Laptop Lifespan? **SORTED**

[rosiecotton]

Originally Posted by StoneLaughter

Can you point out the specific parts of the legislation which PREVENT Ellie getting a full refund?

Yes, these are the parts I would flag up:

Section 35 (4) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations.
The buyer is also deemed to have accepted the goods when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them.

This reasonable time in cases such as Ellie's is generally quite short and only there to allow the consumer to check the goods for defects upon purchase. So we can say that Ellie will be seen to have legally accepted the goods. After legal acceptance has taken place, the consumer loses the right to reject the goods for a full refund.

Now, the remedy for claiming a refund after acceptance has taken place is rescission of the contract.

Part 5a of the amended Act (the Regulations) states:

48(C) (3) For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him.

Therefore, if Ellie is after financial compensation, she would need to go for rescission of the contract, which will have to allow for the use she has had from the product (at least six months, before it went wrong).

To be honest, if I was the trader in this case and I had a customer with a laptop which had died so dramatically after only 6 months, I probably would have offered a new same-model replacement if it was available. However, not all traders will do this, some may see it as disproportionate and offer a repair or rescission, and unfortunately consumers cannot force a trader to provide a particular remedy if they can reasonably argue that it is disproportionate. It is entirely possible that a judge would agree with this, although some may be more sympathetic towards the consumer.

[Mark_Blackpool]

Just to add a cautionary note: from my own experiences and those I've worked with, hard disk drives are especially prone to failure in laptops, probably because they get so hot and are one of the few moving parts. With regular (daily) use I tend to find that a hard drive will last about 18 months.

Fortunately they're easy to replace and not that expensive (circa £50 for a 60GB one) - but do back up the data often.

[StoneLaughter]

@Rosie

OK, now we're getting somewhere. I concede that there is legislation to back up your position. HOWEVER; the outcome of any dispute is ultimately at the discretion of a Judge (which you have mentioned yourself). I happen to believe that if Ellie's case came to court and was presented appropriately and with some skill, it would be sufficient to convince the Judge that a full refund was appropriate. Perhaps I didn't make my meaning that clear before; but neither did you - you seemed to imply that a full refund was impossible or at best extremely unlikely. My meaning is that I believe a Judge in a small claims hearing would accept Ellie's case and award a full refund or at least minimise Ellie's required contribution in the case of a partial refund. I do not believe that he/she would require a "significant" (i.e. more than 15%) contribution.

[rosiecotton]

No, I do absolutely agree that six months use is pretty low, and the company certainly wouldn't have any reason to withhold a sizeable chunk of money. And yes, ultimately only a judge can decide what that reasonable amount is. If I were a judge (which I'm not!) I would not award a full refund on this case, but I would indeed make the contribution a reasonably small one bearing in mind Ellie has only been able to use the laptop properly for about six months.

I tend to stick to the letter of the law, which of course not all judges always do - some are more sympathetic than others, so if it does come to court there's no harm in aiming high. I just wanted Ellie to be aware that she's not guaranteed a full refund in law, as some of the posts here seemed to be implying (no offence if it wasn't meant to be read in that way).

[JonCris]

Originally Posted by StoneLaughter

No - actually it muddies the waters even further. Within six months of purchase, in deciding whether or not a full refund is applicable, the retailer is to prove that the item was NOT faulty at sale. AFTER the six month period, the onus shifts to the consumer to prove that it WAS faulty at sale. The SOGA may not provide for "Betterment" however it specifically provides for an item to be replaced or a full refund offered in cases where the item was faulty at sale. Our belief is that Ellie has a strong case and can easily prove to the satisfaction of a Judge that the item was faulty at sale - and therefore is entitled to a full refund or a replacement of equivalent spec. That doesn't mean that she can get a brand spanking new machine, better than the old one, unless that spec is no longer available in which case an item of equivalent value can be substituted.

Can you point out the specific parts of the legislation which PREVENT Ellie getting a full refund?

Correct Tom some people are missing the point. Under common law there are 2 overiding factors 1st is that any claimant MUST seek to mitigate their losses 2nd the negligent defendant IS required to reinstate the claimant to the position they where in pre incident.
Also there are a number of factors which decide this.
Is the machine repairable to it's original condition. (Also it should be noted that contrary that what is claimed by sellers if a major component is replaced then the warranty time cycle begins again on that part)
Does the replacement machine offer the same functions as the failed one. If not then the nearest spec machine would be supplied irrespective of cost.
For example you might need WIFI cos you use your laptop on the move & if the replacement doesn't offer WIFI you can demand a replacement that does even if it costs more.
In the case of a laptop they could offer an equivilant of simular age but they would still have to offer a comprehensive guarantee so it could actually be cheaper (bearing in mind the markup) for them to supply a new item which will be covered by a manufactures guarantee

rosiecotton
Noone me included is saying it IS the law that she will receive a full refund. What I am saying, as are others I believe, is that depending on the circumstances there is NO reason why she cannot be awarded FULL restitution. & a full refund after six or even 12 months months use is really 'a no brainer'. I would even go so far as to say a full refund or replacement after 2 years would not be untoward. Such awards happen all the time

