Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

In Breach of SOGA?


drcarlos
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5929 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I believe so.

 

The story, purchased a Sony Vaio laptop (paid for via insurance payout voucher) in Sept '07 had to be ordered from the Business website due to my requirements (hardware wise) and it duly arrived, from day 1 the webcam never worked and a clean OS install didn't correct this (however this is not the issue I am complaining about just a minor annoyance I would have happily had fixed. The real problem was last weekend it totally died, it doesn't even POST, I work in IT and know a dead machine when I see it. Now this machine being 4 months old having a problem with the webcam and now being dead leads me to have no faith in the quality of Sony laptops and believe this machine to be unfit for purpose and unsatisfactory.

So today i tried to return it for a replacement of a different brand believing in my naieveity they might do this for me. However the techguy on the desk took my details and toddled off to see the manager returning with a number for me to call Sony to arrange collection and repair or replacement. Now I was not ammused at this point and went off to see him myself.

They basically told me my warranty is with Sony and not them as it is passed the 28 days (horse poo) and they would happily arrange for its repair or I could do this myself but the stated they categorically would not exchange it for another different model. Claiming they were exempt from SOGA as stated in their T&C and I quote.

 

21. We are resellers to business customers and as permitted under the contract terms act 1977 we exclude claims regarding the quality or fitness for purpose of goods or otherwise which consumers can make under SOGA 1979. We are liable for death or personal injury caused by our negligence. we do not accept any liability for indirect or consequential loss of profits.

 

Now I think this is flannel and they are the seller and still bound by the SOGA no matter how they wriggle. Now I was nice all the time and never asked to leave the store left of my own free will, but took my broken Vaio with me as I want it replaced and they can have it to examine when they agree to this. I think i have a case for a claim and will consider reporting them to trading standards etc. Any advice??? i don't think I am asking the world for a alternative replacement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

where they are selling business to business then the requirements are quite different to when they sell to consumers. As such, you need to establish that you did buy this as a consumer and not in the course of a business. When that is established, then the usual rights in SoGA will be applicable. The notice they have is ineffective for consumers, but as it is a business website the presumption would be for you to show otherwise.

 

In terms of rights (appplying SoGA to consumer situations), you will be entitled to a repair / replacement / (partial) refund in that order or convenience and minimal inconvenience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SOGA is consumer legislation so it does not apply to B2B transactions, I don't know what does, though.

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I walked in off the street with the voucher from my home contents insurance policy and said as they had nothing instore I wanted one from the business website, just me as a consumer. The guy was only to happy to take some details and order one for me. The invoice is to me at my home address. I didn't have to show any business credentials or anything.

 

Carl.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even so, under SOGA they are permitted to provide a repair as a first resolution, if the cost of a replacement is disproportionate.

 

I would say by offering to return the machine to Sony for a repair they have satisfied their legal obligations under SOGA - that is, unless you can prove that the repair offered would cause you "undue inconvenience".

 

I would also say that SOGA only really works on a per-item basis in that an item being "replaced" implies like-for-like ie the same laptop. I suppose under SOGA the only way to get a different make laptop would be to rescind the contract and simultaneously purchase another one.

 

The fact it came from PCWB as opposed to PCW is seemingly allowing them to put up a smokescreen but I'm sure based on what you've said so far that the remedy offered is not in breach of SOGA. With expensive items it is likely that TS or SCC would say that a company was within their rights to offer a repair as an initial resolution.

 

It is also possible that the failed mainboard is the reason why the webcam didn't work. Again "lost faith" in the product is likely to be something you would have to prove, not just state, in order to convince TS/SCC that you have a case to rescind.

 

To be honest, I would let them repair the item and see what happens - hopefully both faults would be corrected.

 

Technically, laptops are made by a handful of manufacturers in the Far East, namely ECS/Uniwill, Quanta, etc who merely take orders from the likes of Sony, HP, Dell, etc, build the machines and then slap the make's label on it. The real issue is who actually makes it as to how good it is, and a lot of them source from more than one ODM so it's hard to tell whether a different make would be any better, or indeed any worse.

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even so, under SOGA they are permitted to provide a repair as a first resolution, if the cost of a replacement is disproportionate.

 

I would say by offering to return the machine to Sony for a repair they have satisfied their legal obligations under SOGA - that is, unless you can prove that the repair offered would cause you "undue inconvenience".

 

I would also say that SOGA only really works on a per-item basis in that an item being "replaced" implies like-for-like ie the same laptop. I suppose under SOGA the only way to get a different make laptop would be to rescind the contract and simultaneously purchase another one.

 

The fact it came from PCWB as opposed to PCW is seemingly allowing them to put up a smokescreen but I'm sure based on what you've said so far that the remedy offered is not in breach of SOGA. With expensive items it is likely that TS or SCC would say that a company was within their rights to offer a repair as an initial resolution.

