Thanks steampowered. I guess that serves to show that the decision not to pursue this matter further is correct as I failed first time around to persuade the judge that the shower unit was not satisfactory on grounds of durability; and if that ought to be easier than taking action under other heads of liability then there is no possibility of success there.

Thanks again for posting, ericsbrother. Once again, it is a moot point as the matter is not going further, and I promise you I am not trying to be awkward here, but I still do not follow how an action can be brought against a manufacturer under the SOG Act when he is not party to the contract. The contract was with the seller. Was the recall of cars in response to actions brought under SOG against the car manufacturers?

Thanks, ericsbrother. I suppose this is now a redundant point as the matter is going no further, but I still don't follow the issue of going to the manufacturer. Suppose I did so and the manufacturer admitted "yes, there is a problem and a defect with our product......but we are going to do nothing. What are you going to do about it? Sue us if you like". If I was to then bring an action against the manufacturer, under what law would this happen? If I sue for breach of contract, won't I fail on the basis that I have no contract with the manufacturer?

Thanks again to all those for the advice given. It is against my character and training to do this, but after long conversations with my partner (it was actually her who purchased the shower) we have decided to drop this matter as she does not wish to pursue it; I must respect her wishes. She does not believe that a judge would go wrong in law and does not wish to go back to court and have me suggest this. In fairness to her, she would have accepted the shower as it was and would have bought a new one without any fuss. It was at my instigation that we took action. We have not been in touch with the manufacturer as despite the judge telling us to do so as I still do not see the point; there is no contract with the manufacturer. I won't deny that this affair has come as a shock and a blow to my faith in Consumer Law and the courts. I have always believed that SoG makes it a case of "caveat venditor" and not "caveat emptor". Maybe I have got this totally wrong but I fully expected that any judge would take one look at the facts, conclude immediately that the shower was not sufficiently durable under s 14(2) and would find the product to be unsatisfactory. Clearly, I was wrong. Thanks again to those who took time to contribute and I am sorry that these contributions have been in vain and there is no happy ending to report.

Thanks steampowered and dx100uk for taking time to post. I will contact the manufacturer and see what, if anything, transpires.

Thank you very much for taking time to post, ericsbrother . I am grateful. Can I pick up on some of your points in a way which hopefully explains my thinking without trying to be critical, as being critical is not my intention? If my thinking is flawed, I am more than happy to hear why. I see what you are saying, but what I do not understand is this. My contract is with the seller and not with the manufacturer. I was under the impression that contract law and the SoG Act made it quite clear that it is the seller and not the manufacturer who is responsible to the buyer. If the goods are not of satisfactory quality I understood that the buyer could claim damages from the retailer. The retailer might then be able to recover from the manufacturer as no doubt they will have a contract. Forgive me for sound nitpicky here, but the goods must be of "satisfactory" quality. Following the 1994 Act, this replaced "merchantable" quality. Interesting analogy. If I run a car without oil then clearly that is my fault for not putting oil in it, ensuring it is always topped up, changing it with regular services, etc. Limescale surely can't be my fault? It might not be the fault of the seller either, but I have always understood that the SoG Act protects the buyer and not the seller. Furthermore, the product was fitted with an antiscale filter to try and reduce the impact of limescale which has seemingly only been effective for two years. Now here we come to what may be the crucial argument. Is reasonable expectation as to durability under s 14 (2)B (e) not a matter of law, particularly when the product comes with a guarantee? Dx100uk has suggested that it is and explained why he believes goods must reasonably be expected to last longer than the period of the guarantee. That makes perfect, logical sense to me. I gave the judge a copy of the decision of the CA in Rogers v Parish where the Court said, inter alia, that if the seller should be prepared to expect that the types of defects that a guarantee covers will occur, then he would be better off not having his guarantee. That cannot be what Parliament intended with SoG and thus the CA rejected that line of argument. A guarantee adds to the seller's rights so he is entitled to expect a better quality product for his money than a similar product which comes without a guarantee. The judge took no notice of this.

