Kmart Refused to Replace Faulty Item, Only Refund

Capo93 on 29/01/2019 - 16:50
Last edited 29/01/2019 - 16:55

Before we get into this, I’m not complaining, I am just seeking people’s interpretation on the ACL.

So, I had purchased a 4-slice toaster from Kmart at the beginning of January 2019, just yesterday it became faulty, one side of the toaster would not stay down which obviously means you cannot cook on one side, so I would classify this as a major fault.

Went to take the toaster back today to simply get it replaced but Kmart refused to replace as the toaster wasn’t in stock. They would only offer to refund, then I could purchase a new toaster and pay the difference (which I did). It’s not my problem that the toaster went faulty and they don’t have it in stock, under ACL I’m entitled to ask for a replacement, but the question is are they allowed to refuse to replace it even if it’s not in stock? I would have thought they would just give you the superseded model.

I know the ACL says a replacement “must be of an identical type to the product originally supplied.” Now to me, the 4-slicer toaster I had purchased originally is the same as the 4-slice toaster they now stocked, both Kmart brands, just a different looking design.

Electrical & Electronics

Related Stores

Kmart
Kmart

Comments

  • User2049 on 29/01/2019 - 16:53

    They should have given you refund if you asked.

    • Capo93 on 29/01/2019 - 16:57
      -8

      I asked for a replacement, they said no because it wasn't in stock and they knew there was a price difference to what they now stock.

      • SnoozeAndLose on 29/01/2019 - 17:02
        +2

        They are right, if the price is the same then you can, in your case it si not.

        the best to do is to refund you and buy again in different store or pay more for an uogarde.

  • HighAndDry on 29/01/2019 - 16:57
    +28

    Kmart refused to replace as the toaster wasn’t in stock

    Yes that's allowed. I don't know what you expect them to do if it's out of stock.

    just a different looking design.

    I mean, then it's not identical. Imagine it worked the other way around, and a shop tried to replace a faulty product with something that had the same features but a different design.

      • HighAndDry on 29/01/2019 - 17:04
        +3

        however one has a mole on her face, does that make them not identical?

        I mean, yes - they're still "identical twins", but they're not identical if one has a mole and the other doesn't.

        I do get what you mean though; a lot of retailers do have a policy of doing what your do: replacing with the newer model if an older model is now out of stock. But as far as I'm aware, that's not required under the ACL and is discretionary. Most shops would rather give you a product than hand back money after all.

      • qwerty on 29/01/2019 - 18:00
        +10

        The ACL is doing it to protect you

        Otherwise kmart could force you to have a twin you dont want

  • Seedy seed on 29/01/2019 - 17:00
    -6

    Should of just started yelling in a non sensicle way, they woulda gave in pretty easy

    • DeepHorizon on 07/02/2019 - 11:53

      Should of just started yelling in a non sensicle way, they woulda gave in pretty easy

      You're the reason people in retail hate people…and then make fun of you after you leave

      • brendanm on 07/02/2019 - 18:39
        -1

        But does anyone actually care about someone in retail making fun of them?

  • John Kimble on 29/01/2019 - 17:00

    No stock in all Kmarts or just that Kmart?

    • Capo93 on 29/01/2019 - 17:01

      No sure, didn't ask that question.

  • rompastompa on 29/01/2019 - 17:08
    +8

    A quick google search brings up: Your rights.

    The new consumer guarantees provisions of the ACL mean that businesses dealing with defective goods must provide a repair, replacement or refund, and if there is a major failure with an item, the consumer has the right to chose the remedy, including requesting a refund.

    However, if it was a discontinued item and they could not give you a replacement, they're in their rights to a refund if a repair or replacement cannot be met.

    More info: https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/tools-resources/repair-repl…

    • Randxyz123 on 29/01/2019 - 17:20
      +1

      This.

      Kmart have a choice whether to refund or replace. They don’t have to give you that choice.

      If you had asked “is it in stock in any other store” they might have given you the option of going to the other store.

      Regardless they did their end of the bargain.

      the question is are they allowed to refuse to replace it even if it’s not in stock? I would have thought they would just give you the superseded model.

      What if it wasn’t in stock?

      I don’t understand what you’re complaining about?

      • AlanJ on 30/01/2019 - 21:21

        I think what he is complaining about is that he wound up having to buy a toaster he didn't choose at a price greater than the one he was originally prepared to pay. I realise that K Mart are within their rights in insisting on this course of action, but they MIGHT have just handed him the new model and wished him well. I hardly think selling one copy of the new model at the old-model price would have much effect on their "bottom line" for the week, and they would have probably gained a loyal customer. I am on the OP's side here.

