eBay and a Right to a Replacement

[Deactivated] on 01/02/2023 - 16:48
Last edited 02/02/2023 - 09:12 by 1 other user

Late last year through one of the ebay promotions, I was able to take advantege and purchase a motherboard for a 22% off discount from an Australian seller through ebay. I received the motherboard without issue. I had also purchased the CPU and RAM from the same seller direct rather than through ebay.

Unfortunately there was a defect somewhere between the parts within the first couple of weeks. At the time it was not possible for me to identify which component was faulty.

As most components were purchased direct, I contacted the company directly and organised a return for which they were amenable. Despite the testing taking an extrordinary amount of time, a fault with the motherboard was identified.

The seller is now attempting to provide a refund for the ebay purchase while I've made my choice clear for a replacement. I intentionally purchased all components from the same company as it usually simplifies any warranty matters as demonstrated by the problem I experienced.

Ordinarily I may accept a refund, except in this case the refund would be for the purchase price (including the 22% off), leaving me out of pocket to purchase a replacement.

The conversation appears to be going south, and the seller appears intent on doing what I consider a breach of consumer law.

Aside from making a complaint via the ACCC, is there any service or body which could mediate or be involved in this case? Would the civil and administrative tribunal be suitable to involve? I do not accept being out of pocket in order to have a replacement motherboard.

General Discussion

Related Stores

eBay Australia
eBay Australia
Marketplace

closed Comments

  • Hybroid on 01/02/2023 - 16:56
    +9

    The seller is now attempting to provide a refund for the ebay purchase while I've made my choice clear for a replacement.

    They're entitled to do this and have no obligation to acquire or set aside replacement stock for you.

    Ordinarily I may accept a refund, except in this case the refund would be for the purchase price (including the 22% off), leaving me out of pocket to purchase a replacement.

    Tough luck. You win some, you lose some. Sorry.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/02/2023 - 17:02

      They're entitled to do this and have no obligation to acquire or set aside replacement stock for you.

      How does this work?

      From the ACCC:

      When a business sells a product with a major problem, or a product that later develops a major problem, it must give the consumer the choice of a refund or a replacement of the same type of product.

      Is there some legal basis to what you're supposing?

      • Hybroid on 01/02/2023 - 17:25
        +7

        They can simply say they no longer have stock and therefore cannot supply you with another unit and thus have offered a refund which is the greater resolution.

        Even if it's actually currently in stock, that's a different price point from the distributor and they're not obliged to take additional loss when offered you full refund.

        • [Deactivated] on 01/02/2023 - 17:36

          I really want to understand where this is coming from.

          Consumer law states:

          When there is a major failure, the consumer can choose to:
          • reject the goods or services and either choose a refund or a replacement; or
          • ask for compensation for any drop in value of the goods or services.

          There's nothing in consumer law that permits a seller to choose a refund for a major failure while the product type is reasonably available.

          • Hybroid on 01/02/2023 - 17:44
            +2

            @[Deactivated]: So you choose a replacement, seller says they don't have any or unable to at that price point and offer a refund.

            You cannot force them to offer a replacement. Even the ACCC says they don't get involved.

            We don’t resolve individual disputes about a consumer’s right to a repair, replacement or refund for a faulty product or service.

            We don’t provide legal advice about whether a consumer is entitled to a repair, replacement of refund for a faulty product or service, or whether a business is entitled to reimbursement from a manufacturer.

            • [Deactivated] on 01/02/2023 - 17:55

              @Hybroid: Sure, you're spot on about the function of the ACCC. Each state has their own ACL regulator to handle complaints. Apparently mine is Fair Trading. They indicate that I can also bring the matter before the tribunal.

              seller says they don't have any or unable to at that price point

              They've not done so, although this is irrelivent. Fair trading specifically refers to replacements needing to be "must be similar to the original product."

              • Hybroid on 01/02/2023 - 18:03
                +5

                @[Deactivated]: Take it to Fair Trading and do let us know the outcome. I expect it to be thrown out soon as they hear you have been offered a refund.

                Hopefully I'm dead wrong for your sake though.

  • FireRunner on 01/02/2023 - 17:00
    +2

    I believe the choice of replacement, repair or refund is with the seller not the buyer.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/02/2023 - 17:04

      Have you any source for this? Everything I can find states it's the buyers choice (at least when the product continues to be available).

    • Thrift on 01/02/2023 - 17:37
      +1

      ACCC: Repair, replace, refund, cancel

      Consumers can choose between a refund or replacement when a product has a major problem.

      ACCC: Repair, replace, refund, cancel problem solver

      Fixing the problem might involve a repair, replacement, or refund. If it is a major problem you can choose.

  • wei13 on 01/02/2023 - 17:19
    +1

    Is the seller actively selling the same product and in stock? The seller can claim that they can't source the product, or they don't stock it anymore. It is then reasonable to provide a full refund.

    Whether you are out of pocket / or make a profit from the refund is irrelevant.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/02/2023 - 17:20

      Is the seller actively selling the same product and in stock? The seller can claim that they can't source the product, or they don't stock it anymore. It is then reasonable to provide a full refund.

      Yes, I could purchase another today.

      • AustriaBargain on 01/02/2023 - 17:31

        Why don't you just accept the refund and then buy another today?

        • [Deactivated] on 01/02/2023 - 17:42

          Because I would be out of pocket for ~$75. Effectively it's a way for the seller to gouge a few dollars.

