jamiemoles said:
Complain loudly.
By rights you could demand a refund as the goods were not "fit for purpose" where you could reasonably expect them to be durable enough to last for more than 50 days.
You're wrong there.
Firstly, this is nothing to do with "fitness for purpose". That's about whether the item can fulfil the purpose, either inherent in the goods or explicitly made known to the seller, of the goods. In this case, can you watch TV transmissions/video signals, etc.? And, but for the fault, Snow-Munki could. So the set is "fit for purpose".
The problem is with the
fault, and that comes under "satisfactory quality", not fitness for purpose.
Secondly, the refund. You are ONLY entitled to a full refund if either the store offers an guarantee that includes that right (like Argos 16-day guarantee), or you if haven't "accepted" the goods, and "accepted" is a legal term, not the common-sense interpretation. It does not, for instance, refer to acceptance of delivery.
If you do ANYTHING that constitutes legal acceptance*, you lose the statutory right to demand a full refund. One way to "accept" is to not tell the seller you reject the goods within a "reasonable" time. "Reasonable" is not defined, but depends on both goods and circumstances. However, it is generally a few days and almost never exceeds 30 days, other than in very unusual circumstances (such as snow skis bought in summer, where a fault isn't detectable until you use them in winter).
As Snow-Munki has had the set some 50 days, it is VERY unlikely that he could
require a full refund, though from John Lewis, he may well be given one if he asked. But that doesn't mean he's entitled to demand it.
What he is entitled to includes several options, ranging from repair/replacement, to a partial refund, to compensation. Dolph is right. Sellers must repair/replace goods within a "reasonable" time, and that is generally held to mean about 30 days but, again, is not a rigid definition. See Sale of Goods Act (as amended) S.35.
* Acceptance, as per SoGA s.35, means :-
- "intimating" to the seller that you accept the goods
- doing any act which is inconsistent with the ownership remaining with the seller (such as selling, modifying the goods, etc)
- both the above points only apply, with a consumer, after the consumer has had a "reasonable" period to ensure the goods comply with contract, unless he had already examined the goods
- after a "reasonable" period has elapsed without the buyer "intimating" to the seller that he rejects the goods
- the "reasonable" period in the above point requires that the buyer has "reasonable opportunity" to "examine" the goods, as per point 3. If, for example, you ordered goods and went into hospital for several weeks before you could examine the goods to ensure contract compliance, that would probably extend the "reasonable" period to include a "reasonable" time after you came out of hospital and were fit enough to conduct the examination.
As should be obvious from the above, statutory rights lean in favour of the buyer, and especially a consumer (rather than B2B buyer), but it is NOT
carte blanche in the consumer's favour. It is a balance, but one moderately weighted towards the buyer/consumer.
Anyone that is going to approach a seller and start waving their Sale of Goods Act rights about would be well-advised to first understand what those rights are, and more particularly, what they
aren't. Otherwise, you stand a good chance of losing any good will from the seller, and quite possibly, a more acceptable but non-compulsory solution to the problem. Demanding your money back under the SoGA should be a last resort against an recalcitrant seller, not a first move, if for no other reason than that actually enforcing SoGA rights if the seller refuses your demands means taking court action and that, even if you win, is a pain in the rear end to have to do.
Who would you rather complain to?