Thanks, steampowered; something for me to think about there! Dx100uk, can I invite you to comment further on this matter? I am keen to run with this case but am worried that I am not going to convince the judge. I know what I want to put to him but my concern is that he simply is not going to see it, or maybe I really have got this entire thing wrong. If the issue is that reasonable expectation as to durability is a matter of law, and that as such goods must last for longer than their guarantee period, how can I get this judge to see and accept this? I am concerned that his mind is made up. I don't particularly want to send the unit off to the manufacturer as I don't think the manufacturer is going to say anything useful (and my contract is not with him but with the seller) but the judge wants me to do this and has stated so in the judgment where he has adjourned proceedings so I suppose I will have to. I came across an online article saying that electric showers do not last long – usually 8-10 years. That is encouraging. The article did go on to add that in a hard water area the unit and head can quickly become scaled up, however. Sorry if I appear stupid or am asking you to repeat yourself for clarification, but I need to be clear in my mind here before I run with this. The judge has obviously taken the view that I should just accept the shower as it is for I live in a hard water area and things will scale up. He has said I won’t persuade him unless I can show a fault. I can show that it has scaled up; the seller has acknowledged this. But it seems that this is not enough for this judge. I initially thought that was all I had to do – show the judge that the shower had not lasted nearly long enough to meet my expectations in light of the two year guarantee and the longevity of the previous shower – but they say there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see. I would obviously much rather this matter is resolved when the case is resubmitted to the judge, rather than have to go to appeal. So I guess what I am asking is, how to I put things to give myself the best chance of achieving this.

Very good. Might even try that line when this matter goes back in front of him. I know where the judge is coming from. He doesn't want the seller to be responsible for something over which he has no control, i.e.the fact of this being a hard water area with a lot of limescale in the water which gets into all products that use water. He thinks that this is just something that all of us who live in a hard water area, including him, have to accept. Needless to say I do not agree with that line, particularly in light of how the longevity of the previous shower, the price paid, the reputation of the manufacturer/seller, the antiscale filter and two year warranty all combine to provide a reasonable expectation as to durability of longer than two years and two months. The seller advised the judge that he has 30 years of experience in plumbing, selling and installing showers and this experience has taught him that such shower rarely last must longer than two years in this hard water area; and that a shower without an antiscale filter will last about one year. The judge seemed to accept this and felt, along with the seller, that it was fantastic and something of a freak occurrence that the previous shower lasted almost five years. I didn't do a very good job of defeating that line when this came before the judge.

Thank you very much, dx100uk, for giving this matter your attention and for your informative posts. Thank you also to steampowered and Surfer01 for your continued participation in the thread. I see steampower's opinion is at odds with mine, dx100uk's and Surfer01's but that is positive as it encourages debate and explanation and thus can only be helpful in the long run. It is always useful to receive contrary opinions and in this case it helps give an insight into how the judge may have been thinking; and we are all entitled to our opinions, so thanks again to all. That was my understanding and I even sent the judge a copy of the relevant dicta from Rogers V Parish; not that the judge paid any attention to this. ........................................................... Thanks. My submissions were based on these considerations; the judge had other ideas and didn't want to listen to this line of argument. I tried to argue that 26 months was not reasonable, as you have stated; and as you know I was using the previous like-for-like shower as my evidence of this. I still maintain that in light of the durability of this previous shower I was entitled to have a reasonable explanation that the new shower would last for a period approaching the length of time of the last one; certainly for more than half of this time. I made the point that no either appliance in my home has lasted for such a short period of time; not even appliances such as washing machines and kettles which use the same water supply. The judge countered by saying that if you bought a washing machine that went wrong in, say, three years due to limescale build up in the piping you wouldn't blame the retailer. Well....yes I would. If I pay a few hundred for a washing machine and get just three years out of it I would not find that sufficiently durable to be of satisfactory quality. The judge's approach is clear. Because it is a hard water are he believes we all have to accept that products are going to go wrong quicker than in a soft water area. Of course I accept that, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are of satisfactory quality as they may not be sufficiently durable. The judge doesn't want the seller to be liable for something over which in his view the seller has no control over, i.e. the scale in the water supply. Yes, I may have to do this as I am expecting a judgement from the court that the case is adjourned for three months to allow this to happen. I do have it in writing from the seller that the reason the shower has failed is due to it being scaled up and that a replacement is the only viable option. I was hoping that would be sufficient as the seller's engineers did inspect this. Thanks. I felt this would be enough to establish that the durability requirement had not been met. That can't be the case for if it wasn't installed properly then the seller is liable as it was his engineers that installed it. The seller is a plumber who has been active in the area for 30 years and he does have a good reputation. My partner has used him for 21 years and up until now she never had a problem with his products or services; though she does not know her rights and, like many a customer, would just have accepted the shower as having gone wrong due to scale and not the fault of the seller. She would have immediately forked out for a replacement had I not been her live-in partner of eight years. I wasn't certain about this aspect of things, dx100uk. I appreciate the difference between a point of law (can be appealed) and a finding of fact (cannot be appealed) or even a point of law and fact (can be appealed) but I was worried that what is reasonable would be an issue on the facts of the case. If it is not but is a matter or law, then that gives me encouragement as if the judge is not considering a point of law, and up until now I don't believe has done, then I think he is going wrong. I will welcome anything further which you or anyone can add to this or a suggestion of how to put this to the judge. I got the impression that he seemed fairly set in his ways and that his mind was made up. He kept emphasising that I hadn't shown there was something wrong with the shower, yet the seller has admitted that it has scaled up. The judge must think this isn't something wrong or that producing scalding or freezing cold water is okay!

