ASUS Google Nexus 7 (1st Gen) Tablet - 16GB [REFURB-B] £94.99 @ sweetbuzzards
801°Expired

ASUS Google Nexus 7 (1st Gen) Tablet - 16GB [REFURB-B] £94.99 @ sweetbuzzards

32
Found 1st Aug 2013
Came across Grade B refurb Nexus 7's on Sweet Buzzard's website, unlike some other Grade B's I've found they appear to come with Cables/Charger.

As an added bonus, Mainland UK delivery is free!

I've ordered and will update on condition when it arrives but seems like a good price and suits me as I intend to tide myself over with this until the Retina Mini drops... =]
Community Updates
Sweetbuzzards Deals

Groups

31 Comments
Is it free?
Seems a great price to me, they go for more used on eBay.
Original Poster
Absolutely, i'm watching this go from +4 to -4 to +19 to +5 but at the end of the day, equivalent eBay purchases are around £150 mark.

The only obvious negative before my assessing the overall condition is that it will almost certainly come unboxed, but really, who cares?

Edit: Also, i've ordered the case below, as i think to not do so with any tablet is irresponsible, so again, blemishes on the back are of no consequence to me.

amazon.co.uk/Ret…ase
Edited by: "Brun" 1st Aug 2013

as i think to not do so with any tablet is irresponsible



Yes Mom!
Original Poster


My point was I think any sensible person does the same when piling £100-300 into a tab so the fact that its B-furb shouldn't be a detractor!
Brun

My point was I think any sensible person does the same when piling … My point was I think any sensible person does the same when piling £100-300 into a tab so the fact that its B-furb shouldn't be a detractor!



Judge, jury, executioner!
This product has been professionally refurbished and comes with a 60 day warranty. There may be some evidence of some use. The item will include all needed cables and accessories, however may be missing the original packaging and instructions.

Hm, bit worried about the warranty period...
@brun. Sell £150 mark on eBay...

These cost £159 new from google play. Just for everyone's info. I sold my nexus 4 on eBay for £10 less than a new one, eBay is strange these days
Backriver000

This product has been professionally refurbished and comes with a 60 day … This product has been professionally refurbished and comes with a 60 day warranty. There may be some evidence of some use. The item will include all needed cables and accessories, however may be missing the original packaging and instructions. Hm, bit worried about the warranty period...



I'm a bit worried that some of these sellers of refurbished goods don't seem to be complying with the Sale of Goods Act, which as far as I am aware, says that if an item is advertised with any warranty, or guarantee, it must also state in the advert that any warranty or guarantee offered does not affect or override the consumer's rights under the Sale of Goods Act. This is so that the consumer is informed properly what their rights are when purchasing. Also, as far as I am aware, buying refurbished from a retailer is no different under the Sale of Goods Act than buying new, it must still conform to the same regulations, eg. it must be fit for purpose, and it must be exactly as described, and stating that an item -may- have marks, defects, or faults, does not seem to be specific enough of a description to accurately describe the condition of an item being sold, as it could mean it has no scratches, it is covered in scratches, or it may have one tiny scratch, the buyer will not know until the item is received, but if it does arrive covered in scratches, the seller might then try and argue that it did say 'it -may- have scratches', in the advert.





Edited by: "giltbrook" 2nd Aug 2013
You take your chances with a B grade.
rdann

You take your chances with a B grade.



If that is the case, why does it not state that in the description?
Edited by: "giltbrook" 2nd Aug 2013
Original Poster
Why does it not say grade b in the description? Like it does twice? Or why does it not say refurb-b in the title because I thought that was self explanatory while being short enough for title?

Not sure what the problem is?
giltbrook

I'm a bit worried that some of these sellers of refurbished goods don't … I'm a bit worried that some of these sellers of refurbished goods don't seem to be complying with the Sale of Goods Act, which as far as I am aware, says that if an item is advertised with any warranty, or guarantee, it must also state in the advert that any warranty or guarantee offered does not affect or override the consumer's rights under the Sale of Goods Act. This is so that the consumer is informed properly what their rights are when purchasing. Also, as far as I am aware, buying refurbished from a retailer is no different under the Sale of Goods Act than buying new, it must still conform to the same regulations, eg. it must be fit for purpose, and it must be exactly as described, and stating that an item -may- have marks, defects, or faults, does not seem to be specific enough of a description to accurately describe the condition of an item being sold, as it could mean it has no scratches, it is covered in scratches, or it may have one tiny scratch, the buyer will not know until the item is received, but if it does arrive covered in scratches, the seller might then try and argue that it did say 'it -may- have scratches', in the advert.



