Question ref sales of goods act

Andr3w · 30 Oct 2010 at 17:11

Hey.

A friend (it's not me before you think so

) has a laptop bought from a supermarket for £400ish about 3 months ago.

Now this laptop has died - hardware failure I think. My friend can't find the receipt.

They took it back to the store and the store said that the problem doesn't lie with them and they should contact toshiba.

Now my thinking was that for the first year the sales of goods act states that the 'warranty' is with the store?

I think they my friend can prove purchase with a bank statement if this helps.

Marff · 30 Oct 2010 at 17:14

His contract is with the supermarket so they have to deal with it.

Andr3w · 30 Oct 2010 at 17:19

Do you know where I can prove this? I've searched but can't find the specifics

memyselfandi · 30 Oct 2010 at 17:30

Try here (Governments Consumer Direct site) under "who do i claim refund, repair or replacement from?" about half way down the page. Should be official enough.

Marff · 30 Oct 2010 at 17:30

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.

semi-pro waster · 30 Oct 2010 at 17:37

Section 48 of the SoGA1979 is where it starts to get interesting for you. Essentially if the goods fail within the first 6 months then it is up to the seller to prove that they conformed to the contract of sale i.e. were fit for purpose - here a laptop which fails within 6 months isn't fit for purpose (I'm pretty sure the courts would interpret it thus) so the seller has to refund or replace.

Your contract is originally with the seller and they can't derogate out of it for the proscribed period, after that point a manufacturers warranty might take over but in the first instance your claim is always with the seller.

Culinia · 30 Oct 2010 at 17:39

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

"""• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract."""

PhillyDee · 30 Oct 2010 at 17:40

There is a problem here with not having the reciept. A statement of the bank account proves nothing, although implies a high value purchase had taken place. The receipt would give proof of purchase tied down to a particular time and place.

semi-pro waster · 30 Oct 2010 at 17:43

PhillyDee said:
There is a problem here with not having the reciept. A statement of the bank account proves nothing, although implies a high value purchase had taken place. The receipt would give proof of purchase tied down to a particular time and place.

That's a fair point, it might be a bit of an issue but many places for high value items will insist on taking a name/address from the buyer for "warranty purposes", I don't know if the supermarket here will have but it's an avenue worth checking anyway.

Pudney · 30 Oct 2010 at 17:44

SOGA doesn't require proof of purchase, and traders can only require reasonable proof (e.g. a bank statement).

Andr3w · 30 Oct 2010 at 18:35

Spoke to my friend, apparently they did take a bank statement but they still rejected it :eek:

SideWinder · 30 Oct 2010 at 18:45

Andr3w said:
Spoke to my friend, apparently they did take a bank statement but they still rejected it

Did he print out the information proving he has rights?

Andr3w · 30 Oct 2010 at 18:48

Nope, which is what i'm going to get them to do.

I'd like to say i'm suprised such a large company flogs people off like this, but i'm not

Wicksta · 30 Oct 2010 at 18:57

Andr3w said:
Nope, which is what i'm going to get them to do.

I'd like to say i'm suprised such a large company flogs people off like this, but i'm not

It's not the large company flogging someone off, it's some numpty working there for a small wage who doesn't know what he's talking about. I doubt if Sainsbury's company policy involves ignoring the sale of goods act.

SideWinder · 30 Oct 2010 at 19:01

Wicksta said:
It's not the large company flogging someone off, it's some numpty working there for a small wage who doesn't know what he's talking about. I doubt if Sainsbury's company policy involves ignoring the sale of goods act.

Indeed.

When your friend goes again, tell him to go straight to the manager with the documents proving his rights, the bank statement and the laptop.

bulb66 · 30 Oct 2010 at 19:06

Wicksta said:
It's not the large company flogging someone off, it's some numpty working there for a small wage who doesn't know what he's talking about. I doubt if Sainsbury's company policy involves ignoring the sale of goods act.

SideWinder said:
Indeed.

When your friend goes again, tell him to go straight to the manager with the documents proving his rights, the bank statement and the laptop.

Well if it is the supermarket you have said, then the OP mate should have been given a leaflet with his purchase in which i believe it states after 30 days the customer should contact the manufacture. So its not the poor numpty's fault they are only going by what the are told. As you can tell i work for them :-)

J

SB118 · 30 Oct 2010 at 19:10

bulb66 said:
... then the OP mate should have been given a leaflet with his purchase in which i believe it states after 30 days the customer should contact the manufacture.

So Sainburys actively go out of their way to ignore the SoGA. Awesome.

nightmare99 · 30 Oct 2010 at 19:23

So Sainburys actively go out of their way to ignore the SoGA. Awesome.

They cannot ignore the SOGA but they would be correct in suggesting that it would probably be repaired quicker if the customer dealt with the manufactuer directly rather than the store doing it (which the customer could always refuse and insist the store dealt with it).

Is your friend not able to call toshiba? they would cover any shipping costs so there would be no real additional costs to him in getting warranty service in this way.

PhillyDee · 30 Oct 2010 at 19:27

SB118 said:
So Sainburys actively go out of their way to ignore the SoGA. Awesome.

I am just playing devils advocate here.

But where is the proof that it was purchased when his friend claims it was?

Thats why you keep the receipts. Is there any proof it was bought from there?

fidget · 30 Oct 2010 at 19:27

A receipt is not needed. Only reasonable proof of purchase which you have. They can also cross reference that with the till data.

If, after speaking to the store manager, they refuse to deal with it, you really have two options.

1) Contact your local trading standards department and have them "educate" the store manager on your behalf.

2) Write a letter to the store giving them 7 days to fulfill your warranty claim (I would ask for a replacement or refund as it's within 6 months). If they still refuse, issue a county claim form.

If you are not good at writing letters like this, the BBC have a great Word template you can change here or just cut and paste below. make sure you send it recorded delivery so you have proof they recieved it:

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: Faulty goods and the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)

On [date of purchase] I bought a [description of purchase] from you for [insert price] which has stopped working.

The problem is [enter description of fault].

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) states that when a consumer buys goods from a trader they must be: as described; of a satisfactory quality; and fit for any purpose made known at the time of sale to the seller.

This legislation also states that the seller, not the manufacturer, is legally obliged to sort out a problem if the goods do not meet these requirements.

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) says: if goods break within the first six months after purchase then there is a presumption the goods were faulty when sold.

My goods are not [delete as appropriate - as described/fit for purpose/of satisfactory quality] and I wish to claim a [delete as appropriate - repair/replacement/refund] of my goods under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as amended.

Please respond to my complaint within 7 days from receipt of this letter.

Yours faithfully,
[your name]

Good luck and don't back down - they are the ones in the wrong.