Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Explorer
Brilliant news! Not the full amount but much better then most! Dooes this mean all that have cases with Curry's can refer to this case?
Voyager

@dipesh44 wrote:
Brilliant news! Not the full amount but much better then most! Dooes this mean all that have cases with Curry's can refer to this case?

You're welcome to quote my reference if you want to.

Currys Reference - HRR/542332

Mony Claim Reference - 024MC040

Black Belt 

@dipesh44 wrote:
Brilliant news! Not the full amount but much better then most! Dooes this mean all that have cases with Curry's can refer to this case?

Yes it sets a presidence in that anyone going down this route can refer to it.  Also Curry's now know where they stand on this and a court has ruled it was misrepresentation.  It is a shame that he said it was innocent and the contract stands,  because the misrepresentation rules do say that the contract should be null and full refunds given.  Saying that though to get that award and keep the tv is I think reasonable.  

You could still argue that you wanted the smart things function and that award would not give you that,  unless the tv was replaced with a model that could do it. 

I think though  is all costs are covered,  compensation to the tune of half the cost,  and keep the tv is not bad. 

It also means all the Curry's customers should now be thinking a email to their customer support quoting this outcome. 

Highlighted
Explorer

Great news! Bit odd how I got a full refund though. Anyhow, hopefully mean Currys will stop their bulls**t although I very much doubt it. 

 

Just found out today too my Q9FN needs a hub to control the devices anyhow in addition to the tv 😂 

Voyager

@paul1277 wrote:

@dipesh44 wrote:
Brilliant news! Not the full amount but much better then most! Dooes this mean all that have cases with Curry's can refer to this case?

 the misrepresentation rules do say that the contract should be null and full refunds given.


This is not actually the case Paul. Section 2 of the Act states:

 

2 Damages for misrepresentation.
(1)Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently, unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made the facts represented were true.

(2)Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him otherwise than fraudulently, and he would be entitled, by reason of the misrepresentation, to rescind the contract, then, if it is claimed, in any proceedings arising out of the contract, that the contract ought to be or has been rescinded, the court or arbitrator may declare the contract subsisting and award damages in lieu of rescission, if of opinion that it would be equitable to do so, having regard to the nature of the misrepresentation and the loss that would be caused by it if the contract were upheld, as well as to the loss that rescission would cause to the other party.

(3)Damages may be awarded against a person under subsection (2) of this section whether or not he is liable to damages under subsection (1) thereof, but where he is so liable any award under the said subsection (2) shall be taken into account in assessing his liability under the said subsection (1).

 

The bit the judge focussed on was section Section 2 Sub Section 2.  I have cut it down to show the relevent bit as I found the full point pretty confusing to disect!  

 

"Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him......the court or arbitrator may declare the contract subsisting and award damages in lieu of rescission, if of opinion that it would be equitable to do so, having regard to the nature of the misrepresentation and the loss that would be caused by it if the contract were upheld, as well as to the loss that rescission would cause to the other party."

 

 

Voyager

@R1ckmister wrote:

Great news! Bit odd how I got a full refund though. Anyhow, hopefully mean Currys will stop their bulls**t although I very much doubt it. 

 

Just found out today too my Q9FN needs a hub to control the devices anyhow in addition to the tv 😂 


Hi Rick, I discussed your case with the rep and she told me that your case was settled due to the fault and not misrepresentation. I did say that a fault would have been refunded with store credit, and that you had received the refund to your card but she didn't know why that was. However she was clear that was in the notes that the TV was refunded due to a fault, not misrepresentation. 

Funnily enough, during a break for lunch she was looking into the possibility of an exchange option and found that the new TVs I had suggested needed the Hub, however we ran out of time researching this and went back in for the above ruling.

Explorer

@Tyler_Durden wrote:

@R1ckmister wrote:

Great news! Bit odd how I got a full refund though. Anyhow, hopefully mean Currys will stop their bulls**t although I very much doubt it. 

 

Just found out today too my Q9FN needs a hub to control the devices anyhow in addition to the tv 😂 


Hi Rick, I discussed your case with the rep and she told me that your case was settled due to the fault and not misrepresentation. I did say that a fault would have been refunded with store credit, and that you had received the refund to your card but she didn't know why that was. However she was clear that was in the notes that the TV was refunded due to a fault, not misrepresentation. 

Funnily enough, during a break for lunch she was looking into the possibility of an exchange option and found that the new TVs I had suggested needed the Hub, however we ran out of time researching this and went back in for the above ruling.


Oh weird the guy when refunding me said it was due to the misrepresentation, unless he just became confused but yeah it should have been store credit, the tv was faulty too though and upon assessment of the first repair they even admitted they didn’t use official Samsung parts to try and fix it .... had a lot going for me I guess that they just knew it wouldn’t go down well. 

 

But still that much back for a 2K tele and guess the tv still works so it’s a win for you either way. I just wouldn’t buy a tv again from Currys. 

 

Also Samsung need to buck their advertising up, I’m not too miffed as I went the SmartThings route anyhow due to the panel failing, but when I bought the Q9FN I was under the assumption it would just work using the tv alone. But again not even angry as I got it for £1,400 using discount vis Samsung instead of 3K when launched and had a full refund when I used my KS9000 for 3 years anyhow. 

Navigator

Just thinking what I should do now. 

 

Should I forward this court case Id to my finance company and let them know or  just wait.

 

Or maybe forward this case to curry's via the last email they sent me which was weeks ago and give them an update lol.. 

Voyager

It's up to you. When I mentioned the Section 75 cases to the rep she says that the credit card companies Ts & Cs are quite different to those between a consumer and retailer. Not sure if the same applies to finance companies, but I would expect so.
I would hang fire as they might decide to refund in full, use mine as a fall back position.

Navigator

@Tyler_Durden wrote:

It's up to you. When I mentioned the Section 75 cases to the rep she says that the credit card companies Ts & Cs are quite different to those between a consumer and retailer. Not sure if the same applies to finance companies, but I would expect so.
I would hang fire as they might decide to refund in full, use mine as a fall back position.


 

 

Good call think I will do that thx. 

Top Liked Authors