There is no confusion. And they don't *have* to tell you it doesn't void your statuary rights because its the law (ever seen a sign saying no murdering? :P).

You will have the standard 6 years of protection, with the same 6 month retailer-onus period that you get with a new purchase, under the Sale of Goods act (why refurbs normally come advertised with a "6 month" warranty since it wouldn't be cost effective to argue this). The exception, however, is that the SOGA says that goods must be "as described" - in this case you would have no SOGA protection against scratches, etc, since they have clearly said it may contain them beforehand. You can, however, use the distance selling regulations to return it, should it arrive with scratches, etc.

One point with the SOGA though - remember that it always it's always in relation to cost. You probably wouldn't be able to argue that a used/refurbished tablet computer costing £95 should last more than 12-18 months.

Brun

Why does it not say grade b in the description? Like it does twice? Or … Why does it not say grade b in the description? Like it does twice? Or why does it not say refurb-b in the title because I thought that was self explanatory while being short enough for title? Not sure what the problem is?



Sorry, I should have made it clearer that I was referring to the comment quoted with my reply, perhaps it would read better as:-
In that case, why does it not state "You take your chances with a B grade", in the product descriptions on the supplier's websites.
bma1445

There is no confusion. And they don't *have* to tell you it doesn't void … There is no confusion. And they don't *have* to tell you it doesn't void your statuary rights because its the law (ever seen a sign saying no murdering? :P)..



Perhaps you should aquaint yourself better with the SOGA, if you have a look at the following link, (page 39, bullet point 4) it clearly states, If you give a guarantee it must • state that it does not affect the customer’s legal rights.
There is a very good reason for this, a lot of customers, (as seen in this community), think that if it states on a website that there is, say, a 6 month's guarantee given, that is the only protection they get, (which a lot of those retailers that give these limited guarantees seem to want customers to think), but by retailers legally having to include that the guarantee 'does not affect the customer’s legal rights', this then makes it clearer to the customer, reminding them that they do have more rights, so countermanding any potentially misleading guarantees offered.

The point about a retailer stating an item 'may' have scratches, is that the word 'may' is ambiguous, it can mean anything. They don't put that the item 'may' have been used as a poop-scoop, it probably hasn't, but it 'may' have been, so why don't they put that in the adverts? As far as I can see, the word 'may' in relation to scratches is used as a general get out clause, so therefore it is not an accurate description of the product offered because the customer cannot tell what condition the item they buy will be in.when they receive it. I know about the Distance Selling Regulations, but if the customers were given a more accurate description in the first place, then customers would not be put to that position of having to return an item because of an incorrect description. Even eBay insists on accurate descriptions of products from private sellers, and will refund customers if they are misled, so why is it so difficult for online retailers?

oft.gov.uk/sha…pdf

Edited by: "giltbrook" 2nd Aug 2013
This whole 6 years consumer rights things really annoys me. From what I remember, anything after 2 years you have to pay for a inspection of the goods (which won't be cheap) to prove that it is a manufacturing defect that has caused the fault. (Of which you are not entitled to get refunded). I seriously don't get the point of quoting this as the vast majority of people won't bother. Rightly so.
Good deal OP. hot!
Okay, so can someone just state what the actual claimable warrantee period would be with regards to soga etc?

To be honest I'm mainly trying to work out whether its worth getting one now.. Or will new ones be pawned off cheap as the 2nd gen arrives... / will refurbs get even cheaper etc..
Perksey

This whole 6 years consumer rights things really annoys me. From what I … This whole 6 years consumer rights things really annoys me. From what I remember, anything after 2 years you have to pay for a inspection of the goods (which won't be cheap) to prove that it is a manufacturing defect that has caused the fault. (Of which you are not entitled to get refunded). I seriously don't get the point of quoting this as the vast majority of people won't bother. Rightly so.



