new 30 day refund for faulty goods law starts today

[Zhokel]

Pretty sure this doesn't replace SOGA, but supplements it.

Where under SOGA you didn't have an inherent right for a refund, only a replacement or repair, now within the first 30 days you have the right to a refund as well as the protections offered by SOGA

Nope, it's replaced it: http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/sale-of-goods-act

It should also be noted that stuff purchased before 1st October 2015 is still under SOGA though (even if it goes faulty after 1st Oct), anything after that is now the CRA.

 

[Aldav]

Pretty sure this doesn't replace SOGA, but supplements it.

Where under SOGA you didn't have an inherent right for a refund, only a replacement or repair, now within the first 30 days you have the right to a refund as well as the protections offered by SOGA

From what I can make of it, this "codifies" several different bits of consumer law into one Act. It does it by bringing protections in via this CRA, and amending SOGA to remove it's effect on situations covered by the CRA. The SOGA is not repealed, because it also applies to non-consumer contracts.

As for the 30 days, you did previously have the right to reject goods and demand a refund but only if you did it quickly, and hadn't already "accepted" the goods. The problem was that there was no definition of how long "quickly enough" was. A common perception was that you had 30 days, but no such definition actually existed. Now it does.

So you have very strong protection for 30 days. Lesser but still strong protection from 30 days to 6 months, and some protection after that, for about 6 years.

 

[antijoke]

Edit: Ignore me.

 

[Jim99]

OK that makes more sense.

So actually, in terms of buying kit over the web, very little has changed from the SOGA, except that there's now a 30 day window in which you must get a refund if you want one.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

I think only time will tell how effective this is. It isn't the wording which matters but how it is enforced as you are all aware.

I can understand the difficulty in enforcing this when talking about things like greenlit games or buggy steam games. Greenlit games mention that the content is incomplete and buggy so it is exempt from this 30 day refund(i believe), however there is a promise of a fully functional release eventually and with many games never seeing that release, this may put the game developers and the game distributor in an odd position. Or this 30 day refund might not apply at all due to you purchasing it for a cheaper price as is

As for the demo thing, if you play a buggy as hell demo and buy a game and also find it just as buggy, then you deserve no refund. Consider it a 'distribution of wealth due to stupidity tax', learn your lesson and do not buy on wishful thinking again if you are expecting to return any games in the future. When i play a buggy demo or greenlit game, i either buy it and accept it as is or wait for reviews/youtube videos to make sure it isn't going to give me some unexpected error.

I wonder where the responsibility lies when talking about hardware compatibility. Game developers are not required to release a list of compatible hardware and GPU makers are not required to list games compatible for crossfire/sli. If someone buys a game to play on Crossfire and they find its buggy as hell to the point it is unplayable, then is it the devs fault or the GPU manufacturers fault for not producing a working profile?

Could you even describe either product as faulty because the game functions on a single GPU as intended and each GPU tests correctly in this way, as does the game.

 

[Haggisman]

Nope, it's replaced it: http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/sale-of-goods-act

It should also be noted that stuff purchased before 1st October 2015 is still under SOGA though (even if it goes faulty after 1st Oct), anything after that is now the CRA.

Ah, fair enough.

Although from a quick read, it does appear that SOGA is pretty much intact, just under a different name and with a few extras.

from: http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act

About half way down the page:

From 30 days to six months

If you discover the fault within the first six months from delivery, it is presumed to have been there from the time of delivery - unless the retailer can prove otherwise.
During this time it's up to retailer to prove that the fault wasn't there at the time of delivery - it's not up to you to prove that it was.

 

[Aldav]

....

So actually, in terms of buying kit over the web, very little has changed from the SOGA, except that there's now a 30 day window in which you must get a refund if you want one.

Yes and no. This isn't like distance selling where you can just change your mind and get a refund, but for 30 days. The 30-day refund thing only applies if goods don't conform to contract, that is, are faulty, not of reasonable quality or not as described, but doesn't apply if you just change your mind.

This change is a tune-up of previous rights, adds some modest strengthening, but in large part is about codification, clarification, simplification and removal of confusion. It's an improvement but not a wholesale revamp of the situation.

 

[Vanquish-Storm]

All these rules are still very grey for where we use them.

Example being, we sell a safety boot, 7 months down the line a customer comes back to us saying they are knackered and have holes in. Who is it down to to prove that is a fault? How do we prove that is is just down to usage and the nature of that usage?

 

[Aldav]

All these rules are still very grey for where we use them.

Example being, we sell a safety boot, 7 months down the line a customer comes back to us saying they are knackered and have holes in. Who is it down to to prove that is a fault? How do we prove that is is just down to usage and the nature of that usage?

After 7 months, it's for the customer to prove it's due to a fault.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

As for the demo thing, if you play a buggy as hell demo and buy a game and also find it just as buggy, then you deserve no refund. Consider it a 'distribution of wealth due to stupidity tax', learn your lesson and do not buy on wishful thinking again if you are expecting to return any games in the future. When i play a buggy demo or greenlit game, i either buy it and accept it as is or wait for reviews/youtube videos to make sure it isn't going to give me some unexpected error.

What about games that release a public beta long before release but no demo? At the end of the day you should be able to buy a product for your platform that works properly and it is possible with proper QA testing, but proper QA testing likely means a bit less profit and a longer recycle time between releases. No other industry in the world is allowed to get away with what the games industry have been doing for the last 10 years.

I wonder where the responsibility lies when talking about hardware compatibility. Game developers are not required to release a list of compatible hardware and GPU makers are not required to list games compatible for crossfire/sli. If someone buys a game to play on Crossfire and they find its buggy as hell to the point it is unplayable, then is it the devs fault or the GPU manufacturers fault for not producing a working profile?

Could you even describe either product as faulty because the game functions on a single GPU as intended and each GPU tests correctly in this way, as does the game.

The game should work on the platform for which it is intended as long as it meets the minimum specification as listed on the 'box'.

For too long game devs and pubs have had rubbish QA when it comes to games and just expect to be able to release endless patches whilst having the money in the bank from unit sales. So they are going to have to get busy with less greed and more in depth development and QA testing. It is patently obvious that games can be released and work well for the majority of consumers at day 1 and this idea that they need real world user input to make their game work is disingenuous. Whilst it can help tune a game up, they should not be allowed to rely on it as part of their main development strategy.

The devs know what hardware is out there, they know a lot of the compatibility is unified through direct x too, so there really is no excuse for lazy development other than the fact that they can and do get away with it, which isn't right and should not be allowed (imo).