BBC article (Sale of Goods Act)

Burnsy2023 said:
By lots of people having the same issue. If there is a known issue with a particular card then, it should be reasonably easy to prove an inherent fault.
Click to expand...

Some cards just go, or have individual faults though.

Pretty shan on the little kid who spunked all his christmas money or whatever on expensive new kit, that dies.
 
A key fact is that your relationship in the Sale of Goods Act is with the retailer, not the manufacturer.
Click to expand...

Working for a large manufactuer of notebooks I'm glad they've included this line.

Can't count the amount of times I've had to correct/argue with customers with their little notepad of consumerdirect advice...
 
Mr Jones said:
If the LCD screen suddenly burn out, the motherboard blown, the HDD failed, the body starts cracking or GPU died from over-heating even though you use it to perform functions the laptop was set to do (internet, gaming, software working), how are we to prove that we've been looking after it (apart from having say a notebook cooler on it 24/7)?
Click to expand...

All the above seem to indicicate that it would be a manufactures defect - I'm talking about people accidently driving over their laptops, water damge, despite nothing apparently being spilt on it.
 
Fegruson said:
All the above seem to indicicate that it would be a manufactures defect - I'm talking about people accidently driving over their laptops, water damge, despite nothing apparently being spilt on it.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, didn't think of user accidents.
So technically if I love, care and not pull an accident on/over my laptop, I'll have 6 years of protection from manufacturer's defects?
 
Mr Jones said:
Ah yes, didn't think of user accidents.
So technically if I love, care and not pull an accident on/over my laptop, I'll have 6 years of protection from manufacturer's defects?
Click to expand...

It would seem so. I think computing items are going to be a more "grey area", in terms of whether it is a manufactures defect, the fault randomly occuring, or being put under stress from a user. I'm not too sure this was written with desktop and laptops in mind, it's going to be difficult for stores in this case.
 
Fegruson said:
It would seem so. I think computing items are going to be a more "grey area", in terms of whether it is a manufactures defect, the fault randomly occuring, or being put under stress from a user. I'm not too sure this was written with desktop and laptops in mind, it's going to be difficult for stores in this case.
Click to expand...

IT companies in general have played on that for years in my experience.
 
OFN -I've had a lot of stuff replaced when out of warranty - by both the retailer and the manufacturer. I got a two year old 9700pro replaced with an X800XT and an XP2400 with an XP2500. Recent one (few months back) was a 3 year old Samsung 42" rear projection TV with an ex display 46" similar model.

You just need to know how to write a good letter, mention the CAB a lot and persevere.
 
Used this once on a Panasonic HDD player (their original one that came out a few years ago), after 2 years it broke and was going to cost £100 to fix. I found out about this (probably from here) and the parents managed to get the labour free, however panasonic wouldn't budge on the part cost...

Also anyone know if this works with mobile contracts? My GF's new one doesn't have signal in her house or where she works so it's essentially useless...
 
Amp34 said:
Used this once on a Panasonic HDD player (their original one that came out a few years ago), after 2 years it broke and was going to cost £100 to fix. I found out about this (probably from here) and the parents managed to get the labour free, however panasonic wouldn't budge on the part cost...

Also anyone know if this works with mobile contracts? My GF's new one doesn't have signal in her house or where she works so it's essentially useless...
Click to expand...
mobile contracts shuold have a 2 week cooling off peroid
 
the phone is fit for purpose, the location of your house is not. If you didn't have an electricity supply I doubt that would be grounds to take a washing machine back.
 
Abraham said:
the phone is fit for purpose, the location of your house is not. If you didn't have an electricity supply I doubt that would be grounds to take a washing machine back.
Click to expand...

Technically the phone is a free gift with the contract (which sometimes backfires in providers faces:p), but I know what you mean.:)
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I always thought consumer direct were pretty good with their advice.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't know, never had the need to use them. All I know is that I get customers who have "claimed" to speak to Consumer Direct and that they've been told we're incorrectly informing them it's the reseller.

I wouldn't put it past the customer to lie.
 
I used to work for Comet (the high-street retailer) in their service and repairs section which was very handy for getting to know these things already :D

Washing machines are a tricky one, as they can be quite prone to user damage (e.g. someone leaving a penny in their pocket) which isn't highlighted until the Engineer takes the machine to pieces. However for things like fridges, freezers etc if they die in <6 years, unless someone is foolish enough to leave the door open then it's hard for the retailer to argue that it wasn't fit for purpose.

That said, they *do* have the right to charge you for labour if they so chose it - just not parts
 
Lanz said:
So if your graphics card packs up after 4 years, the retailer should replace it... Thoughts?
Click to expand...

That's not something that the article says is it? The key points here are that it must be of "a satisfactory quality" and "fit for purpose" which takes into account the price paid and the standard as judged by "a reasonable man" (how the legendary legal gentleman of Clapham Omnibus fame would view it would be the standard). So while theoretically the limit for the SoGA is up to 6 years the actual limit for what is considered a relatively fragile (and easily replaceable) electronic item such as a graphics card is probably going to be significantly less - it's difficult to accurately estimate but I'd be somewhat surprised if anything over 3 years was held to be a reasonable expectation.
 
semi-pro waster said:
That's not something that the article says is it? The key points here are that it must be of "a satisfactory quality" and "fit for purpose" which takes into account the price paid and the standard as judged by "a reasonable man" (how the legendary legal gentleman of Clapham Omnibus fame would view it would be the standard). So while theoretically the limit for the SoGA is up to 6 years the actual limit for what is considered a relatively fragile (and easily replaceable) electronic item such as a graphics card is probably going to be significantly less - it's difficult to accurately estimate but I'd be somewhat surprised if anything over 3 years was held to be a reasonable expectation.
Click to expand...

Fragility shouldn't come into it, people can and do look after their things.
 
Biohazard said:
Fragility shouldn't come into it, people can and do look after their things.
Click to expand...

It isn't something that is judged apart from the other criteria, it would be judged in combination with them but an electronic component is generally less durable and less likely to be able to sustain rough treatment than say a football. The test of fitness for purpose would vary for a football and a graphics card and for the myriad other products that exist between them so fragility does enter into it and quite importantly so because it varies according to what it would be reasonable to expect - if I can take care of a paper doily and use it as my placemat for 23 years then does that mean that everyone else has a legitimate expectation that all paper doilys should last for a similar length of time? It's an extreme example of course but fitness for purpose and durability do matter.

You're also telling me what you think would be sensible for law, that isn't necessarily what is in fact the case for law nor even what it is intended to be.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom