Forum menu
Oh bugger. 2 pages now!
I'm trying to sell bikes for profit on ebay here!
I'll read it all later but
by 'it' you mean them [dianese].
No, by 'it' I mean the laws, not the shop.
No...
Faulty goods - Refund [b]prior[/b] to goods being accepted. Repair [b]or[/b] replacement [b]after[/b] the goods have been accepted.
The law says that the buyer cannot require the seller to do one over the other if the cost is disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies. For example you can't demand they replace a £1000 tv if they are offering to repair it because the cost of replacing it is disproportianately more expensive than repairing it.
If repairing it cannot be carried out without significant inconvenience to the buyer then the same applies. The seller can't demand a repair over a replacement.
PeterPoddy - Member£250 Dianese jacket
I expect it to hold together when I'm sliding down the road
Wrong brand unfortunately. Cheapest Dainese are pretty tough, but the more expensive they are the worse protection they offer, generally- they turn all their attention to looks, comfort and feel but that lovely supple leather tears more easily, so seams are more likely to burst. (some of their jackets have loads of exposed stitching too which makes things even worse)
Lovely kit but substandard in a crash, generally.
weirdnumber - I think the point you are trying to make by acceptance is the point at which reasonable attempt at repair without undue inconvenience comes before replacement can be demanded.
This may be true as a general rule, however the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations amended the position such that, absent contary factors or demonstration othewise, the presumption in the first 6m is that the goods were faulty 'at time of sale' - thus the buyer can reject because he/she is in essence rejecting at the time of sale. And since you would not buy a faulty item (without price reduction), you may demand a refund. At your choice you may instead take a discount (compensation) or a new replacement.
I know not of anything in any legislation that states that the seller may decide repair or replace, in fact it mostly states that (after 6m) the buyer can require the seller to repair or replace. What is reasonable at that time (for the buyer to demand) is as you correctly envisage and it is a true point that 9with consumer goods) you (generally) cant make someone repair if they decide to replace.
I would have to pull rank on you as regards understanding of the law i'm afraid. Suffice to say, PP as I am local and (unwittingly) sold you a dodgy scooter once and still feel I owe you, if you have any problems email me and I will make sure you get a nice new jacket. 😈
sugdenr - Ok clearly you do understand the law and I appreciate a rational discussion. The retailer has the opportunity to show that the goods conformed to contract at the point of sale.
If a tv functions without problems for 5 and a half months then the backlight stops working. The seller can show that the goods did conform at the date of purchase so the right of the buyer to reject is invalid.
Or is that assumption incorrect?
If it's incorrect then every retailer I have worked for, or purchased from has been in breach of the law.
weirdnumber - MemberNo...
Faulty goods - Refund prior to goods being accepted. Repair or replacement after the goods have been accepted.
The law says that the buyer cannot require the seller to do one over the other if the cost is disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies. For example you can't demand they replace a £1000 tv if they are offering to repair it because the cost of replacing it is disproportianately more expensive than repairing it.
Wrong again - what the law says is the buyer cannot insist on a repair if the cost of repair is more than the good are worth.
Teh maximum liability of the retailer is the cost of the goods. So yes in that case the buyer is entitled to a new £1000 tv. what they cannot insist on is repair if the repair is more than the £1000
go and read the law
sugdenr - Just reread your post. As to the point about the buyer being able to request repair or replacement, the act explicitly states that the buyer cannot require one remedy over the other if that remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies. Then describes that one remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable.
That seems reasonably clear to me that as a seller I can deny replacement if the cost is greatly more than the repair that I am offering.
Again thoughts and your reason as to why you disagree if you do are appreciated, if my reasoning if wrong I would like to learn why.
Thanks 🙂
sugdenr - Just reread your post. As to the point about the buyer being able to request repair or replacement, the act explicitly states that the buyer cannot require one remedy over the other if that remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies.
it simply does not.
what it sates is the maximum liability is the cost purchase or rplacement thus the buyer cannot insist on repair if that is more than the cost of replacement
Find me the bit that claims what you say.
Q11. The retailer has said that a repair is "disproportionately costly" and insists I accept a replacement as an alternative. Must I accept this?
Yes, and vice versa if you request a replacement and this is "disproportionately costly". However, remember any remedy has to be carried out "without significant inconvenience" and within a "reasonable time" for the consumer. Remember that you could also seek damages instead.
Q12. Neither repair nor replacement of the goods are possible. What can I do?
You may either pursue the old route of damages or a partial or full refund. Probably either would give you exactly the same amount of money. You would seek a full refund in scenarios such as those where you had enjoyed absolutely no benefit from the goods. If you had benefited from them then you would seek a partial refund as a fair remedy. This is exactly the reasoning that would be employed if you sought damages.
Q13. What does the "reversed burden of proof" mean for the consumer?
It means that for the first six months the consumer need not produce any evidence that a product was inherently faulty at the time of sale. If a consumer is seeking any other remedy the burden of proof remains with him/her.