 

It is also possible that the failed mainboard is the reason why the webcam didn't work. Again "lost faith" in the product is likely to be something you would have to prove, not just state, in order to convince TS/SCC that you have a case to rescind.

 

To be honest, I would let them repair the item and see what happens - hopefully both faults would be corrected.

 

Technically, laptops are made by a handful of manufacturers in the Far East, namely ECS/Uniwill, Quanta, etc who merely take orders from the likes of Sony, HP, Dell, etc, build the machines and then slap the make's label on it. The real issue is who actually makes it as to how good it is, and a lot of them source from more than one ODM so it's hard to tell whether a different make would be any better, or indeed any worse.

 

According to the SOGA and my Solicitor Friend this section is the one that applies and the key is part 48B section 1 and point b, 'the Buyer requires the Seller to either section a repair or section b replace' and the key that the 'buyer requires' no ifs no buts I am the buyer and I require replacement. Some companies deal with this correctly I can name Sainsburys here as I used to work for them and they would always refund or replace even high value items as it's not worth creating bad feeling with the customers for something they are bound by law to do anyway.

 

48A Introductory

 

(1) This section applies if—

 

(a) the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, there is a consumer contract in which the buyer is a consumer, and

 

 

(b) the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery.

 

 

(2) If this section applies, the buyer has the right—

 

(a) under and in accordance with section 48B below, to require the seller to repair or replace the goods, or

 

 

(b) under and in accordance with section 48C below—

 

 

(i) to require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or

 

(ii) to rescind the contract with regard to the goods in question.

 

 

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.

 

(4) Subsection (3) above does not apply if—

 

(a) it is established that the goods did so conform at that date;

 

 

(b) its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

 

 

 

48B Repair or replacement of the goods

 

(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

 

 

© 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

 

 

© 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.

 

 

Carl.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you purchased the goods in the course of a business (which in your case is slightly ambiguous, but usually if the goods are to be used for business purposes - and from the business website - then it would probably be held that this is a business sale) then the normal provisions of SOGA do not apply to you. Unfortunately, PC World are entitled to just offer a repair at this point.

 

As PC World have entered a clause into their T&Cs (as you stated above) regarding them being exempt from the normal SOGA terms as this was a business contract, this would seem to show that PC World are entitled to assume that if you order fromt he business website then it is a business sale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

48A Introductory

 

(1) This section applies if—

 

(a) the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, there is a consumer contract in which the buyer is a consumer, and

 

 

(b) the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery.

 

Carl.

 

Couple of points;

 

1) you purchased from the business division of PCW, therefore it is assumed that you were purchasing on behalf of a business, regardless of whether or not you see yourself as a private consumer. You are therefore bound by business purchase rules and legislation. They are not going to question everyone who purchases from PCWB to see if they are a business or not.

 

2) your solicitor isn't very good at his job, as 48a s(1) ss(b) quite clearly states "the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery" As you have had the laptop for approx. 4 months that doesn't apply in your case. Therefore you don't get to use 48b

 

Best bet let them attempt a repair and take it from there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Gertie100

Is it just me or is it slightly loaded against the consumer if you have to purchase from the business end of PC world in order to get a high spec laptop? And then don't have the SOGA behind you?

Or is this the norm for laptops - I meant not being able to purchase a high spec machine without going to the "business" bit.

 

If so shouldn't they refuse to sell to individuals and only accept orders from companies?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gertie, PCW normally have the same spec laptops etc instore as they do on PCWB website, so I am surprised that the OP couldn't find one. Also as it was an insurance voucher, the OP could have easily informed the insurance company if he was having trouble finding one at PCW and they could have arranged to have one supplied from another source.

Link to post
Share on other sites

quote=Chesterexpress;1344981]Couple of points;

 

1) you purchased from the business division of PCW, therefore it is assumed that you were purchasing on behalf of a business, regardless of whether or not you see yourself as a private consumer. You are therefore bound by business purchase rules and legislation. They are not going to question everyone who purchases from PCWB to see if they are a business or not.

 

No! The courts look at the nature, frequency and profitability of transactions. A person who sells regularly their CDs on EBAY may be regarded as a business. A self employed person who buys a car will be seen as a consumer if it is used for personal use. There is substantial case law on this.

 

2) your solicitor isn't very good at his job, as 48a s(1) ss(b) quite clearly states "the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery" As you have had the laptop for approx. 4 months that doesn't apply in your case. Therefore you don't get to use 48b

 

This is the problem with quoting from legislation without reference to the rest of it. If you care to read s. 48A(3), you will see that it says that assumed during the first 6 months that the problem did exist at the time the contract was made, therefore the sections referred to are very much relevant.

 

Best bet let them attempt a repair and take it from there.