Thanks for taking time out to post in this thread, Surfer01, and thank you for your analysis. I appreciate this greatly. I confess that maybe I was misguided or was kidding myself; I thought I had this nailed before I went into the DJ's chambers based on the grounds I stated above. I was arguing precisely what you have stated about reasonable expectations as to durability based on the factors you have outlined. I take steampowered's point as well, though, that what I presented may be good evidence but not proof. Prior to the hearing I thought this would be sufficient to prove on the balance of probability that the shower is faulty on grounds of reasonable expectations of durability. The case is not yet over but I am going to have to come up with something else as if I simply restate my position the judge is not going to change his mind. He did state that unless I can show him there was something wrong with the product I will not persuade him to find in my favour, and that what I had submitted had not shown that there was something wrong. I do not see how taking the shower to the manufacturer is going to help as my contract is not with the manufacturer but the seller (I note your earlier comments about the judge not understanding SoG and I too began to form that opinion in the hearing). He asked me three times had Ii contacted the manufacturer and each time I told him no, for that reason. The judge advised after the hearing that the Court gets to know about the rogue retailers/traders and that this defendant had never come before the court before. That may well be so, but to me that is immaterial. This comment was after the hearing and I am sure (or I hope) that this did not emphasise the judge's opinion. I think steampowered has made a fair point, that a different DJ might have agreed with me. It is pot luck as to how sympathetic a judge you get; how consumers must wish all judges were like Lord Denning. My only hope may be that when the case returns to court a different judge hears the case, though I doubt that is likely. I do not think I will have any grounds for appeal as if the judgment is to be as it stands at present then the DJ will have found as a fact that the shower was not faulty, i.e. not unsatisfactory, and I don't believe I can appeal on a point of fact alone.

Thank you very much for your input, steampowered. I am grateful and I see what you are saying. The only thing I would pick up on in your statement is that satisfactory quality is judged at the start. With regard to the issue of durability, which is an aspect of satisfactory quality and referred to in s 14(2) of SoG, surely that cannot be judged at the start as it is only possible to know how durable the product has been when it breaks down, i.e. when a component becomes faulty or wears out? It might have been more appropriate for durability to be an aspect of "fitness for purpose" under s 14 (3) but unfortunately it is not.

Oh, I agree with that. Not all showers have to. But what about a like for like replacement? My point is, what better way is there of measuring expectation than this?

The case has been adjourned for three months so it isn't over yet. What I am really struggling with is this, and I would be delighted for someone to come on here and explain it to me even if it is not the explanation I would prefer to hear. When a buyer makes a purchase he has a reasonable expectation as to the durability of his product, based on certain considerations such as price, manufacturer's reputation, warranty etc. What better indicator of a buyer's reasonable expectation can there be than a like for like replacement in the same circumstances? The replacement shower was the same make/model/manufacturer, cost the same price, and was attached to the same water supply as the previous shower unit. It was used by the same two people only. Surely I was entitled to expect that this shower would last longer than two years and two months considering the previous shower (the like for like model) lasted almost five years? I can't accept the judge's opinion that as it is a hard water area in which I live that 2 years and 2 months is acceptable and that I got lucky with the previous shower. The judge lives in the area too and pointed out how he has to descale his kettle regularly and rinse it out each day. We do the same with our kettle. So what?

The judge never mentioned the SoG once. I was the one that kept referring to it. The judge's view was that I had not shown there was something faulty with the shower and he kept referring to this. He also said that as the issue is the scaling up of the shower the seller is not at fault for this. As this is a hard water area, the length of time this had lasted was reasonable. I was disappointed as I thought the like-for-like comparison and the lifespan of both showers was enough to illustrate that the older shower was satisfactory but that this one could not be.