If a tv functions without problems for 5 and a half months then the backlight stops working. The seller can show that the goods did conform at the date of purchase so the right of the buyer to reject is invalid.
Or is that assumption incorrect?
That is definitely where it gets grey, but take your example and the buyer may be able to get a new telly, unjust as it might be, because he is in the 6m, even though 5.5m suggests that it was correct at sale and repair is justified in the circumstances.
Unfortunately there are 2 elements, your rights, and how effectively you can enforce those rights. Before the subjective kangaroo lottery that are the small claim courts, one judge may be draconian and one very reasonable. You pays your money and takes your chance!
However PP's jacket stitching is clearly designed to last years and has failed after a matter of weeks, so its a no brainer that it must be replaced.
Unfortunately a mail order motorbike business owner once told me that anyone who doesnt like what they just bought simply picks at some stitching and sends it back and there is little or nothing he can do to fight it!
TJ - The bit you just quoted from my post was taken directly from the sales of goods act.
(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller—
(a)to repair the goods, or
(b)to replace the goods.
(2)If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—
(a)repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;
(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).
[b](3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—[/b]
(a)impossible, or
[b](b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or[/b]
(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.
[b](4)One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—[/b]
(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,
(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and
(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.
(5)Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined by reference to—
(a)the nature of the goods, and
(b)the purpose for which the goods were acquired.
Then the bit that you posted;
Q11. The retailer has said that a repair is [b]"disproportionately costly"[/b] and insists I accept a replacement as an alternative. Must I accept this?[b]Yes[/b], and [b]vice versa if you request a replacement and this is "disproportionately costly"[/b]. However, remember any remedy has to be carried out "without significant inconvenience" and within a "reasonable time" for the consumer. Remember that you could also seek damages instead.
Appears to agree with my point.
Ok thanks sugdenr, so essentially you are saying that either case in my example could be argued validly and the law is as grey as I assumed.
To clarify my points though, I was never referring specifically to the issue the OP had, just the law in general.
Yes read what you quote.
One remedy is to replace the goods -the buyer cannot insist on repair if it costs more than replacement.
If section 48A above applies, [b]the buyer[/b] may require the seller—(a)to repair the goods, or
(b)[b]to replace the goods[/b].
disproportionate in comparison [b]to the other[/b] of those remedies
so under that subsection its teh buyers choice repair or replace so long as the cost of repair does not exceed the cost top replace replace
It says disproportianate to the cost of the other.
It does not simply say that it has to cost more.
)One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,
Ie if the cost of repair is more than the goods cost it is disproportionate.
It is not that you can repair if its cheaper than replace, its that you cannot be forced to repair if its more expensive than replacement.
So what about the OP's jacket?
@Cougar - sugdenr has offered to get him a new one 😈
@TJ The value the goods would have is taken into consideration. So repair would not have to be carried out if a replacement is cheaper or vice versa. That is valid but it does not exclude the consideration that the seller may also refuse one over the other if they are disproportianate in comparison to the other even if both cost less now than the value of the goods at the time of the contract.
I disagree with your assertion and interpretation that a replacement can [b]only[/b] be declined if it costs more than a replacement, and I have yet to come across any consumer advice, government or otherwise that explicitly states this.
And the act as I read it allows for a replacement or a repair to be declined with respect to the value of the goods or to be declined with the respect to the proportianate cost of the other.
Well its quite clearly stated in the regs and advice quoted as I have explained to you and quoted at length.
Have a read of this - it explains your obligations as a retailer. It cannot be any clearer.
Oage 7 has a flow cahrt that explains it well
Remedies
If a product that was faulty at the time of
sale is returned to the retailer, the buyer
[b]is legally entitled to:
P a full refund[/b], if this is within a reasonable
time of the sale ("reasonable time" is not
defined in law but is often quite short); or
P a [b]reasonable amount of compensation
(or "damages") for up to six years from
the date of sale [/b](five years after discovery
of the problem in Scotland).
This does not mean all goods have to last
six years! It is the limit for making a claim in
respect of a fault that was present at the
time of sale. It is not equivalent to a
guarantee.
Additional rights for consumers
Alternatively, [b]consumers[/b] (see definition in
the "Introduction")[b] can choose to request
instead:
P a repair or replacement.[/b]
The retailer can decline either of these if he
can show that they are disproportionately
costly in comparison with the alternative.
However, any remedy must also be
completed without significant
inconvenience to the consumer. [b]If neither
repair nor replacement is realistically
possible, consumers can request instead:
P a partial or full refund, [/b]depending on
what is reasonable in the circumstances.
infact here it is for you
[url= http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6036/6427665403_6476f1eb1d_o.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/25846484@N04/6427665403/ ]flow chart[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/25846484@N04/ ]TandemJeremy[/url], on Flickr
Don't listen to that lot up there ^^
Just go in with some Poddy delicious home-baking and they'll be eating out of your hand literally. 😀
Let me highlight the salient points that you are completely choosing to ignore.
