Under the Sale of Goods to Consumers Legislation 2002, a retailer can decline the replacement remedy if the cost would be disproportionately higher than the cost repair of – or vice versa.
A decision on the cost being disproportionate should take account of the value of the goods if they were to conform to contract; the significance of the lack of conformity and whether the alternative remedy could be completed without significant inconvenience to the consumer.
If a four-year-old TV was only worth £50 and a repair would cost £75 then the retailer could decline such a request and offer a replacement, assuming he had a similar four-year-old model in stock or had prompt access to one. If he had neither of the latter, then he could refuse both repair and replacement and would move onto the partial refund remedy.
However if the remedy provided fails or the retailer fails to provide a remedy that is not inconvenient to the consumer, then the consumer can demand a next level of compensation which could be a refund, partial refund, replacement or repair.