If the SOGA annoys you, you are not forced to use it, it is not compulsory, but it has protected a lot of people from being ripped off when they should not have been.
We do have the Internet now, and if a fault occurs it is easy to search for similar problems, then use the documentation of those similar problems to build up a case for a probable manufacturing defect, or inherent fault case, which should be sufficient. As regards getting an independent inspection of the goods, (if requested by the seller), and the item is deemed to have failed because of an inherent fault, I see no reason why that expense cannot be claimed back.
Edited by: "giltbrook" 2nd Aug 2013
giltbrook

Perhaps you should aquaint yourself better with the SOGA, if you have a … Perhaps you should aquaint yourself better with the SOGA, if you have a look at the following link, (page 39, bullet point 4) it clearly states, If you give a guarantee it must • state that it does not affect the customer’s legal rights.There is a very good reason for this, a lot of customers, (as seen in this community), think that if it states on a website that there is, say, a 6 month's guarantee given, that is the only protection they get, (which a lot of those retailers that give these limited guarantees seem to want customers to think), but by retailers legally having to include that the guarantee 'does not affect the customer’s legal rights', this then makes it clearer to the customer, reminding them that they do have more rights, so countermanding any potentially misleading guarantees offered.The point about a retailer stating an item 'may' have scratches, is that the word 'may' is ambiguous, it can mean anything. They don't put that the item 'may' have been used as a poop-scoop, it probably hasn't, but it 'may' have been, so why don't they put that in the adverts? As far as I can see, the word 'may' in relation to scratches is used as a general get out clause, so therefore it is not an accurate description of the product offered because the customer cannot tell what condition the item they buy will be in.when they receive it. I know about the Distance Selling Regulations, but if the customers were given a more accurate description in the first place, then customers would not be put to that position of having to return an item because of an incorrect description. Even eBay insists on accurate descriptions of products from private sellers, and will refund customers if they are misled, so why is it so difficult for online retailers?http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/738369/738375/OFT002_SOGA_explained.pdf



Cool - point a: Their T&C page states the following line: "Your statutory rights are not affected.". Don't see how that's unclear.

Secondly - it *is* an accurate description of the goods. If I tell you "I have a random selection of used parts, some may have scratches." - by buying one, you're accepting the **described** risk. Therefore you know, in advance, that the item you buy may or may not have scratches - sounds fairly clear cut to me. You're buying a *used* item here, remember - you cannot expect it to be pristine. If they sold it as "perfect condition" and it turned up scratched, then you'd be able to use the SOGA.

If anything it's people like you that thinks the SOGA is the answer to everything that confuse matters more. The SOGA provides rights to BOTH the consumer and the retailer.

Oh, and just an FYI - the sale of goods act doesn't document warranty information - that's the Supply of Goods to Consumer Regulations - if you're going to start quoting crap, quote the right stuff at least ;).
If anyone is reluctant because it's a Grade B refurb, the Grade A is only £99.99 as well.
SixFeet

If anyone is reluctant because it's a Grade B refurb, the Grade A is only … If anyone is reluctant because it's a Grade B refurb, the Grade A is only £99.99 as well.



But they haven't got any A grade stock
so... to clarify... how much claimable warrantee?
Original Poster
SixFeet

If anyone is reluctant because it's a Grade B refurb, the Grade A is only … If anyone is reluctant because it's a Grade B refurb, the Grade A is only £99.99 as well.



As davidclack said the Grade A's have been out of stock for some time, thanks to the deal posted on here I suspect.

I don't know why the original op didn't post both Grade A and Grade B stock but the B's weren't posted, so here we are.
thomasfursdon

so... to clarify... how much claimable warrantee?


60 days
Out of stock.
giltbrook

Perhaps you should aquaint yourself better with the SOGA, if you have a … Perhaps you should aquaint yourself better with the SOGA, if you have a look at the following link, (page 39, bullet point 4) it clearly states, If you give a guarantee it must • state that it does not affect the customer’s legal rights.There is a very good reason for this, a lot of customers, (as seen in this community), think that if it states on a website that there is, say, a 6 month's guarantee given, that is the only protection they get, (which a lot of those retailers that give these limited guarantees seem to want customers to think), but by retailers legally having to include that the guarantee 'does not affect the customer’s legal rights', this then makes it clearer to the customer, reminding them that they do have more rights, so countermanding any potentially misleading guarantees offered.The point about a retailer stating an item 'may' have scratches, is that the word 'may' is ambiguous, it can mean anything. They don't put that the item 'may' have been used as a poop-scoop, it probably hasn't, but it 'may' have been, so why don't they put that in the adverts? As far as I can see, the word 'may' in relation to scratches is used as a general get out clause, so therefore it is not an accurate description of the product offered because the customer cannot tell what condition the item they buy will be in.when they receive it. I know about the Distance Selling Regulations, but if the customers were given a more accurate description in the first place, then customers would not be put to that position of having to return an item because of an incorrect description. Even eBay insists on accurate descriptions of products from private sellers, and will refund customers if they are misled, so why is it so difficult for online retailers?http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/738369/738375/OFT002_SOGA_explained.pdf



Issue with the Sales of Good Act is the fact that most companies flat out deny it exists. I've had numerous issues with trying to use that act, even the consumer advice line is useless as all they advise you to do is write a letter and if no response then claim via small claims court. So many hoops you have to go through to claim against retailer...Then there's the issue of them trying to fob you off with manufacturer warranty...

