Am I Entitled to a Refund?

Beexter

I think it's a toughy. I have gigged Roland Cubes ( a 60 and now an 80XL) for some time and have never had the slightest issue with them. I've found them dependable and with plenty of volume to get over an enthusiastic drummer un-miced. I always run them on the clean (JC) channel with pedals into them including loads of dirt and fuzz pedals. They have an extension speaker socket for more "oomph" and a line out for running straight into the PA for extra decibels if you need them. I've never needed to.

They seem to have a pretty solid reputation on a number of forums so whilst I am sorry to hear that you have had issues with yours, I think that going down the route of "unfit for purpose" is probably stretching it. You may stand a better chance of a refund/ credit with the retailer by explaining it's unfit for your purpose.

ICBM

There is one amp I know of which I think could just possibly be described as not fit for purpose. The reason is that it's not capable of delivering its full rated power into its minimum rated load continuously without overheating and risking damage - and this is known by the manufacturer and stated on the service information, to warn techs against testing it like that.

But even this amp works reliably for the vast majority of its users, and only causes trouble in the most extreme cases, so I'm not going to say what it is!! It's actually not a bad amp otherwise, and wouldn't normally reach that condition in the use it's really intended for, so it would worry its owners unnecessarily .

I haven't seen anything about the Cube which would indicate it's similar, and I think that to have any kind of case it would have to be - ie a known limitation which Roland are aware of but think won't be reached in normal use.

mark_atdi

It will be hard to get a refund, and any potential court action would probably fail. I know that's a little bit unfair but the law deems you to have had sufficient time within those 8 months to have properly "accepted" those goods. The fact that you've in reality not done that is unfortunately irrelevant. 

You may have had a case if you'd had the goods for under 6 months, but over the 6 month time period it's up to you to provide evidence to the seller that the goods were faulty when you bought them (vice versa when it's under 6 months). This evidence is hard to come by. Maybe testimony from an amp technician would go some way to doing this? That's what I'd look into if I wanted to take the issue further.

I don't think the "not fit for purpose" comes into it. It's a straight up question of whether or not the goods were faulty at the time of purchase. You need to prove this. If you can, then you could get your money back.

Anyway it would be load of effort, so I'd probably just accept the repair. 

I used to volunteer for the Citizens Advice Bureau and have a law degree (which I can't remember much of!) However the law changes and my info could be outdated. Speak to the CAB if you need more info.

Voxman

Guys, I think there's some confusion here (Adam_MD is pretty much there aside from 4 below), so the following may help:- 

• The item was bought in April 2014 so it's in the manufacturer's warranty ('guarantee') period (which will be at least 12 months)
  
• The Sale & Supply of Goods and Services Act (1979 et al) deals with the retailers liability
  

1. The warranty & retailer's liability are totally different things.  
2. Under the SSGSA if an item fails within 6 months of purchase, it is the retailer that must prove the item was of merchantable quality.  
3. Beyond 6 months, the customer has to show that a fault or design defect existed at the time of purchase (e.g. via expert engineer report). 
4. This 6 month rule is for SSGSA only - a manufacturer's warranty is subject to their own terms/conditions but generally will provide to repair or replace any item that has failed within the warranty period, which will normally be at least 12 months in the UK, provided the item hasn't been 'abused/misused' such that the abuse/misuse caused the failure.   
   
5. Under SASGSA the remedies are normally for replacement or repair and the customer cannot insist on a full refund. However, under SASGSA the retailer must undertake repairs or provide a replacement in a reasonable time and with minimal inconvenience.  If they fail to do so you can claim for a purchase price reduction or a cash refund less an allowance for the use you've had of the item, or you may be able to get the item repaired elsewhere and claim compensation from them.  
6. Under a warranty, the terms will again typically refer to replacement or repair only. 

So, in short provided either the store or manufacturer are offering you repair or replacement, you are being treated fairly.

p90fool

Uh yeah, he (and we) already knew he could get it replaced or repaired, he was asking about a refund.

Adam_MD

p90fool;485581" said:

Uh yeah, he (and we) already knew he could get it replaced or repaired, he was asking about a refund.

The points above are stating why in this case under current legislation the retailer is under no obligation to offer a refund. The OP asked if he was entitled to a refund so the points are totally valid.

fretmeister

Voxman said:

Guys, I think there's some confusion here (Adam_MD is pretty much there aside from 4 below), so the following may help:- 

• The item was bought in April 2014 so it's in the manufacturer's warranty ('guarantee') period (which will be at least 12 months)
  
• The Sale & Supply of Goods and Services Act (1979 et al) deals with the retailers liability
  

1. The warranty & retailer's liability are totally different things.  
2. Under the SSGSA if an item fails within 6 months of purchase, it is the retailer that must prove the item was of merchantable quality.  
3. Beyond 6 months, the customer has to show that a fault or design defect existed at the time of purchase (e.g. via expert engineer report). 
4. This 6 month rule is for SSGSA only - a manufacturer's warranty is subject to their own terms/conditions but generally will provide to repair or replace any item that has failed within the warranty period, which will normally be at least 12 months in the UK, provided the item hasn't been 'abused/misused' such that the abuse/misuse caused the failure.   
   