 

Best to check knowledge of legislation before quoting it verbatim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nitpicking? No. Posting correct information? Yes.

 

I do not mean to turn this into a contest. Read posts involving Fred2009 or RPOV or whatever he's calling himself. You will see my reasons for posting quite clearly.

 

You may stand by your comments, that does not make them correct. You have quoted one sub paragraph of legislation whilst omitting another that fundamentally alters the meaning of what you have quoted. You have also incorrectly interpreted what Consumer and Business mean. Look at cases such as Stevenson v Rogers [1999] All ER 613. Also look at the Unfair Contract Terms Act.

 

I'm coming to realise that my avatar is very much appropriate....

 

I'm sorry, but if you intend to post anything on here that is meant to be authoritative then please make sure that what you are posting is correct. Doing otherwise only serves to confuse the people who are most in need of accurate information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Best to check knowledge of legislation before quoting it verbatim

indeed, and if you see the quote of SOGA reproduced above then whilst 48a said the buyer may require repair or replacement (and I do still think replacement refers to "like for like"), 48b says that a replacement may not be offerable if a repair is disproportionate (say if one would cost £50 and the other £500).

 

(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

© disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.

 

A high end Sony laptop is likely to be about 750-1000 but to repair a mainboard is likely to be about 200. So you're looking about 4/5 times the cost. I'd say that was disproportionate really.

  • Haha 1

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite true, but we need to establish first tht SoGA is applicable in terms of the OP being a consumer and not a business. Simply using a business website does not make it a business transaction. It will be presumed, but that is rebuttable.

 

Looking at those costs, then I would agree that replacement would be more appropriate than repair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A high end Sony laptop is likely to be about 750-1000 but to repair a mainboard is likely to be about 200. So you're looking about 4/5 times the cost. I'd say that was disproportionate really.

 

Just out of interest, where did those figures for the repair come from?

What the law 'is' and what I think the law 'is' often differ. Always do your own research and take legal advice!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest, where did those figures for the repair come from?

Experience, typical costs of getting the parts in. A desktop M/B is a lot cheaper than a laptop.

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Experience, typical costs of getting the parts in. A desktop M/B is a lot cheaper than a laptop.

 

Thanks. Sorry to go off-topic. In a previous life I worked for a small IT firm but we had to outsource laptop repairs - and we never received a quote for a laptop mobo repair that was cheaper than a new laptop :rolleyes: We could do a decent desktop mobo replacement and full software reinstall for £70+ (inc labour and VAT) but mention the "L" word and the prices got scary!

 

That's "Laptop", not the other "L" word.

 

The other "L" word is "Litigation" in case you're wondering ;)

What the law 'is' and what I think the law 'is' often differ. Always do your own research and take legal advice!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, labour can be pricey, TechGuys charge(d) £120 standard labour on all jobs though. It does take a while to get the chassis apart.

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

 

Under Soga as per amended by the directive the remedy available to you would be a very short term right to reject the good(ie within few days)

otherwise within reasonable period of time you can get it repaired or replaced or reduction In costs or rescission(reject the good and make you in the same position as you were before making the purchase). But they are in hieracrchy so to get the laptop rejected i think you will have to prove that it breaches feew sections of soga. the s.14(2a) satisfactory quality(reasonable usability and acceptability) or, S. 14(2b)(a) fitness for common purpose

(b-c)minor and cosmetic defects (the webcam)

(e)durability (the pc being dead)

 

Even have a look at s .14 (3) and (6) they are about fitness for purpose i mean about the camera not working so not usable for all its intended purposes.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

:confused:I being a law student might not have given you perfect advice and would not be liable for any losses thereby occouring to you in whatsoever way by following my advice. Do contact some lawyer or solicitor for legal advice.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

:confused:I being a law student might not have given you perfect advice and would not be liable for any losses thereby occouring to you in whatsoever way by following my advice. Do contact some lawyer or solicitor for legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah its for the courts to decide really under the individual circumstances, and most case law is either on cars, boats (well one at least) and other large value items . I think the main issue here anyway is getting SoGA to apply in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah its for the courts to decide really under the individual circumstances, and most case law is either on cars, boats (well one at least) and other large value items . I think the main issue here anyway is getting SoGA to apply in the first place.

 

 

Soga would apply dear! s.14 (satisfactory quality which the laptop wasn't)particularly states that it applies to sales in course of business that is business to business or business to consumers. But the options available(in terms of remedies) would decrease if carl. cant prove that this was a consumer contract.

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

:confused:I being a law student might not have given you perfect advice and would not be liable for any losses thereby occouring to you in whatsoever way by following my advice. Do contact some lawyer or solicitor for legal advice.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

:confused:I being a law student might not have given you perfect advice and would not be liable for any losses thereby occouring to you in whatsoever way by following my advice. Do contact some lawyer or solicitor for legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...