Claimant on benefits 2 year old washing machine packed in. Dealer tried to demand a financial contribution for a replacement. Demand refused claimant no funds, NI issued. Court award brand new machine of same spec with full warranty

[rosiecotton]

If you're aware of cases where this has happened after a fair bit of time then fair enough (I'd also be really interested to look at these cases as I'm a bit of a sucker for case law, sad sack that I am).

I would say that at the moment I'm not aware of any though, especially not after 12 months, and that's why I'd hate to get peoples hopes up that they are likely to get a full refund, in my experience this isn't what the courts generally offer where there has been use of the product.

Always happy to see cases that are different to those I have worked with though!

[JonCris]

Each matter has & continues to be settled in the county courts on a case by case bases.

The main factor in acheiving a satisfactory settlement for the claimant is how the case is presented to the court. If the case is presented expecting the lowest common dominator to apply than chances are that is what will be achieved.

I would agree that if you have had 2 years plus use then it would be difficult making a case for a full refund or FOC replacement, but not impossible. It would depend on many things, not least usage & whether or not the claimant can actually afford to make a contribution

[ellie1997]

Smallish update! hubby had a telephone call earlier from Dixons Customer service, they had recieved our first letter in which we asked for a full refund and outlines why.
CS guy was rather arrogant and said we wouldnt get a refund. Husband quoted the SOG act which rattled CS guy a bit, but nothing was resolved. LBA will go out next week.

In the meantime, Laptop is STILL with repair center and I believe 28 days is up on Tuesday. Question is, do I accept the code and choose another laptop from Dixons, or do I fight for my full refund and head to Dell?

Im now starting to fall behind on college work as I havent got a computer I can use at nights when Im in. At least if I take the code I will have something to use.

Advice???
Jane
x

[rosiecotton]

You need to act reasonably and if a replacement laptop from Dixons is offered I think you would do well to take it, if it's of a suitable spec and not something cheap and nasty. That's my personal opinion and I assume you do still want a laptop. It's too late to simply reject the goods and claim a full refund, so you'd instead be going for rescission of contract, and as you can see from my posts above, which I have copied again below, the law states that if you rescind a contract you have to take into account any wear and tear you have enjoyed from the product. So regardless of what's been said here, in my experience and opinion, a full refund is unlikely

Part 5a of the amended Act (the Regulations) states:

48(C) (3) For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him.

That's a simple statement of the law, and a judge will obviously have to be taking this into account.


It would be totally wrong of me to suggest that in your case you would definitely have a strong argument for a full refund, although any amount taken off for wear and tear should not be too extreme as you've only had 6 months proper use from the item before it went wrong.

If they're offering you a reasonable replacement, then personally I'd take it as the only alternative is to go to court for a possible partial refund, there is always an element of risk in going to court and you may find that your award isn't enough to buy a laptop of the same spec as the replacement outright.

Judges have to be impartial, and they'll look at what the trader has offered and whether you've been reasonable in your requests just as much as they will look at whether the trader has acted reasonably.

It's entirely your decision though!

[Rich44]

do NOT buy a dell laptop we've had dozens of them recently and 75% of them had to go back within a week of delivery because of random blue screens - we changed the memory which fixed the problem for a few days then it was back again they seem to have a problem with either their memory controllers or their supply of DDR2 SO-DIMMs

As for the original laptop sadly these things are like everything else they either last years or fall to bits quickly.

Hard drives in laptops dont tend to get terribly hot as most of them only spin at 4200rpm but as its a mechanical part its just one of those things.

The power supply probably overheated and burnt out possibly caused by the motherboard fault however it depends on what is actually wrong with it.

As for it being repaired the motherboard fault (if correct) would be more than it was worth anyway

Good luck with it

[JonCris]

Originally Posted by rosiecotton

You need to act reasonably and if a replacement laptop from Dixons is offered I think you would do well to take it, if it's of a suitable spec and not something cheap and nasty. That's my personal opinion and I assume you do still want a laptop. It's too late to simply reject the goods and claim a full refund, so you'd instead be going for rescission of contract, and as you can see from my posts above, which I have copied again below, the law states that if you rescind a contract you have to take into account any wear and tear you have enjoyed from the product. So regardless of what's been said here, in my experience and opinion, a full refund is unlikely



That's a simple statement of the law, and a judge will obviously have to be taking this into account.