I had one company who wouldn't let me send back a television until I tried to get manufacturer to repair the television 3 times! Then they wouldn't refund until they checked the television over which took over 6 weeks! You can't claim against amazon, as they have offices in Luxenbourg which according to the consumer helpline means you can't use the sales of good act against them...Not that amazon acknowledges this exists nor do they know about the 2 year European warranty...

Issue is claiming against retailers is quite difficult...I had companies threaten me, tell me they'd sue me, put the phone down on me and even tried to accuse me of damage on a television even though I signed unchecked. They claimed they had checked the television over and have CCTV footage of them doing so, which I didn't believe of course...Eventually they agreed to pick the TV up for a fee of 50 pound, so they wouldn't make a loss of course...I did argue since the TV was in a poor condition and had a rather large scratch which was visible when viewing and highly distracting (Not fit for purpose) that they would have to pay for return shipping and even quoted the distance act. They continued to argue that the law isn't fair and they were unwilling to accept return unless I paid...I gave up and just paid the 50 pound out of the total refund.

The point is, even though the consumer rights in the UK are quite strong on paper that is, if you're willing to fight. Warning, you may be accused and bullied of things but remember persistence is key. If however you can't manage to cope with such situations then it'll be harder to claim against retailer which means in practise the laws aren't as strong as they should or could be.

Edited by: "Backriver000" 3rd Aug 2013
Backriver000

Issue with the Sales of Good Act is the fact that most companies flat out … Issue with the Sales of Good Act is the fact that most companies flat out deny it exists. I've had numerous issues with trying to use that act, even the consumer advice line is useless as all they advise you to do is write a letter and if no response then claim via small claims court. So many hoops you have to go through to claim against retailer...Then there's the issue of them trying to fob you off with manufacturer warranty...I had one company who wouldn't let me send back a television until I tried to get manufacturer to repair the television 3 times! Then they wouldn't refund until they checked the television over which took over 6 weeks! You can't claim against amazon, as they have offices in Luxenbourg which according to the consumer helpline means you can't use the sales of good act against them...Not that amazon acknowledges this exists nor do they know about the 2 year European warranty...Issue is claiming against retailers is quite difficult...I had companies threaten me, tell me they'd sue me, put the phone down on me and even tried to accuse me of damage on a television even though I signed unchecked. They claimed they had checked the television over and have CCTV footage of them doing so, which I didn't believe of course...Eventually they agreed to pick the TV up for a fee of 50 pound, so they wouldn't make a loss of course...I did argue since the TV was in a poor condition and had a rather large scratch which was visible when viewing and highly distracting (Not fit for purpose) that they would have to pay for return shipping and even quoted the distance act. They continued to argue that the law isn't fair and they were unwilling to accept return unless I paid...I gave up and just paid the 50 pound out of the total refund. The point is, even though the consumer rights in the UK are quite strong on paper that is, if you're willing to fight. Warning, you may be accused and bullied of things but remember persistence is key. If however you can't manage to cope with such situations then it'll be harder to claim against retailer which means in practise the laws aren't as strong as they should or could be.



This was their reply-

"I can see the scratches clearly. This TV is in an appalling condition. This TV would have been rechecked before delivery and we have at least two other people, including myself, saw that this item was in no such condition before delivery.
I drove the van myself for delivery so it is not even a case of bad courier driver or mishandling. Given the poor condition the TV is now in, we are not able to do anything for you"

Remember people, the guy who delivered it to me did not check tv on delivery. I signed unchecked! The TV was refurbished by the way and was called grade A by them...Plus, the way they packed the tv was poorly done and the stand was rubbing against the actual screen of the tv!

Edited by: "Backriver000" 3rd Aug 2013
Original Poster
Yeah point should be made to sign the delivery note on any refurbished goods as unchecked!!
giltbrook

If that is the case, why does it not state that in the description?


If the item was perfect it would be an (A grade), B grade indicates some minor damage which is not specified, hence why you take your chances when you purchase a B grade item. Myself I pay a little extra and always go for an A grade, and I have never been disappointed with any purchase of this grade.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text