sale of goods act 6 year warranty

[ferrol]

I had big problem with Samsung fridge fridger. I found they have had lot of problems.

 

To anyone finding this thread and ending up here I suggest do a google search with words 'bbc' 'samsung' and 'watchdog'

 

Samsung have admitted liability and have extended the guarantees to five years with free repairs.

[qwerty65]

You people really need to get you overall fact straight. Before i go on, you still have a huge leg to stand on so by all means take it further but before you run in head first into a complex legal matter let me quickly justify how the people are stupidly misinterpreting the sale of goods act.

 

1 the sale of goods act protects both the retailer and the buyer

2 the sale of goods act technically only forces the retailer to prove there isnt a fault and have to assume its faulty within 6 months

3 if a inspection has not stated their was not a manufacture defect even if they told u there was, then get another one , u need that to get ur repair

4 wear and tear is acceptable in the sales of goods act as not being faulty, despite what these people have told u, the soga does accept that products can obtain faults form use that are not of manufacture design flaws.

5 fit for purpose generally means how the retailer sold it to u, if he said a tv made toast and it did not then thats not fit for purpose, if a manufacture default occured that would be not fit for purpose (yet post 6 months u need to prove this)

6 the retailer has to deal with it so do not speak with the manufacture, it is with no doubt argos' problem, but do understand they didnt have to give a full years manufacture guarantee they could if they wanted to just 6 months

 

 

 

and far most importantly, u have to pay for the repair and inspection then claim it back afterwards. .. . if u do not have legal cover or vast resources to get i repaired, then dont do what these (edit) are suggesting u should do.

 

It is disgusting that these people are suggesting u do this cos one, they are only half reading the soga and thats legally dangerous, they are not explaining the cost it will take to pool in to the case, they havent taken in to consideration that argos (even samsung for that matter) probably no sale of goods act very well and abide by it.. . .so when they refuse to do something about it, its generally cos they can legally do so.

 

 

also all u (edit) giving the wrong advice, even if you take argos to petty claims court, , , ,, court cost + (possible) legal advice + initial inspections costs ect ect generally are more than the cost of buying a new fridge so be aware

 

 

not to say u dont have a chance.. the soga does give u significant power and right to win ur ase

Edited November 13, 2009 by freakyleaky
Removed insults. READ THE SITE RULES BEFORE POSTING.

[banker_rhymes_with]

I think I need sub-titles for the above Post by qwerty65!

 

It also seems to be written in Troll.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[kiptower]

oh dear a retailer that been stung by the SOGA me thinks

 

and i wonder just how a retailer could change the one year to 6 months within the law and get away with it ,

 

oh no "PLANET PERKY" gone into RETAIL now

[freakyleaky]

 

oh no "PLANET PERKY" gone into RETAIL now

My thoughts exactly.

 

I have a feeling qwerty may not be around much longer.

[qwerty65]

oh dear another retailer 'stung' by the soga? - trying to take my post with a pinch of salt are we?

 

You haven't really analysed the sale of goods act really if you make that comment? You are all making inadequate suggestions of consumer rights based on loose understandings of the sale of goods act.

 

Second, As a project for A-Level 3 years ago I did a joint presentation on certain legislation that had been misunderstood. I did even know the full extent of what rights we have as consumers until then.

 

Furthermore, Im not a retailer. I just know that it is not as simply one sided many people have made it out to be. Ha, another comment based on faulty assumptions.

 

But by all means you carry on giving your "advice" and when people do get "stung" with legal costs ect.

 

As for the person who has the fridge freezer problems with Argos, might I suggest actually contacting a solicitor firm, who have free advice before pursuing the case. They will be able to confirm if you have a stand or not as they know the your rights better than anyone on here, including me.

[freakyleaky]

If you want to help people then please go ahead but lose the attitude that you know everything and everyone else knows nothing.

 

People may just listen to you.

[qwerty65]

Unfortunately I doubt people will listen to the minority, however I shall take your advice on the attitude

[kiptower]

quote

 

"but do understand they didnt have to give a full years manufacture guarantee they could if they wanted to just 6 months"

 

to start with under the SOGA its the retailer not the manufacturer that gives the guarantee, a manufacturer's guarantee is additional to your statuory rights under the SOGA

 

I think someone needs to read the SOGA before quoting anything

 

and as for needing a solicitor, I wonder how many of them actually understand the SOGA in the first place

 

and its clear you dont understand the term "fit for the purpose"

[Bookworm]

Well, first of all, it would help if people look at the dates.

 

The 1st poster posted back in 2006 and even though she didn't update us on the outcome, I think we can safely assume that the issue has been solved one way or another. So advising them to consult a solicitor seems to indicate a failure to read posts properly before jumping in with both left feet.