It would be totally wrong of me to suggest that in your case you would definitely have a strong argument for a full refund, although any amount taken off for wear and tear should not be too extreme as you've only had 6 months proper use from the item before it went wrong.

If they're offering you a reasonable replacement, then personally I'd take it as the only alternative is to go to court for a possible partial refund, there is always an element of risk in going to court and you may find that your award isn't enough to buy a laptop of the same spec as the replacement outright.

Judges have to be impartial, and they'll look at what the trader has offered and whether you've been reasonable in your requests just as much as they will look at whether the trader has acted reasonably.

It's entirely your decision though!

If you recind a contract due to non-performance such as SOGA "not fit for purpose" then wear & tear does not have to be taken into account. Unless you have been able to use the goods fault free for a reasonable amount of time which in the case of a laptop could be considered to be anywhere between 3-5 years.

[rosiecotton]

Please do read Part 5a of the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 which amended the Sale of Goods Act 1979, section 48 (C) (3) as I have posted above.

It's quite clear that it intends wear and tear to be taken into account from the time of delivery, if the consumer rescinds the contract.

The less use they've made of it the better, of course, but you would not expect a full refund after a year of use unless the judge is feeling exceptionally nice that day - it's certainly not what the law says.

[tim2718281]

Originally Posted by blueskies

I am not confusing anything with the recent change in the regulations regarding proving fault. If a customer has had reasonable use of a product as they have in this case for 6 months, then the retailer is not compelled to give a full refund. They can reduce any refund paid by a reasonable amount to reflect the use.

I am not a lawyer, but I have read the DTI guidance on the Sale of Goods Act.

I think there are two separate aspects of the law being run together here.

If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". There is no fixed "reasonable time" ... it will depend on the circumstances.(*)

If the purchaser has not claimed their money back within a reasonable time, but the goods were defective at the time of sale, then they can request repair or replacement. Only if repair or replacement are not possible or too costly can the seller provide instead a partial refund, in which case the refund will reflect the use the purchaser has had.

So I would say you are wrong; the customer's entitlement to a full refund does not depend on whether they have had reasonable use, but whether they are claiming the refund in a reasonable time. If they are not claiming within a reasonable time, the seller is obliged to repair or replace the item - and in the case of a laptop, I think it will never be too costly to replace it, so I think the seller will never be entitled to provide a partial refund instead of repairing or replacing the item.

Tim

(*) Personally, I don't see how the purchaser can be expected to request a refund until after the fault has become apparent. So if the defect present at the time of sale was such that the laptop would stop working after say two years, I'd say it was reasonable for the purchaser to request a refund when the laptop did stop working. And if retailers don't like that, they should make arrangements with their suppliers, which make the suppliers liable to the retailers. And if the suppliers don't like that, they should stop supplying defective laptops. I can't see why the purchaser should agree that it is not reasonable for them to get their money back for defective items, simply because they will be unaware of the defect for a couple of years.

[rosiecotton]

I understand why you feel this way, Tim, but if a consumer has full use of a laptop for two years, then has it replaced with a brand new laptop, they are effectively in a better position than they would have been in had the laptop never been faulty. So that's why rescission takes into account any wear and tear that the consumer has enjoyed, in order to try and keep things balanced and fair. While the law does provide pretty solid rights, it doesn't allow for betterment (ie the consumer to end up in a better position than they would have been in had there not been a breach).

As for your other point - what you have stated is totally correct with regard to the Sale of Goods Act - once the reasonable time for rejection has passed the trader can offer in the first instance either a repair or replacement item, whichever is most reasonable (for example, a consumer cannot demand a replacement item if a repair would cost the trader far less to do).

However, if the repair or replacement item fails or isn't possible, then the consumer can move on to rescission as a viable remedy.

Hence, if they have a go at repairing the fault and it's still there, you can then move on to rescission - the partial refund.

[tim2718281]

It's worth noting that the customer is also entitled to compensation.

So if the store won't provide a replacement or offer a full refund, the customer might as well estimate how long it is going to take them to reinstall software on a repacement machine, and ask for reasonable compensation at say £10 an hour.

It may well be that the amount of compensation exceeds the original cost of the laptop.,

Obviously if the store were to provide a brand-new laptop, an honest customer would assess how much better off they are as a result, and deduct that from the amount of compensation they would claim. This might reduce the compensation to an amount that is not worth claiming.

Tim