I purchased an electrical item on ebay. The scanner's item description stated that the item was "Used.....but is fully operational and functions as intended...."
Within the advertisement the business seller stated that the item was not supplied without a power supplpy and was"Used untested". In order to obtain a lower price and I contacted the seller beforehand and suggested a figure as the item was without a power supply and untested. I assume that it was not tested because there was no power supply etc.
Anyway, the item was faulty and I requested a refund. The seller refused saying that the item was as described. However, I do not agree that "Untested" can be construed as meaning faulty.
The seller is a business and has a duty under the Sale of Goods Act to supply goods that a fit for purpopse etc and whilst they escape liability if they draw your attention to a fault I do not see how untested can constitute drawing my attention to a specific fault.
Further the seller's item condition states that they item was fully operational. Any ambiguity should be construed against the seller. I believe his conduct is misleading and wholly unfair and contrary to the Consumer Unfair Trading Regulations.
Ebay ruled in his favour saying that the item is as described but decision is clearly wrong. Any advice would be welcome. Thank you.
Within the advertisement the business seller stated that the item was not supplied without a power supplpy and was"Used untested". In order to obtain a lower price and I contacted the seller beforehand and suggested a figure as the item was without a power supply and untested. I assume that it was not tested because there was no power supply etc.
Anyway, the item was faulty and I requested a refund. The seller refused saying that the item was as described. However, I do not agree that "Untested" can be construed as meaning faulty.
The seller is a business and has a duty under the Sale of Goods Act to supply goods that a fit for purpopse etc and whilst they escape liability if they draw your attention to a fault I do not see how untested can constitute drawing my attention to a specific fault.
Further the seller's item condition states that they item was fully operational. Any ambiguity should be construed against the seller. I believe his conduct is misleading and wholly unfair and contrary to the Consumer Unfair Trading Regulations.
Ebay ruled in his favour saying that the item is as described but decision is clearly wrong. Any advice would be welcome. Thank you.
Comment