 

Secondly, it helps to express one's comments in the same language as spoken (or in this case written) by the majority on this forum if one wishes to be understood and taken seriously, especially when it comes to legal matters. Last I checked, txt spk was not accepted as a real language and there is an upper case key on keyboards for a reason.

 

Thirdly, and probably most importantly, if you think that an A-level presentation 3 years ago makes you more knowledgeable on consumer rights than some of us on here, please allow me to quietly chuckle. We actually have solicitors etc posting on here, and the site was started by someone who is (was) a lecturer in law.

 

Oh, while I'm on the subject, even if you did know a lot about consumer legislation (which you obviously don't, although I grant you you seem to have assimilated some basics, thank goodness that education wasn't completely wasted), you seem to know nothing about the Courts system, as confirmed by your comment about "stung by huge legal costs". Before posting further on this, I recommend that you study the fee structure on the HMCS website, and also find out what the rules are on costs in Small Claims...

 

In other words, learn to walk before you try to run. Some of us have been doing this for a very long time. ;-)

[kiptower]

well put Bookie

 

saved me a lot of typing

[qwerty65]

Ok that does sound misquoted,

However as you said, if the retailer gives the manufacture guarantee not the manufacture. Then what I misquoted still is significant.

 

Although the SOGA does allow us as the consumer to still ensue a chance of repair, Free inspection of the product would only take place in that one year. So past the 6 months, within that guarantee if it be 12 months 24 ect any problems would generally be assessed and sorted out.

 

But because they do not have to oblige to a free inspection post, it makes is more difficult for the consumer to proof the fault.

 

This is why i said (misquoted) about 6 months, because in those months, if they want to legally refuse repair or replacement, they have to prove it is not deemed for purpose.

 

Also to reply to Bookworm as i noticed your comment just as i went to post this.

 

If that is the case, maybe I should remain silent. Though when i commented about doing it in a-level, i wasnt suggesting i had superior knowledge on the topic, i was merely stating that, it seemed strange that many people on here were nitpicking individual aspects of the SOGA and not using the two coinciding aspects (the side that protects the retailer and the one that protects the consumer) to suggest their rights as a consumer.

 

I think what is clear is, really I do no have that huge extent of knowledge as other seem to have (though in my defence i never stated i did i suggested that other seemed to have less) and therefore i wont argue.

 

But what my overall point was is still the same. People are giving one sided advice and is not necessarily the full ramifications of the SOGA and should be taken into consideration before consumers begin to attack retailers.

[kiptower]

i suggest you spend more time reading the SOGA before you land up with your foot in your mouth

 

there are many on this forum that have the expertise to give advise

 

and @ this stage its clear you DONT, making so many errors

[Bookworm]

Well, no, point taken, but this IS a consumer site, so we would be advising consumers on their rights...

 

When you have read a good few more threads, you will see that we do not advise people lightly to enter into litigation. In some cases, we will tell them they don't have a chance or that it would be a risky proposition, etc... But the fact is that an awful lot of the people who come on here asking for advice have been lied to and denied their statutory rights by retailers with the upper hand and we try to restore the balance by educating them on their rights.

 

Although it has been said many a time before, let's sum up the main points for newbies who may stumble on this thread:

 

Up to 6 months from purchase: Goods are deemed inherently faulty unless proven not to be and the onus is on the retailer to prove that theiy were NOT.

From 6 mths onwards: Burden of proof reverts back to consumer and he will have to pay for and provide a report from an engineer that the goods are indeed either inherently faulty, or that a fault has developed which makes the goods unfit for purpose/not of satisfactory quality, the test of which comes under "what the man on the street would expect it to be". (cost of report are reclaimable from the retailer once it is confirmed)

 

There is no 6 yrs built in SOGA. Remedy would be limited by the Limitations Act 1980, under which one can seek remedy for 6 yrs from when the course of action arises. (which is NOT the date of purchase, but when the fault occurred, something most people seem to be unaware of). SOGA doesn't have any set time limits, only the "reasonable" as mentioned higher up.

 

What else? SOGA rules your contract with the retailer not the manufacturer, so any remedy sought would have to be through the retailer, not the manufacturer, regardless of what the retailer might try to fob you off with.

 

Do not confuse statutory rights and warranties. A warranty is offered by the manufacturer and is in addition to your statutory rights, not instead of. If goods fail after the warranty has expired doesn't mean you have no remedy, far from it.