        • rompastompa on 31/01/2019 - 13:13

          I am on the OP's side here.

          Nothing about sides here, OP asked the question:

          I am just seeking people’s interpretation on the ACL.

          Kmart is within what's required by them according to the ACL. Kmart could have replaced with the new model, but it's not their right to do so. They are required to offer a refund, replacement or repair. OP has the right to request which one in a major fault.

  • altomic on 29/01/2019 - 17:39
    +5

    my grandfather had a pet tasmanian tiger.

    he bought it from a pet shop.

    soon after it suddenly died .
    .
    .
    .
    OP- do you see where this tale is going?

    • mskeggs on 29/01/2019 - 17:51

      Tiger killer!

    • rompastompa on 29/01/2019 - 18:28

      Was this 100 years ago? I think I know what happened..

    • pyramid on 29/01/2019 - 18:35

      You are smart man. Refund.

    • Capo93 on 29/01/2019 - 21:44

      Bit different, tigers don’t have warranty

      • rompastompa on 29/01/2019 - 23:38
        +3

        Wrong.

        If you decide to go ahead with purchasing a pet, it is important to know your rights, as a consumer, under the law. Buying a pet is no different to buying any other type of good – your purchase is covered by the Australian Consumer Law (ACL)

        Under the ACL, the purchase of a pet is just like any other purchase made by a consumer – the same protections and recourses apply. For example, when purchasing a good or service, the ACL automatically provides the consumer with certain rights or ‘consumer guarantees’.

    • GaryQ on 04/02/2019 - 20:27

      I bought a Parrot from a pet shop once

      He fell off his perch

  • pegaxs on 29/01/2019 - 17:49
    +5

    Oh no!! Not a refund! What ever will you do with that?? Perhaps use it to buy another one?

    • gyrex on 30/01/2019 - 09:39
      +3

      Agreed. Some of the threads on here border on asinine. The retailer is doing their best to help a customer and it's still not good enough…

  • bobbified on 29/01/2019 - 18:02
    +8

    They gave you a refund! Seriously, did you want fries with that?

    What are you whinging about? Use that money and go buy another one!

  • Prince K on 29/01/2019 - 18:05
    +5

    Oh wow, they didn’t give you a replacement because they don’t have another one. Must be illegal, better contact Accc. What a dodgy company, how dare they give you a refund

    • djones145 on 29/01/2019 - 22:17

      sounds like a scam

  • jjjaar on 29/01/2019 - 18:06
    +6

    What would you do if you bought the more expensive one and they didn’t have that in stock and “replaced” it with a cheaper option, rather than refunding you and you saving some money.

    One would assume you’re getting a better product now, so yes you should pay for that.

    Or, as others have said, find it in another store.

  • spackbace on 29/01/2019 - 18:26
    +16

    Cannot facepalm this enough.

    • AdosHouse on 29/01/2019 - 19:54
      +3

      Some of these Forum posts are getting ridiculous.

  • andyken on 29/01/2019 - 19:03
    +9

    something wrong with kmart your brain

  • juventino on 29/01/2019 - 19:07
    +2

    something is wrong with your brain

  • Imhereforcomments on 29/01/2019 - 19:09
    +5

    Sometimes I jump right to forums and skip deals on here.

    • naru6705 on 29/01/2019 - 19:58

      I found it fun as well, read the tiger story above. It made my day :)

      • pegaxs on 30/01/2019 - 10:17
        +1

        I come here for the…

        “I crashed my car into another car and I don’t have any insurance. How can I get the other person to stop asking me to pay for it?”…

  • bobbieb on 29/01/2019 - 19:51
    +9

    I don't mean to come across harsh, but given that the majority of issues tend to be those wanting a refund when the retailer insists on replacing or repairing, the position that you've taken is frankly quite bizarre.

    You were offered an immediate refund. Take the win. Buy another toaster. Hell, track down the exact same model elsewhere. Move on. Eat toast.

    • Sqishy on 29/01/2019 - 20:02
      +1

      Yeah you said it ! Just make sure you put marmite on your toast not vegemite.

    • ronnknee on 29/01/2019 - 21:19

      Hell, track down the exact same model elsewhere.

      This. It might even be on clearance since it's an old model.

  • ihbh on 29/01/2019 - 20:21
    +5

    It’s not my problem that the toaster went faulty and they don’t have it in stock

    It's not Kmart's problem to have unreasonable and idiotic customers.

