happened straight away, proper store would've replaced it.
> If that was stuffed, you would've been better to get the deal canceled
> instead of being buggered around. ****ing around with another product
over
> your original hire purchase (by the sounds of it) is your fault, and to
> expect it to be cheaper is a joke.
> Getting completely out of the deal would've been the best option. What if
> the shoe had been on the other foot, meaning that you couldn't make the
> payments, do you think you could **** round with the conditions of the
sale
> like the retailer has done. You expected the new product to work as it
> should've, nothing short of that would do.
> Simply tell them that you're not paying for faulty goods along with the
poor
> service of those goods.
> Sounds like a Mickey Mouse outfit, not a proper retail store.

Sounds EXACTLY like a retail store.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:41:30 +1200, "Rob King" <>
wrote:

>> You expect them to supply a new product in good working order - it wasn't.
>> If the problems happened straight away, proper store would've replaced it.
>> If that was stuffed, you would've been better to get the deal canceled
>> instead of being buggered around. ****ing around with another product
>over
>> your original hire purchase (by the sounds of it) is your fault, and to
>> expect it to be cheaper is a joke.
>> Getting completely out of the deal would've been the best option. What if
>> the shoe had been on the other foot, meaning that you couldn't make the
>> payments, do you think you could **** round with the conditions of the
>sale
>> like the retailer has done. You expected the new product to work as it
>> should've, nothing short of that would do.
>> Simply tell them that you're not paying for faulty goods along with the
>poor
>> service of those goods.
>> Sounds like a Mickey Mouse outfit, not a proper retail store.
>
>Sounds EXACTLY like a retail store.
>

Thanks everyone for your advice. The store has decided to refund the
difference and provide me with a case that fits, which is really what
they should have done in the first place. Email is quite a powerful
tool when dealing with these companies.