          The purchase price doesn't modify my right to ask for a replacement as far I can tell.

  • Empharand on 01/02/2023 - 17:30

    It's entirely up to the seller whether they offer you a refund (and subsequently close off the order) or a replacement. It's not onus on them to offer you a replacement to save you the trouble regarding the initial 22% discount.

    ACCC dictates that they're required to offer you a replacement or refund - So going the ACCC route regarding your preference of a replacement over a refund will not work in your favour, same applies regarding the Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/02/2023 - 17:40
      +1

      The ACCC states that the choice is mine, not the sellers.

      Verbatim from consumer law (with accents):

      When there is a major failure, the consumer can choose to:

      • reject the goods or services and either choose a refund or a replacement; or
      • ask for compensation for any drop in value of the goods or services.

      Do you have any source stating something else?

      • saitaris on 01/02/2023 - 19:13
        +1

        Is the problem a major failure? If it is a minor failure, it is actually the seller's choice. You don't go into what the fault is beyond saying it is a "defect" which could mean anything.

        Additionally, even if you would reasonably view it as a major failure, the store simply needs to argue it is minor, and thus you have no right to demand a replacement. A tribunal may (but probably won't*) rule in your favour, but are you willing to go to a tribunal / small claims over what is presumably a very small amount?

        • I say probably won't because they will deem the seller to have offered a more than suitable remedy. That you bought it discounted and thus a refund leaves you out of pocket if you were to re-buy today is likely irrelevant.

        Whilst the letter of the law read literally suggests you are entitled to a replacement, you first need to clear the major vs minor hurdle, and if you can do so you still risk looking unreasonable to any tribunal you come in front of, given the seller has offered a full refund and you have (arguably unreasonably) refused it.

        • [Deactivated] on 01/02/2023 - 20:04

          Is the problem a major failure?

          Yes, that is a consideration. I'm being vague about this intentionally, not naming the store or spelling out the problem until a final resolution is reached. An overabundance of caution perhaps.

          I interpret the problem as major as the system was fully unsuable when the problem occured. There was no reasonable way to work around the problem other than removing half the ram (leaving 1 stick only), and that didn't always work either. Note, this was my observation only. The seller was unclear about the issue they have identified other than to generally confirm it to be faulty.

          Accepting the refund would leave me out of pocket of about $110 after checking other stores just now, unless I can find another promotion. If it were a smaller amount, ~$30 or less, I'd be more inclined to let this go. As it stands, there's no apparent reason to refuse a replacement other than ?maybe a financial cost to the seller. Availability is not a factor in this case.

          Otherwise thank you for the explaination and consideration. Given the above, I'd like to know what you think.

      • Empharand on 01/02/2023 - 23:13

        Yeah good luck with that DisabledUser246982

  • AwesomeAndrew on 01/02/2023 - 18:00

    You tell then that if they want to refund you, they will need to refund the whole order as the CPU and RAM obviously would be useless without the motherboard. If they don't want to refund the entire order, you would be happy with a replacement motherboard.

    That should encourage them to give you your replacement.

    • Hybroid on 01/02/2023 - 18:04
      +1

      That's not how it works. Especially when CPU and RAM were purchased completely separately. They could be for another build or purpose or whatever. But who knows, they might just do so out of goodwill.

      • AwesomeAndrew on 01/02/2023 - 18:06

        I know they were purchased separately so this technically doesn't work, but sometimes you can put a bit of pressure on the seller so you have a higher chance to get what you are looking for.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/02/2023 - 18:11

      This is not a bad solution / option, I'll hold onto this one. Thanks :)

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/02/2023 - 18:15
    +6

    Lmao, the whole purpose of the "choose a refund or replacement" is to stop sellers from forcing replacements on you and refusing refunds. Not the other way around.

    If they've offered you a refund then not a Tribunal in the country will help you.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/02/2023 - 18:29
      -2

      This appeared to happen a bit with the GPU craziness over the last few years. People purchased cards that increased in value and so the original amount paid could not replace the GPU. There's quite a few stories around of sellers that were trying to offer refunds rather than replacements, arguing that the problem is not a major fault or trying other justifications.

      From the various Australian cases I've read about, most people pushed to uphold their rights and were able to obtain replacements. I don't know if any of these people needed to make complaints or approach tribunals to be successful.

      While the value in my case is much less, it is a similar situation.

      If they've offered you a refund then not a Tribunal in the country will help you.

      I suspect this is just your opinion rather than something based on evidence, although I would welcome something external to reflect your statement. Law tends to be black and white.

      • Pete10001 on 01/02/2023 - 21:32

        Unfortunately the law is often not black and white. That's why lawyers and judges exist.

  • bobbified on 01/02/2023 - 19:20
    +1

    Reading OP's responses in this thread and those in this thread, I really think he/she is the type of customer that no shop wants.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/02/2023 - 19:35
      -7

      Thank you for your insightful contribution. I hope you're rationing your negs appropriately.

      • bobbified on 01/02/2023 - 19:37

        No problem! I hope your replacement eventually arrives :)

  • miwahni on 01/02/2023 - 22:10

    … and DisabledUser has left the chat….

  • Settero on 01/02/2023 - 22:14

    i found this so funny, claims major fault yet wants a replacement , dont think he read the part describing a major fault.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join