Viewing 36 posts - 41 through 76 (of 76 total)
  • Faulty item, sale of goods act etc….
  • thehustler
    Free Member

    yet again you miss ouyt those two words reasonable timescale from your interpretation which yet again you are unable to define

    weirdnumber
    Free Member

    TJ the law is NOT clear. You can reject the item in a reasonable time so that you are able to inspect the goods. As mentioned several times this is not outlined. A retailer could easily argue that after 28 days he has had enough time to inspect the goods and as such has accepted them.

    The six months is a time period in which a burdon of proof is put on the retailer. It is not defacto accepted that it is inherently faulty.
    The retailer just has to proove that the goods were of satisfactory condition when they were purchased.
    After six months it’s up to you to provide proof that they were faulty when purchased.

    Elfinsafety
    Free Member

    I bought a jacket last Winter time, about January. Recently some stitching’s coming away at the cuff. No big deal, I’ll just sew it up bosh bosh job done.

    Now, had it started unravelling just a few weeks after I’d bought it, ittuduv gone back asap. And I’duv got a full refund. But seeing as how it’s bin a while, and I coon’t prove it were owt more than ‘wear and tear’, then I’d probbly not stand much chance of getting a refund, as ittud be very difficult to prove manufacturing defect.

    Poddy’s jacket is expensive and you’d expect it to last a good while, speshly considering it’s a ‘safety’ garment of sorts. You don’t want such a thing falling apart on you at high speed, do you?

    I’duv just walked in and said ‘replace pliz thx bai’. And tha wooduv bin it. No arguments, no mucking about. Give to me new one or money back now.

    And if they’d even dared wibbling about it, I’duv had a poo on their counter. 😐

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    From your link

    Faulty goods that have been accepted

    If the item does not conform to contract (is faulty) for any of the reasons outlined and the customer has accepted the goods, the law says the customer is entitled to claim a repair or replacement of the goods in the first instance.

    It really is clear – its just some retailers try to weasel out of it.

    Faulty goods – refund / replacement / repair the buyers choice so long as the timescale is reasonable which is not defined.

    sugdenr
    Free Member

    weirdnumber – you are making some valid points, but it all depends on the context. The only area I firmly disagree is (a) the idea that the retailer has the choice, in fact the legislation states that consumers can require….repair or replacement. That puts the onus on the consumer to choose, and (b)the concept that once you have accepted the goods you cannot reject them, that is a misconception. How long until you can reject them is dependent on time and goods in consideration.

    PeterPoddy
    Free Member

    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.

    weirdnumber
    Free Member

    No…

    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.

    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.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    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
    Free Member

    @sugdenr see my post above regarding which has to be offered.

    sugdenr
    Free Member

    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. 😈

    weirdnumber
    Free Member

    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.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    weirdnumber – Member

    No…

    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

    weirdnumber
    Free Member

    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 🙂

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    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.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    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.

    sugdenr
    Free Member

    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!

    weirdnumber
    Free Member

    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).

    (3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—

    (a)impossible, or

    (b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or

    (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.

    (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—

    (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 “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.

    Appears to agree with my point.

    weirdnumber
    Free Member

    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.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    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, the buyer may require the seller—

    (a)to repair the goods, or

    (b)to replace the goods.

    disproportionate in comparison to the other 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

    weirdnumber
    Free Member

    It says disproportianate to the cost of the other.
    It does not simply say that it has to cost more.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    )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.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    So what about the OP’s jacket?

    weirdnumber
    Free Member

    @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 only 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.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    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.
    http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf

    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 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); 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.
    Additional rights for consumers
    Alternatively, consumers (see definition in
    the “Introduction”) can choose to request
    instead:
    P a repair or replacement.

    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. If neither
    repair nor replacement is realistically
    possible, consumers can request instead:
    P a partial or full refund,
    depending on
    what is reasonable in the circumstances.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    infact here it is for you

    flow chart by TandemJeremy, on Flickr

    cinnamon_girl
    Full Member

    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. 😀

    weirdnumber
    Free Member

    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.
    http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf

    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 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);

    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.

    rejection of sale, covered this several times

    Additional rights for consumers
    Alternatively, consumers (see definition in
    the “Introduction”) can choose to request
    instead:
    P a repair or replacement.
    The retailer can decline either of these if he
    can show that they are disproportionately
    costly in comparison with the alternative.

    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.

    However, any remedy must also be
    completed without significant
    inconvenience to the consumer. If neither
    repair nor replacement is realistically
    possible, consumers can request instead:
    P a partial or full refund, depending on
    what is reasonable in the circumstances.

    If the retailer can’t repair or replace then they have to offer a partial or full refund, this has never been in dispute

    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)? rejection of sale, again covered this
    YES>
    Refund is allowed as sale is rejected. again covered this

    Is there a fault?
    YES>
    Is it within a reasonable amount of time? rejection of sale declined, again covered this
    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 can’t be offered. covered this already Within the first six months the burdon of proof is on the retailer again, covered this

    So in summary;

    Product faulty within a short period of time = refund due to rejection of sale – Check
    After that period and within six months the retailer has to demonstrate the goods conformed to contract at the time of sale – Check
    If they can then they offer a repair or replacement – Check
    They can decline either repair or replacement if they can show one is disproportiantly more expensive than the other. – Check

    So err, thanks for demonstrating my explanation the sales of goods act I guess. 😐

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    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.

    weirdnumber
    Free Member

    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 can decline either of these if he
    can show that they are disproportionately
    costly in comparison with the alternative.

    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.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    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

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    editted – pointless – indeed people can read the clear and simple advice to find the truth.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    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.

    martinxyz
    Free Member

    25 Dainese textile jackets have been made during this double pager!

    CharlieMungus
    Free Member

    My vote:TJ wins the argument

    RichPenny
    Free Member

    Timshel 🙁

    PeterPoddy
    Free Member

    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 🙂

Viewing 36 posts - 41 through 76 (of 76 total)

The topic ‘Faulty item, sale of goods act etc….’ is closed to new replies.