Ah, I think I know what you’re trying to say. I think you’re suggesting:
That way you’ve got your £40 discount
Is that what you’re saying?
Ha! Yes, I worked it out, posted the above reply then saw yours. We must’ve been posting at the same time.
I think I agree with you on this. Interesting one.
Apologies to @Rjevski if I misinterpreted what he meant.
Just contact them and they’ll likely just refund the difference to you.
Even if it has a few scratches, Samsung won’t mind about receiving it as a return. They go above the legal minimum as most reputable companies do.
I’ve already contacted them and said they won’t refund the difference
In case people are interested i’ve decided to return the phone as i’ve found an additional cashback offer I can use which would mean the discount would be more like £75 so it seems worthwhile to me to return it, thanks for all the input! 
Yeah, I was just going to say. All the phones I’ve bought online have had the IMEI printed on the invoice. I always just thought it was a way to prevent the laundering of stolen phones. I’ve never bought one from Argos before though.
I don’t think Argos are particularly well known for laundering stolen phones. 
Unless someone knows different, of course!
It’s also to stop people from returning old phones as new.
Prevention is better then cure. 
It doesn’t matter how you do the deal, it’s still fraud and a form of exploitation.
Even if the better phone goes back to the first retail it can never be sold as new again. Plus I’m surprised this one doesn’t get flagged as manufacturers would know the phone returned wasn’t brought there too. So the retailer may lose out because it wasn’t their stock in the first place.
I think you’ve crossed streams. Although other people have suggested what you’re referring to, I’m pretty sure the OP intends to return the phone they bought from retailer A to retailer A so they can make a purchase from retailer B instead at the better price. There’s no fraud involved in that.
Well according to a post earlier linked, which shows the definition of fraud, it suggests otherwise.
I’m not legally trained but let’s look at the details. Phone x is brought, new offer comes out, a new phone is brought but at the discounted rate. Original phone is returned.
The buyer gains the money from the discount, the seller of the original phone losses because the phone cannot be resold as new and has been a victim of exploitation of their return rules.
To me that is dishonest and exploitation, and according to a link earlier in the thread, it’s a form of fraud.
Returns are not meant to be used so people can exploit the system to gain a discount on the same model of handset.
It depends what they say their returns policy is
If it’s “if for any reason you are unhappy” then it’s fair enough, OP was unhappy they could get a cheaper phone a short time later
That’s not fraud, though. If their policy says there’s a returns window, and you return it in the window, that’s fine. It’s on the retailer to set and apply their policy. Unless it specifically says “only in certain circumstances” and the buyer lies about the circumstance, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here. Seems to be a standard ‘cooling off’ or ‘no quibble’ period policy, so all’s fair.
Analogous situation = hasn’t happened recent, but I’m sure I have in the past returned items.to Amazon because they dropped the price, wouldn’t refund the difference, and was still in the returns period. So, refund, buy again at the cheaper price. But hasn’t happened for a while now because Amazon did twig it was better to refund the difference, and also I avoid buying things close to expected sale periods.
tl;dr, if the policy allows it, it can’t be fraud.
Out of interest, what was the retailer that was offering a 30 day no questions asked return policy? Seems very generous if true.
The fact the retailer wouldn’t offer to refund anything from the original price, once the new price came out, sort of gives their stance away straight away.
So thereby using the returns policy knowing the retailer wasn’t prepared to offer the discount is suspect and exploitation. It’s using the system to effect a discount that you wouldn’t have otherwise got.
This is like buying an outfit , wearing it out and then returning it, or do people not think that’s wrong if the shop has an open policy on returns too?
And bear in mind the OP admitted the goods were scratched too, so maybe an outfit that got stained on a night out and then returned?
Surely you can see the problem here?
Just to point out i’ve already spoken to Samsung and told them of my intention to return it and they had no problems with me doing that.
It’s Samsung
“You may cancel the contract and return your products for any reason within 28 days of the day you receive the product(s).”
And if you read the small print, it says you must take reasonable care of the product and unless faulty must be returned as ‘new’ .
So if it has scratches, how is that as ‘new’?
They also reserve the right the ask for compensation if you fail to meet the conditions of the product being returned.
Anyway, this is pointless, for me this is dishonest as the company will lose money and the only individual that gains will be you. Clearly you don’t see that as issue.
You may cancel the contract and return your products for any reason within 28 days of the day you receive the product(s).
Literally impossible to be dishonest. If they had restrictions and one lied in order to meet them, that would be dishonest. But it’s right there in bold that there are none.