FACTS ABOUT SOGA and RETAIL CHAINS

[retailerpointofview]

Soga shortened down is this:
an act of parliament which creates a contract between the initial owner/seller of the product and the buyer.

this contract can last upto 6 years (5years scotland) depending on the intended lifespan of product and what it is.

to summarise the contract
from purchase date to a certain reasonable time, noted via DTI factsheets this may only be a few weeks. if the purchased product is faulty the buyer has the options of either
*repair
*replace
*refund
which the initial owner/seller of the product has to honour within reasonable time, with least inconvenience and without costs to the buyer and minimal costs to the seller.

in this short period from purchase the least inconvenient option is of course a replacement or refund.

after the short period a refund/recission of contract cannot be authorised unless the initial owner/seller breaches the contract by either.
*not offering any method of repair or replacement
*not doing so within reasonable time.
or if their are other circumstances which warrent a recission.

no recission can be honoured because the buyer no longer needs the product or no longer likes the asthetics etc. a recission has to be failure based:
failure to repair product
failure to remedy within reasonable time
etc

if the initial owner/seller then objects to the recission of contract or full/part refund where there is a good reason to recind, then the buyer can take the initial owner/seller to small claims court.

within the first 6 months from purchase if a product fails to perform its intended task this is automatically (without testing required) classed as a fault from production.

after the 6 month from purchase the product may require proof that it is no longer performing due NOT to human error. IE Damage, Abuse, Neglect

---

in high street chains the local store staff are classed as agents for the company. they do not own the product and so the contract is not with the customer advisor, sales person. but the company.

the local store can advise you of the fasted route to remedy the issue. IE giving you their company contact details or the contact details of the repair service the company uses. but they are not legally binded to the contract so they do not have to action it themselves. if they do so this is classed as a good customer service as it is helping both the company and the buyer. but it is not an obligation.

companies can give their agents temporary permission to act on the issue such as directly recinding the contract with the buyer instore rather then cheque through post from company headquaters. but this in general is just for the initial reasonable time from purchase (a few weeks)

at all times the contract remains beween theinitial owner/seller of the product and the buyer.

'one man band' stores (like my own) are the initial owner/seller of the products so in these cases the contract is with the store and the buyer.

who to contact
'one man band' stores - contact the manager/owner of the store.
retail chains - contact head office of company.

forcing parties that have no binding ties to the contract to action on it could affect your rights if future claims arise. ALWAYS seek advice from the original owner of the product FIRST.

if the original owner refuses to help then a small claims court proceeding may be required to force their hand.

complaining to head offices directly rather then going through their agents/store staff saves you:
*petrol by never leaving home
*stress as the agents cant deal with it.
*faster solution with company head office to avoid bad press
*them eventually giving the store full 6 year permission rather then their reasonable time permission (upto 28days)

[blacksheep1979]

Originally Posted by retailerpointofview

Soga is purely this:
a contract between the owner of the product and the buyer.

surely the owner is the buyer

[retailerpointofview]

the first owner=seller
second owner=buyer

sorry its jsut to let people know that its the company who own the products not the salespeople instore.

then contract are between the two owners

[blacksheep1979]

would have made more immediate sense if you said the seller and the buyer though

[retailerpointofview]

ok ill change it

[Bookworm]

Originally Posted by retailerpointofview

Soga is purely this:
a contract between the owner of the product and the buyer.

No, it's not.

SoGA is purely this:

An Act of Parliament.

[retailerpointofview]

so you aint found faults in the facts of how i shrunk it down.

so you knit picking the wording.

welldone chaps keep it up

ill just repost it later absolutely perfect the way you want it so it can help out everyone that reads these threads in the future

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by retailerpointofview

from purchase date to a certain reasonable time, noted via DTI factsheets this may only be a few weeks. if the purchased product is faulty the buyer has the options of either
*repair
*replace
*refund
which the initial owner/seller of the product has to honour within reasonable time, with least inconvenience and without costs to the buyer and minimal costs to the seller.

Just once more so that you may perhaps at last understand.

These are the seller's options, totally at the choice of the seller, to remedy the defect.

They are not the buyer's options as the buyer has no choice whatsoever in which option is taken by the seller.

Unfortunately, there is no requirement for least inconvenience to the buyer.

I fail to see the reason for this ego-trip of yours to post your personal (and wrong) interpretation of the law.

Others - including Rosie whose living is this, I believe - have pointed out your basic and continuing errors in law. Why do you persist in your stupidity? This is not a matter of opinion; it is matter of easily verifiable fact.

There is a pantheon here telling you that you are wrong and continually having to correct what you say; in order that others may not be misled by your nonsense not being challenged.