 

Be aware that if you decide to get goods fixed under warranty direct from the manufacturer without going through the retailer and the goods fail again, you could actually have jeopardised your statutory rights under SOGA. ALWAYS go through the retailer, whether you are seeking remedy under SOGA or warranty.

 

Much has been made in the media of the "European 2 yrs warranty" which the UK supposedly is not using and therefore cheating us. Not so at all. The SOGA gives us here in the UK a lot more rights as consumers than that 2 yrs warranty and is a bit of a red herring, in so far that it will mislead even more consumers as to what constitutes their legal rights.

 

The retailer has the right to choose the remedy: repair, replacement or refund. BUT he must also choose bearing in mind that it must cause minimal inconvenience to the consumer. If sending your PC for repairs means you'll be without it for 6 months, you are quite within your rights to refuse and demand a different remedy.

 

I think that covers a wide view of the topic. A consumer should always seek to try and come to an amicable arrangement with the retailer, BUT if the retailer digs his heels in or tries to skirt his contractual obligations or offer an unsuitable remedy, then one shouldn't be afraid of going through the small claims system to obtain remedy. (but come and ask us here first! )

[blitz]

After seeing as I posted in this thread back in the day, I still fully stand behind the advise given. If it helps since then I have read and own many Commercial and Consumer law (Degree Level) text book and statutes book.

 

The EU directive was implemented into the UK under the Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.

 

I am more then happy to debate SGA79 legalisation, but would this not be suited to a new thread in general knowledge rather then a necroed thread?

[qwerty65]

That actually is what i pretty much believed to be the case, but without a doubt much more accurately written and much more informed.

 

In fact so well, i see more justification for comments the about my interpretation and posts.

 

So i shall cease my posts as you have proven right there, you are taking in both aspects. I will take into account that although i probably have a good insight to the rights of the consumer and possibly without bias to consumer or retailer, I obviously lack a significant amount of understanding to question other peoples perspectives.

 

Many Thanks Bookworm!

[blitz]

Qwerty, why not read up on the rights, I mean I started off by reading the Trading Standards/BERR/Consumer Direct websites about 5 times each, before moving on to reading the whole SGA.

 

Gives a good read and a better understanding, and people on here would happily help if you did want to broaden your knowledge on the subject

 

Don't just run away, read some posts

[qwerty65]

Well i wouldn't just run away, but last night was a break from my Uni C/w where i have to examine the Masculinity and Domesticity of Victorian middle-class. Although consumer rights much more interesting (though just as complex) i have to focus on that for the time being. But yes i think its best i do that i would like to broaden my understanding without a doubt.

[Kraken1]

I'm not sure I agree with everything posted above.

 

There is no 6 yrs built in SOGA. Remedy would be limited by the Limitations Act 1980, under which one can seek remedy for 6 yrs from when the course of action arises. (which is NOT the date of purchase, but when the fault occurred, something most people seem to be unaware of). SOGA doesn't have any set time limits, only the "reasonable" as mentioned higher up

.

 

The SOGA, these days is all about conformity with the contract, and if goods are not of satisfactory quality then this is a breach of contract. The cause of action is therefore the breach of contract. This means that in the vast majority of instances then the cause of action will be the date of purchase; the date the contract was entered into. There will be exceptions, though.

 

 

Much has been made in the media of the "European 2 yrs warranty" which the UK supposedly is not using and therefore cheating us. Not so at all. The SOGA gives us here in the UK a lot more rights as consumers than that 2 yrs warranty and is a bit of a red herring, in so far that it will mislead even more consumers as to what constitutes their legal rights.

 

Agreed. Indeed the 2 year thing is actually a limitation period. In the UK the limitation period is six years.

 

The retailer has the right to choose the remedy: repair, replacement or refund. BUT he must also choose bearing in mind that it must cause minimal inconvenience to the consumer. If sending your PC for repairs means you'll be without it for 6 months, you are quite within your rights to refuse and demand a different remedy.

 

I believe that it is actually the buyer's choice.

[Bookworm]

The SOGA, these days is all about conformity with the contract, and if goods are not of satisfactory quality then this is a breach of contract. The cause of action is therefore the breach of contract. This means that in the vast majority of instances then the cause of action will be the date of purchase; the date the contract was entered into. There will be exceptions, though.

Sorry, that isn't correct. The LA 6 yrs limit starts ticking from when you discover what leads to the cause of action, in other words when the goods become faulty, before that you would have no reason to suspect that a breach of contract was going to happen. The LA works forward, not backwards. So when you find out you have cause of action, you have 6 years to TAKE that action. If not, the clock would start ticking every time you sign a contract, so after 6 years, you wdn't have to pay your mortgage and they couldn't chase you? That would be nice. But no, it's when you default that the cause of action happens and when the clock starts ticking for recovery.