I had a case in front of a judge in the small claims court that went against me. I purchased an electric shower and had this fitted at a cost of £270. This particular model came with an anti-scale device and a two year anti-scale guarantee. After two years and two months the shower scaled up and the water produced was either scalding hot or freezing cold, rendering the shower unusable. The seller refused to do anything and, after going through pre-action protocol and sending a number of letter to the seller, including advising that if no acceptable solution was forthcoming I would take legal action, I brought an action in the Small Claims Court alleging breach of s14 (2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as amended. I maintained the shower was not of satisfactory quality under s 14 (2). There was an issue with safety (scalding hot water) as the shower was not safe to use, and safety is an aspect to consider in determining satisfactory quality. Indeed, s 14 (2) refers to this. I pointed out that the durability of the product is also a factor to be considered in determining satisfactory quality under s 14(2) and the section mentions this. I argued that the previous shower (same make and model, and same price) did not scale up for almost five years which was quite satisfactory, but meant that this current product could not be satisfactory. The anti-scale devise in the previous shower had clearly worked for almost twice as long as in the present shower, and this must mean the durability issue has not been met by this product. I argued that the price of this product was relevant under s 14(2) (again, s 14 (2) refers to price as a consideration) and at £270 the shower was not bottom of the range. Showers are available from around £50/£60 and therefore at £270 it is reasonable to expect a better quality product which would last longer and be safe to use; particularly as this comes with a two year guarantee which, I submitted, serves to increase the expectations of the buyer compared to a product with no or a shorter guarantee. I live in a hard water area but I pointed out that no other appliance in my home which uses water has had to be replaced after two years. For example, my washing machine has lasted for over ten years without problems. Whilst I don’t expect an electric shower to last forever, at a price of £270 I expect it to last longer than 2 years and 2 months, especially as it comes with a 2 year guarantee. All in all I felt I had a good case. The evidence I was using was the seller’s inspection and identification that the shower had scaled up. More significantly, I thought the direct comparison between this shower and the previous one (same make, model and price) and the fact that this product scaled up after two years and two months, compared to almost five years with the previous product, clearly meant that this product could not be satisfactory and that I had established this prima facie on the balance of probability. The judge did not agree. He felt I had not shown there was something wrong with the shower. He did not accept that the fact that scalding water was coming out of it was sufficient to show there was something wrong with it and he rejected my comparison with the previous shower as evidence that there is something wrong with the present one. He used motor cars for comparison and said that some may run for 300,000 miles and that one that only runs for 100,000 miles in comparison does not make it unsatisfactory. The owner of the first car has just got lucky. The judge believed that the seller can’t be responsible for the shower scaling up and he would not accept my argument that the antiscale device must be faulty as on the previous identical product it lasted for almost five years. The judge felt I should take the matter up with the manufacturer, something which I didn’t understand and I pointed out to him that my contract was with the seller and not the manufacturer. I thought I had a reasonable case here, but obviously not so. My case has not been dismissed but has been adjourned for three months to permit me time to contact the manufacturer, but I don’t see how that will help me. Any suggestions as to anything else I can try? I will happily provide more information if required, but I am also prepared to accept that this may be one I am not going to win.

Apologies if this is in the wrong place; if so, please move it to the appropriate location. This is my first post and I do not know what to do to rectify my situation. It is complicated, but here it is as concisely as I can make it. I hold a Primary prepaid Maestro card issued by a building society thorugh a third party card provider. I use this to transfer funds to secondary prepaid Maestro cards held by other people. They then use the funds accordingly. The card issuers have switched their cards from Maestro to Mastercard and cardholders have been forced to upgrade. I did not want to do so, but had little choice. One of the secondary cardholders enjoyed a spate of goodluck through gaming and ended up with a balance on their secondary Maestro card of over £15,000. I enquired of the card issuer what was the best thing to do regarding this balance. The card issuer advised upgrading to Mastercard, stated that the Maestro would still be active until the Mastercard was activated, and advised withdrawing the balance from the secondary Maestro to my newly issued primary Mastercard. I followed the instructions for doing this, having taken screenshots of all the cards and their balances. The balance of over £15,000 left the secondary Maestro; it did not turn up on the primary Mastercard. I contacted the card issuer whose CS chap advised that the problem was that there is a maximum balance on any card of £3,500. I explained that this was rubbish as they had allowed over £15,000 to be accumulated. He aid he would get back to me. The following day I had not heard from him. I looked at my account online, and discoverd that my primary and all the secondary cards had been cancelled. There was no sign of the £15,000 on any card. I contacted the card issuer; they have said "they cannot discuss my account at this stage". I have contacted the building society who issue the card through the provider. They say they cannot discuss the account at this stage. The secondary cardholder has contacted the card issuer regarding the transfer. The card issure stated that they were unable to complete the transaction and had no further information at the time. The secondary cardholder has demanded to know what has happened to the £15,000 and why, if the transaction cannot be completed, the funds have not been returned to her card. This request has been ignored. I do not know what to do to find out what has happened to the £15,000, why the cards have been cancelled, and how to get the building society and card issuer to tlak to me. Nor do I know what my next step should be. I find this a totally unaccetpable and intolerable situation. Can anyone help, please? Thanks.