[retailerpointofview]

ok before you start id just like to note about rosiecotton. ok

she admits while working in her TRAINING she...blah blah
this proves to me that she has not gone to university to learn law she done it while working.
also her footnote saying she is not insured in these matters and to seek proper legal advice.
again seek proper legal advice.. so she admitting her advice aint proper!
she has repeatedly told people on here to go straight back to the store in question and they have to by law rectifiy it. which is only true in one man band stores.. not retail chains like theis thread category

need i continue on her short comings.

i have personally and privetly apologised for a mis-understanding we have in a thread ages ago but it still does not change the main facts. you are trying to make your way the correct way because of your group spouting the same thing and then making out every piece of information i say is wrong because of small errors.

the fact is the consumer/buyer has 3 options in the first few weeks from purchase and two options after that. the third is only valid if the first two fail.

with most retailers like myself i choose to give the buyer the option wold they prefer repair or replacement. as i and most retailers believe it helps good customer service to leave the choice with the buyer, seeing as its their product inall..

ok so legally only i have the choice if my customers come back. oh well from now on ill be meaner to my customers and make them wait for a repair because your saying its my choice and mine alone. i think not!!.. ill leave it for my customers to decide.

the soga wording actually says in section 48
the buyer may require the seller—
(a) to repair the goods, or
(b) to replace the goods.

so your boss may require you -
(a) to read through SOGA again
(b) to go college again.

does it actually say that you can answer your boss back and choose yourself.. not really. it just mentions there are two options the seller/you have but not who choses them.. the choice actually is based on what is best speed/convenience wise for the buyer and cost wise for the seller. so its actually a joint descision

if i am incorrect in any area i will change it. therefore to give proper advice for future viewers. but so far no complaints. just some misunderstandings which is why i am trying to make soga as plain english as possible

id prefer any replies to actually have screenshots, hyperlinks or references to back up your claims. verbal abuse will not be tolerated and will only be returned with the same. respect is to be earned.

i refer to my sign i have in my shop which custoemrs read. "treat me with respect and ill treat you like a god"

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by retailerpointofview

the soga wording actually says in section 48
the buyer may require the seller—
(a) to repair the goods, or
(b) to replace the goods.

Once again, you fail. Your facts are incomplete, misleading and wrong. You cannot even manage to quote the correct section of the Act.

SoGA Section 48 actually says

48 Rescission: and re-sale by seller

(1) Subject to this section, a contract of sale is not rescinded by the mere exercise by an unpaid seller of his right of lien or retention or stoppage in transit.

(2) Where an unpaid seller who has exercised his right of lien or retention or stoppage in transit re-sells the goods, the buyer acquires a good title to them as against the original buyer.

(3) Where the goods are of a perishable nature, or where the unpaid seller gives notice to the buyer of his intention to re-sell, and the buyer does not within a reasonable time pay or tender the price, the unpaid seller may re-sell the goods and recover from the original buyer damages for any loss occasioned by his breach of contract.

(4) Where the seller expressly reserves the right of re-sale in case the buyer should make default, and on the buyer making default re-sells the goods, the original contract of sale is rescinded but without prejudice to any claim the seller may have for damage

I think that you are referring to section 48B - which deals with the additional rights of consumers and is in a completely different part of the 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

Let's try and keep this simple for you.

Section 48B(1) is where your quote originates. However, you are reading it in isolation and 48B(3) makes it absolutely clear that the buyers right to demand either of the actions in Section 1 is limited by the rights of the seller to use the least disproportionate method of remedy.

if i am incorrect in any area i will change it. therefore to give proper advice for future viewers. but so far no complaints.

Why bother. Other here have been providing the correct advice in a cogent form of English for some time - some of them even know how to use capital letters and sentences.

You say there are no complaints - I have yet to see a positive response to your drivel.

id prefer any replies to actually have screenshots, hyperlinks or references to back up your claims.

You can prefer what you like. I have no sense that you, in turn, are doing this to attempt to 'prove' your nonsense assertions. I have quoted directly from the published Act. I will not be wasting any more time responding to your nonsense.

verbal abuse will not be tolerated and will only be returned with the same.

Since every response on this board is written, nobody here has committed any verbal abuse. This is typical of your failure to deal in fact.

respect is to be earned.

And so far, you have failed to earn any here

i refer to my sign i have in my shop which custoemrs read. "treat me with respect and ill treat you like a god"

This sounds like asking for respect as oppose to earning it. I think that many here would like to know more details of your shop, in order that we may ever avoid setting foot in it.

[gyzmo]

Many people add things on, such as IANAL (I am not a lawyer), or "seek professional help" to their posts. It's a standard and quite sensible approach for people to say that they are not experts. It helps the reader understand the viability of the information, and serves a proper and correct warning that people should get professional help if they have difficulty, rather than relying on an internet forum where anyone can post any rubbish.

You say you have apologised for misunderstandings, yet you keep repeating them. It is the small details that can change a situation dramatically.