 

I believe that it is actually the buyer's choice.

Definitely not. (unfortunately) Hence the importance of being aware of the "minimal inconvenience to the customer" right.

[Kraken1]

We'll have to disagree then...

 

F148B

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;

 

As for the LA points. I'll accept that it is debatable as the nature of the cause of action will have an impact. We're talking SOGA stuff though and with SOGA it runs from the date of contract.

 

LA 1980 - s5 Time limit for actions founded on simple contract

An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

 

The cause of action is the breach of contract, the contract was entered into at point of purchase. It is not the date of knowledge as action arises from the breach of contract, not the discovery of the fault as the fault was already there. In order to be a claim there must have been something wrong that meant that the goods were not in conformity with the contract. The situation is different for stuff founded on CPA actions (see s11) - that talks about date of knowledge but this terminology is not used in s5. It has to run from the date of contract.

 

This of course might be different with some contracts and some breaches. For eg manufacturers guarantees where is an ongoing obligation. SOGA terms are obligations implied into the start of the contract, not ongoing; cf with a non statutory obligation to repair.

 

To do construe the law otherwise would mean that the courts would be full of claims where claimants had 'only just realised' that there was a problem.

[Bookworm]

Yes, but you stopped short of the next section

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.

I'm afraid that that bolded part is what gives the retailer the right to choose, bearing in mind the "significant inconvenience" to the buyer.

 

As for limitations, it rules over ALL contracts and SOGA is no different. There are no limits built into SOGA itself, the 6 yrs limit is the one from LA1980. Furthermore, whilst the conformity of contract is ONE possible cause of action, a claim under satisfactory quality or fitness for purpose etc... and has nothing to do with inherent fault, and it is perfectly possible (and in fact expected) that this will only become obvious when the goods finally fail. I don't understand where the "I only just realised" has to do with it. :-? If you bought a ££££ yacht and it failed after say 8 years, according to your logic, the buyer would have no recourse at all. On the other hand, if you bought a £10 toaster and it failed after 2 months, but you left it until 6 yrs after to pursue the matter (should you wish to, lol) I doubt a judge would look too kindly on that... Swings and roundabouts really.

[Kraken1]

The bolded bit gives the seller the right to argue that a particular remedy is not appropriate, but the burden is on the seller and choice of which remedy to pursue is still the buyers. Depending on the circumstances it is the buyer who gets to choose whether they get a refund, partial refund. repair or replacement.

 

The choice of remedy is therefore the buyers'. The seller may only respond to that.

 

Limitation does run over all contracts, the difference is that SOGA stuff implies terms into a contract from the beginning, other terms may be individually negotiated and may kick in at a later time. Cf s14 stuff with a general term saying 'I will repair the boat if there is a problem for the next ten years'. If the manufacturer does not honour this term the breach of contract is when he fails to do so and limitation runs from then, the cause of action. With SOGA though the term that is breached is one that runs from the beginning, the boat that was supplied was not reasonably durable or what-have-you. Therefore if they are not then it is this term that is breached. The contract is a one hit wonder, not an ongoing obligation.

 

You cannot have an open-ended obligation like this in contract, this would essentially be an agreement to agree and would therefore be void, if not for this reason then for lack of certainty.

 

Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality

 

If you bought a ££££ yacht and it failed after say 8 years, according to your logic, the buyer would have no recourse at all.

 

They wouldn't under the SOGA unless limitation could be avoided/postponed, for eg under s11 or 32. Hence why if spending that kind of money then you draft the contract accordingly. They might therefore have recourse on other grounds. Interesting you should mention a boat, clegg v anderson dealt with a boat, but that was about rejection, not limitation generally.

 

Find me a soga based case where the claimant pleaded s14 and the goods were more than 6 years old and I will happily reverse my position more quickly than an mp on expenses.

[Bookworm]

Yes I know, I used Clegg successfully myself last year, which is what made me think of boat as in reality, it would be difficult to find something of a sufficient value enough and expected durability to make it a worthwhile argument.

 

I can't think of any case, for the obvious above reason. I don't even know if anyone actually even tried it, again for the same reasons.

 

As for the R, R or R, the only time where the buyer has the upper hand is if it is still early enough to reject the goods, in which case the buyer can demand that the remedy be a refund.

[blitz]

I always understood that in England and Wales the LA period started from the creating of the contract, where as in Scotland it was the breach in the contract (Think I only read this in a BERR factsheet, and can't say I have read the LA, its not in my statues book)

 

With regards to SGA79 ss48B, the seller could refuse to either repair or replace the item if it was disproportionate to the other remedy.