You are right it cannot be any clearer.
Well its quite clearly stated in the regs and advice quoted as I have explained to you and quoted at length.Have a read of this - it explains your obligations as a retailer. It cannot be any clearer.
Oage 7 has a flow cahrt that explains it well
Remedies
If a product that was faulty at the time of
sale is returned to the retailer, the buyer
is legally entitled to:
P [b]a full refund, if this is within a reasonable
time of the sale ("reasonable time" is not
defined in law but is often quite short);[/b]
or
P a reasonable amount of compensation
(or "damages") for up to six years from
the date of sale (five years after discovery
of the problem in Scotland).
This does not mean all goods have to last
six years! It is the limit for making a claim in
respect of a fault that was present at the
time of sale. It is not equivalent to a
guarantee.
[b]rejection of sale, covered this several times[/b]
Additional rights for consumers
Alternatively, consumers (see definition in
the "Introduction") can choose to request
instead:
P a repair or replacement.
[b]The retailer can decline either of these if he
can show that they are disproportionately
costly in comparison with the alternative.[/b]
[b]So the retailer can decline either if it is disproportionately costly in comparison with the alternative. Reads exactly like the point I was making a few posts up.[/b]
However, any remedy must also be
completed without significant
inconvenience to the consumer. If neither
repair nor replacement is [b]realistically[/b]
possible, consumers can request instead:
P a partial or full refund, depending on
what is reasonable in the circumstances.
[b]If the retailer can't repair or replace then they have to offer a partial or full refund, this has never been in dispute[/b]
And then the flow chart you post exactly demonstrate the points I was making.
Is there a fault?
YES>
Is it within a reasonable amount of time (usually a fairly short period)? [b]rejection of sale, again covered this[/b]
YES>
Refund is allowed as sale is rejected. [b]again covered this[/b]
Is there a fault?
YES>
Is it within a reasonable amount of time? [b]rejection of sale declined, again covered this[/b]
NO>
Is it within six years and a period in which the goods can reasonably last?
YES>
A repair or replacement should be offered or a refund if this [b]can't[/b] be offered. [b]covered this already[/b] Within the first six months the burdon of proof is on the retailer [b]again, covered this[/b]
So in summary;
Product faulty within a short period of time = refund due to rejection of sale - [b]Check[/b]
After that period and within six months the retailer has to demonstrate the goods conformed to contract at the time of sale - [b]Check[/b]
If they can then they offer a repair or replacement - [b]Check[/b]
They can decline either repair or replacement if they can show one is disproportiantly more expensive than the other. - [b]Check[/b]
So err, thanks for demonstrating my explanation the sales of goods act I guess. 😐
No - it shows you are wrong and have been all along. You claimed that the retailer had the choice - they do not. you claimed the retailer could repair if cheaper - they don't have that right.
[img] 
[/img]
To quote your own source of information TJ
Alternatively, consumers (see definition in
the "Introduction") can choose to request
instead:
- a repair or replacement.
The retailer [b]can decline either of these if he
can show that they are disproportionately
costly in comparison with the alternative.[/b]
That clearly says the retailer can declince replacing it if they can show that it is disproportianatly more expensive than repairing.
I'm done, this is pointless. Have the final say, I couldn't disagree with you more and every source you have quoted makes the same points I have made.
Others if they can be bothered can read the posts draw their own conclusions.
Yes and it defines that as if the cost of the replacement or repair is more then the value of the goods it is disproportionately costly
editted - pointless - indeed people can read the clear and simple advice to find the truth.
Repair and Replacement
Consumers (see definition above) can,
if purchases do not conform to contract
and they do not wish (or are not entitled)
to reject the goods or claim compensation,
specifically request a repair or a replacement.
example
Confronted with a five-year-old piano
with an inherent fault, the consumer
can request that it be repaired rather
than pursuing compensation to pay for
a repair that he then has to arrange
himself. Alternatively, he could request
a replacement five - year-old piano of
the same/similar specification,
assuming that finding one was
practicable (perhaps only so for a
dealer of both new and second-hand
products).
11
Its the buyers choice not the retailers.
25 Dainese textile jackets have been made during this double pager!
My vote:TJ wins the argument
Timshel 🙁
All sorted. Picked a new jacket up today, no quibbling at all.
I posted this just in case they argued (And I was bored) but they didn't and as such I'm 100% happy with the customer service.
For the record, the store in question is Infinity/The Motorbike Shop on Lynchford Road in Farnborough.
I've used them for years since they were Motorcycle City and had a rep like Evans do on STW, but, like Evans, I've always found them helpful, reasonably priced (Tyres especially) and willing to do a deal to get a sale. I got a free £70 Dianese back protector with this jacket and trousers, simply for asking, for instance. I've bought 2 bikes from them, at least 2 helmets, boots, gloves, 3-4 jackets and countless spares and tyres over the years and I'll keep going back
Me = Happy 🙂