  • Davo1111 on 29/01/2019 - 21:24

    lol, just accept the refund and move on with your life.

    • Some Human on 30/01/2019 - 02:32
      +1

      Cheap electronics are designed to be thrown out and replaced every 6 months. Probably better off taking the new toaster back and buying a brand name one from somewhere else. I can highly recommend breville - got one when I moved out of home, it’s now over 10 years old and still toasts bread like a champ.

    • bobbieb on 30/01/2019 - 07:12
      +2

      Most people here are idiots and cannot read, I was simply asking people for there interpretation on ACL.

      On the contrary, I've seen no indication that people have misunderstood the sentiment of your post.

      You purchased a home brand item from a store on the bottom rung of the former Coles Myer empire. Frankly, the only real guarantee of quality for such a mass market fodder item is that it doesnt disintegrate in your hands when you unpack it. Any usage you get from then on is a bonus. Be greatful that Australian electrical standards keep the worst rubbish off shelves, or the bar could have been much lower.

      I simply asked if it could be replaced, they advised no cause there was no stock and I would get a refund, I took the refund, went and grabbed another toaster and paid the difference.

      And as others have pointed out, that is exactly how it should have played out under ACL. And yet for some reason unstated reason, you felt the need to come here and post.

      Let's for a moment explore your question. How would you envisage this going differently if offering a refund wasn't in line with the ACL?

      • You requested a replacement - which is within your rights.
      • The store indicated that the item was no longer available.
      • Rather then offering a repair, which could have been interpreted as a reasonable alternative, given your original request, they offered a full refund.

      What now? The refund allows you to pick any item - in store or otherwise - of equal or lesser value. Were you seriously asking where you had the right to request an item of greater value at no additional charged.

      The answer is: no.

    • altomic on 30/01/2019 - 09:48

      I guess everyone was thrown by the title. Especially the bit about refusing to give you a replacement (for an item they no longer stock).

      Kmart didn't refuse to give you a replacement.

      Because they don't have it in stock.

      You can't be refused for something that doesn't exist.

      E.g. you refused to give me a $1,000,000

  • RockyRaccoon on 30/01/2019 - 05:09

    By taking the refund, you can buy the replacement and hey you now have a full warranty again. Years ago, I bought an iron, which died after 2 years, as it was still in the warranty period, but no replacement was available, I was refunded the price, I then bought a new iron, which gave me a further 2 years warranty

    Now if only that would work with a car warranty issue….

    • Capo93 on 30/01/2019 - 09:45

      Even if it was replaced the warranty period starts again.

  • voiletmay on 30/01/2019 - 07:26

    With Kmarts, you can check for stock online (so check at different stores). You could have just checked for a local store that has that toaster online and bought it from there.

    I really don't understand what the issue is. Stock levels are really variable at Kmart because they have such high turnover, I always go to multiple Kmarts to get what I want (and check stock levels online first, and even ring up sometimes to be sure).

    It's always better to get a refund and buy the product (due to warranty).

  • lovepub on 30/01/2019 - 08:13
    +1

    OP broke the toaster .

    Not a manufacturer fault or design fault .

    Otherwise why would you request a replacement of the same item rather than a refund?
    You wanted the same toaster coz it's good to use and you love it. But somehow you must have broken it during use and just want a same replacement by trying to blame on design fault.

    Refund is quite reasonable here.

    I wouldn't want something that might break again at the same place being replaced and having to go back again. Its just a $20 toaster.

    • Some Human on 30/01/2019 - 11:08

      It is a deliberate design fault. Designed to break after a short period of time, but still leave the customer with enough faith in the product to buy it again.

      • pais on 30/01/2019 - 21:01
        +1

        It is a deliberate design fault.

        Planned obsolescence makes more sense as a theory when the retailer is refusing to warrant the goods after a failure. It makes precisely zero sense if the retailer is giving the customer their money back, in full.

      • samfisher5986 on 31/01/2019 - 12:16

        Sounds like a stupid tax then.

        Sounds good.

  • andyhui01 on 30/01/2019 - 09:48
    +1

    Isn't one of the definitions of a Major fault is that "it has a problem that would have stopped someone from buying it if they’d known about it". But now you are saying that even after experiencing the "major" fault, you are still willing to buy the item (replacement in this case) instead of getting a refund. How is that Major?

  • Ace Ventura on 30/01/2019 - 13:51
    +1

    one side of the toaster would not stay down which obviously means you cannot cook on one side, so I would classify this as a major fault.

    Are you sure it was faulty? The left hand side of the toaster, only stays down if the right hand side is down first.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join