Return of goods act.

[modeller]

I recently bought a laptop and a dongle for the sole purpose of accessing the internet on it . I was assured by the retailer that it would work in my area . However it didn't ! It was very difficult to connect and having done so it took 5 minutes or not at all to get on any site. In other words whilst the products were not actually faulty they were not fit for the purpose I bought them. As a result I returned them to the store for a refund . It took an hour of argument to get it as they claimed as the goods were not faulty , it was just that they didn't work in my area.
Does anyone know the legal position ? I always thought you could return them if they didn't do the job for which they were purchased , irrespective of there being an actual fault.

[andy-hughes]

If it's a major company, you need to escalate up the chain, and threaten them with legal action.

If it's an individual retailer, it may be more difficult, as it it their word against yours about your reasons for purchase, and the failure of their products to deliver.

I would contact your local Citizens' Advice Bureau who will know your legal position, and go from their with their advice.

[modeller]

andy-hughes As you can see from my question I did in fact get my money back although it took a lot of argument . I don't think they really understood the act themselves.
The term 'Not fit for purpose ' is a bit ambiguous . I argued that it meant if it didn't do the job for which it was sold and they said it meant if the goods were faulty. This must affect thousands of items sold every day.

[Rollo]

Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).

Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.

So, if you stated to the retailer that the "purpose" of your purchase was to use the item to do X - i.e. that condition was part of the contract between you and the retailer - and the goods do not in fact do X then the item is not fot for purpose and you have the right to a refund so long as you complain within a reasonable time.

[modeller]

Yes Rollo that was my interpretation of the act but I can see that if it was verbal then its their word against mine. I assume it would have to be in writing to have much validity.
I did in fact complain within 4 days.
For future reference I must try and get a simple copy of the act , maybe on Google.

[Rollo]

Verbal contracts are as legally binding as written ones. But it is far harder to show what the contract involved if it is only verbal, of course.

[Markandshez]

Surely it doesnt matter whether the contract was verbal or not, the goods were not fit for the purpose and, therefore, under the Sale of Goods Act, you had every right to your money back