The three options you refer to are in order. Repair / replacement / refund, depending on what route is chosed. Traditionally under SoGA, the only options were rescission or damages. The 2003 regulations introduced the three options mentioned. It is not exactly down to consumer choice - it has to be reasonable for the consumer (as well as the seller).

You have later taken a very small extract from SoGA. It means nothing unless you also include the other Sections that these relate to. Trying to make SoGA easy to understand is a laudible aim, but in a place like this one can only generalise. Just look at the word "sale", or what "in the course of a business" means. It soon becomes clear that fully understanding SoGA, or trying to do more than a very general idea is quite more difficult than it first seems.

You also ask for people to post links etc. Most of the databases used by people like myself are subscription only, and are, frankly, usually too large. The information we have is based, for some, on years of experience. For others, it is from text books. It takes far too long to do, and is not really worthwhile. The only links needed are for the likes of CAB, consumerDirect, OFT, AskCederic, where proper advice and information is available.

This forum is not a legal advice centre.

[gyzmo]

Ooops! Posted twice!

[retailerpointofview]

aww poor pat.
im sorry for offending you but yet again you knit pick one fault in my wording and then create a new knit just to make yourself look good.

the points are this.
the local store of a retail chain is not binded by a contract... the initial owner/company which sells it are.
so your previous posts saying about go to the store as they are legally accountable are invalid.
also your knit pick about:
They are not the buyer's options as the buyer has no choice whatsoever in which option is taken by the seller.

well again this is proven wrong the buyer has the options. the seller can agree or disagree depending on issues. such as cost to them. but the idea of the act is in the benefit of the buyer.

like i said in my store and many retailers i let the buyer choose. would you prefer every retailer to never again offer a like for like swap that day because its cheaper for them to repair it??
nope you'll complain about that too. so until SOGA actually says the word "the seller has these options" rather then "the buyer may require the seller"

the options are an agreement between the two parties.

also this is a forum its not official guidelines from DTI and it is classed as a informal discussion forum. so sorry if my punctuation is not perfect but knit picking my grammar is definetly moving away from the point of the thread

the reason i have a sign asking for respect is because of consumers like you who would prefer to use foul language to try and prove a point. rather then arguing the point id prefer people to be polite. and so if your polite to me ill treat you like a god.
if you come into my store legally i would have to deal with you and sort it. but if you abuse me i would not deal with you again, give you your money back and ban you.

but if you came into my store and with a SMILE you know what that is its where the corners of your lips are pointing upwards and said it was faulty. i would also deal with the issue but ontop of that i would give you a free set of inks as a extra. thus you actually get something extra, just for a simple smile.

a smile is free and can get you more. anger will mean instead of going to the highstreet down the road, you have to then find somewhere else. so go waste your petrol i dont want your business if your a mouthy person.

just imagine it. you buy a printer from a retailer you agressively approach them when it goes wrong. they rescind the contract and give you the money back. and ban you from the store.

you then buy something like a jumper from a clothes shop. you agressively go back coz the fabric is torn. they give you a refund and ban you because of your abuse.

by this time thats 2 shops your banned from so thats 2 shops less you can choose to visit. also with shopwatch schemes in most big towns means if your banned from one. your banned from many.

so do you really prefer to use your attitude to get what you want. or a smile.

just rememeber my sign
"treat me with respect and ill treat you like a god"

think about it next time you have a problem

abuse can lead you to getting the police involved. so please show respect.

[Darren]

Originally Posted by retailerpointofview

the points are this.
the local store of a retail chain is not binded by a contract... the initial owner/company which sells it are.
so your previous posts saying about go to the store as they are legally accountable are invalid..

When I recently iussued a summons against a large retail chain, the summons was issued to the local store. This was on the advice of my local County Court.

Originally Posted by retailerpointofview

the reason i have a sign asking for respect is because of consumers like you who would prefer to use foul language to try and prove a point. .

wher do you get this from,I have just read this post and I have not read any foul language

[StormWarrior]

she admits while working in her TRAINING she...blah blah

I worked during my training, and every solicitor and barrister in this country also has, it's a requirement.

this proves to me that she has not gone to university to learn law she done it while working.

And how exactly does this affect anything at all?
I've taught school kids, college and uni students, adults, in a number of subjects and never seen a difference in the results obtained between informal tutor sesions and structured lectures.

also her footnote saying she is not insured in these matters and to seek proper legal advice.

Try getting legal indemnity insurance if your not a full time solicitor!

again seek proper legal advice.. so she admitting her advice aint proper!

"ain't proper" ?? at least it's in English.

she has repeatedly told people on here to go straight back to the store in question and they have to by law rectifiy it. which is only true in one man band stores.. not retail chains like theis thread category

Care to give any hint of where the law says this??

Are you sure you have a degree? If so, where from?
I want to ensure my students avoid it!