Forum menu
Edit - pointless.
Yes my missus who studied law at university to honours and worked in the field for decades does not understand how it works, the advice from the government (that I have quoted you) is wrong. The retailer calls the shots.
Inherent fault
Relevant or Related Legislation:Sale of Goods Act 1979. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.
Key Facts:• Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not [b]inherently faulty[/b] at the time of sale).
-------------------------
Q1. What is an inherent fault?A fault present at the time of purchase. Examples are:
• an error in design so that a product is manufactured incorrectly
• an error in manufacturing where a faulty component was inserted.
The "fault" may not become apparent immediately but it was there at the time of sale and so the product was not of satisfactory standard.
Crikey ... Id best get along and write a scathing letter to Parliament then that their website is misleading millions of consumers and retailers with its website of lies ...
TJ FOR THE LAST TIME
CONSMER RIGHTS
REFUND IN A REAONABLE TIME SCALE, REASONABLE TIMESCALE IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION BY BOTH THE CONSUMER AND RETAILER AND IS THERFORE NOT AN AUTOMATIC RIGHT AS IT HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED IN LAW, MOST CONSUMER BODIES WORK ON AN ASSUMED PERIOD OF 4 WEEKS, AND WILE THIS ISN'T WRITTEN IN LAW IT IS A USUALLY AGREED PERIOD (THIS CAN VARY BY PRODUCT AND CIRCUMSTANCE)
REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT, THE CONSUMER CAN REPAIR OR REPLACE A FAULTY ITEM IF IT IS PRACTICAL TO DO SO WITHIN A REASONABLE TIMESCALE (SEEN THE ABOVE). IF A REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT IS NOT POSSIBLE A FULL/PARTIAL REFUND MAY BE OFFERED DEPENDING ON LENGTH OF USE.
BECAUSE OF THE ENDLESS WAYS THE WORD REASONABLE CAN BE INTERPRETED IT EXCLUDES AN AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO REFUND. YOUR 'EXPERT' WIFE MUST KNOW THIS AND IF SHE DOESN'T SHE SHOULD REALLY THINK ABOUT A CAREER CHANGE
From your link!
When you buy an item from a trader (eg a shop or online shop) the law says the item must be:* of satisfactory quality – last for the time you would expect it to and be free of any defects
* fit for purpose – fit for the use described and any specific use you made clear to the trader
* as described – match the description on packaging or what the trader told youIf an item doesn’t meet any of these rights, it is faulty and [b]you [/b]will usually [b]have the right to a:
[/b]
[b]* repair
* replacement
* refund[/b]
😆
Hustler's gone to CAPS AND THEREFORE LOSES!!!
The Hustler - the only thing you have got wrong there is the 4 weeks. directly contradicted in the government advice. the rest I agree with and have done throughout this thread.
As said on many many occaisions the 4 weeks is not witten in statute as it can be varied by product/circumstance, however if you talk to/seek the adice of or get refernce material from most consumer bodies they ALL use the 4 weeks as a general rule
Not in the experience of my missus. She has never heard of that. the BERR advice directly contradicts that.
what ever the advice what ever tj's mrs thinks you try and enforce it, you try and get trading standards to enforce it only one thing will happen...NOTHING
[url= http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange ]null[/url]
from the marin lewis site
TJ How about you ask your SO about acceptance / rejection of goods and the influence that has on your beliefs.
Namely if the purchaser accepts the goods (ie keeps them for a "reasonable" length of time / altered them / told you they have accepted them) and what their rights are then, and wether they are then able to reject the goods and DEMAND a full refund without the retailer having the option to repair / replace.
Then scurry on back here to report.
If the BERR advice is correct, why do you need to trawl the web archive to find it, and why is it not replicated on a live website?
It's not the consumer's choice at all, what utter rubbish! My car's fuel gauge intermittently doesn't reflect me filling it with fuel, does that mean that I'll get all my money back as a result? I only found this out after 1000 miles, but I'm guessing that driving 1000 miles doesn't mean I've accepted the car??
Does mean that the manufacturer is bound to repair / replace or their option to refund though.
There was some poor beggar who purchased an Audi TT, apparently it pulled to the left so he tried to reject the car. Cost him £100K to go through the legal system ... where he lost ... and guess who had to foot the bill. Even the judge addressed him as an idiot over that one. Reckoned it was an inherent characteristic of the car ... whoops.
One mans fault is another mans quirk ...
Mightymarmite - I did. She said its irrelevant if there is an inherent fault that you did not or could not know about.
If something has an inherent fault you have an absolute right to your money back.
Waht you are banging on about is when you have bought something and it is OK and later develops a fault that is not an inherent fault. A different situation.
So..... in this case, the forks didn't have an inherant fault as:
a) Loads of people have them and use them without dying
b) The OP has had them ages and ages and has used them happily for most of this period.
Ergo, he is not entitled to a refund on his insistence alone.
Better go get your money back then Alasdair ... and DenDennis Id suggest you get Mrs TJ to go get your full refund, obviously knows what she is doing.
boblo - arguable as he has had them repaired several times and so have other folk. Arguable tho. He would have been in a stronger place trying to return them after less than six months as then the burden of proof is reversed.
Regardless of who is right or wrong, neither the consumer or retailer has the decision. Ultimately that is down to the judge on the day who is enforcing the law. He will listen to both parties and make a decision from that. The varibles consumer law cover are huge, it can be interpreted in different ways by different judges.
As for the OP, I'd say a refund is highly unlikely, have the forks ever been serviced in accordance with the manual?
<edited to remove cobblers>
Have they been serviced every 5 minutes as per the manufacturers requirements?
Whatever you think TJ, this man is not getting a full refund after 2 years of fork abuse is he? 🙂
Huh ? But its an inherent fault, we've established that already remember
Not so. You have the right to refund as well but it might only be partial refund if you have had substantial use.Also its your choice refund replace repair - not the shops