5. Under SASGSA the remedies are normally for replacement or repair and the customer cannot insist on a full refund. However, under SASGSA the retailer must undertake repairs or provide a replacement in a reasonable time and with minimal inconvenience.  If they fail to do so you can claim for a purchase price reduction or a cash refund less an allowance for the use you've had of the item, or you may be able to get the item repaired elsewhere and claim compensation from them.  
6. Under a warranty, the terms will again typically refer to replacement or repair only. 

So, in short provided either the store or manufacturer are offering you repair or replacement, you are being treated fairly.

+1

Voxman

mark_atdi;485476" said:

I don't think the "not fit for purpose" comes into it. It's a straight up question of whether or not the goods were faulty at the time of purchase. You need to prove this. If you can, then you could get your money back.

--------------------------------

Actually, the SSGSA is all about merchantable quality and fitness for purpose.  For example, if you bought a washing machine that worked perfectly but then failed within a 'reasonable time' the retailer can actually be on the hook for up to 6 years.  This is why, because of the strong UK consumer legislation, it's questionable whether any of these expensive 'extended warranty' insurances that stores try to sell you are actually needed and worth the money.  

Each case has to be looked at on its own merits and the type of item and cost, and reason for failure, are all relevant.  So, let's say you spent £700 on a decent brand washer/dryer and used it normally for the family washing (ie not excessive or industrial use) after 15 months the motor or pump completely packed up, outside the 12 mth warranty.  Almost certainly the retailer is fully on the hook because any reasonable person would expect a minimum number of years good service from such an item.  If the pump failed or serviceable items had to be replaced after say 3-4 years the retailers liability would likely be considerably less (if any) and an allowance would have to be reasonably made in any case to recognise the trouble-free use over the previous 3 yrs which would probably exceed the repair cost.   

So although the retailer is potentially on the hook for up to 6 yrs it can be considerably less. The retailer will have far less liability (after any typical 12 mths manufacturers warranty) for smaller lower cost appliances that are deemed to have shorter 'lifespans' and that are generally considered to be more of a 'disposable' item (eg toaster, kettle, hairdryer etc).  

With regards time period to 'accept' goods bought from a store within which you can demand a full refund if the item is found to be faulty (separate rules apply for long distant 'on-line' selling) there is no specific period set in the legislation but it is generally considered that 3-4 weeks is the period usually deemed as 'reasonable'.  However, this period can be longer eg where there is 'multi-use' of an item such as a combi microwave/conventional oven/grill where the microwave works fine but it wasn't until the first use of the oven (say 2-3 months later) that a fault was discovered with the oven/grill component.  

Dave_Mc

Whitecat said:

In order to be entitled to a refund this long afterwards the onus is on you to prove that the product was faulty when you purchased it. For a "not fit for purpose" refund you have a fairly short time window (the law is unspecific on this but we're definitely talking weeks rather than months if it came to court).

The way the law is written is that after this much time you are deemed to have "accepted" the amp and thus you are only entitled to a repair or a replacement.

True, but as I said, I *think* there are certain specific instances where you might have longer (the skiing example I posted). And if you're good at arguing you *might* be able to argue from that point of view. (That 6 month thing various people posted about I think is correct as well, under 6 months, onus is on the shop to prove it wasn't faulty from the outset, after, onus is on you).

No guarantee it'll work, of course. And you might have to push. Which is why I'd get some advice from e.g. CAB to see if you have a leg to stand on before pushing really hard. )

And like a lot of these things, for the amount of bother etc. you'd have to go through, like Adam_MD said, it's debatable if it's worth it. And it might not work anyway (you could be out that bother and expense and find that the store is in the right anyway).

Bellycaster

Well, looks like it's pretty unanimous. Thanks for the tips and yes, I suppose there are workarounds, eg, micing up or lining out etc. If that uses up 5 more minutes of rehearsal time then they'll just have to live with it ;-)

I was "on one" last night for various reasons, exhausted and generally fucked off, again, for various reasons.

The people who I spoke to at Roland UK were very nice and were genuinely surprised that it seemed to struggle with what I subjected it to, so let's see what happens.

@ICBM

Pm the name of that Amp ;-)

BigMonka

To be fair, I can't see why the retailer would want to accept it as not being fit for purpose and offer you a refund before sending it off to the manufacturer who will assess whether it's been subject to misuse. I'm glad you're getting on well with Roland though and I hope you get a good resolution!