Faulty shower; thought I had a possible claim?

[dx100uk]

as advised by several people now

 

you need to send the part to the manu.

 

you never knowwhat they'll say.

 

i'd not go back in that court room without following the judges recommendations.

[malibuman]

Thanks steampowered and dx100uk for taking time to post.

 

I will contact the manufacturer and see what, if anything, transpires.

[malibuman]

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.

[ericsbrother]

unfortunately sometimes you have to take up things with the manufacturer. Generally latent faults are their tesponsibility but you need proof that more than one is wonky which can be tricky because the makers will invariably tell you that no-one else has ever repoted a problem with any of their equipment ever.

[malibuman]

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?

[ericsbrother]

It is still the sale of goods act but with latent faults it is the manufacturer who is liable. Look at the recent car recalls when a fault comes to light. The mfr picks up the tab even though the cars are 10 years old.

Your problem is getting an admission from the maker that there is a problem. trawl other consumer forums using the make and model as a keyword and see what you find. It will be harder to continue as you have to prove the liability to a greater extent than balance of probability because the problem must now be forseeable and that is where more examples are needed.

[malibuman]

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?

[steampowered]

You are correct. There is no contract with the manufacturer so you cannot sue him under contract law, including under SOGA.

 

Sometimes people have a right of action against the manufacturer in the law of civil wrongs. If the manufacturer has sold a defective product, the consumer could sue him under the Consumer Protection Act. Also, if the manufacturer has been negligent then he can be sued in negligence. These claims are more difficult than a contract claim against the retailer because the standard of proof is different, is easier to show something is not satisfactory quality under SOGA than it is to show something is defective or that the manufacturer was negligent.

[malibuman]

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.

[steampowered]

Yes, I agree. Maybe things would have gone better with a different judge but unfortunately it didn't work out on this occasion