Help Me with Sales of Goods Act

Rikwaller

Rikwaller

Rikwaller

Associate
Joined
9 May 2005
Posts
105
Please help, I did a search but have not been able to find an answer. :(

I purchased a 17" LCD TV for the bedroom before Xmas from a competitor.

The tv from the start had a issue of not turning on first time, You get a picture but no sound. If you turn it off and then back on, it would appear normal. I put up with it at the start and due to not using the tv much, I did not really think about it.

Late March I tried to turn the TV on and it took me 11 attempts for it to work. So i thought I should do something about it.

I spoke to the store where I purchased it who referred me to samsung direct. They were really good and arranged a swop out and a couple of days later, I had a new TV.

The new TV however would not work with the old remote, even though an exactly same model. I called samsung who would not have it that the TV was broken but said they would send another remote to me. Fair play I though and waited about a week for it to turn up.

As it still had not arrived I called them back and spoke to another helpful chap who doubted that it was the remote that was broken ( what I advised in the first place ) and said he would arrange another TV swop.

This again happened a couple of days later. I take the new TV home and try it and it works fine. The next morning, it would just not turn on. I wrote the serial number and all the other bits you have to give them down on the same bit of paper I had used all along, lo and behold, they had sent me my original TV back :mad:

Again I called them and they advised they would send me another TV. That was 6 working days ago and I called yesterday to chase. It turns out they do not have another one to send me. They did not call me to advise and I have taken the TV into work everyday incase they just arrived unannounced like usual. They said they would get somebody to call me back. I called today and they have advised I will have to wait till they have one in stock for me to have a swop out but they could not give me any timescales.

I am thoroughly fed up of not having calls when I am told and with not having a TV. We are decorating at the moment and almost living upstairs so the nights are quite dull !!

Sorry for the long post and any recommendations ??

What are my rights, can I ask for a refund ?

Thanks
Simon
 
First and foremost, don't let the retailer refer you to the manufacturer. You don't have a contract with Samsung, you have a contract with the retailer who you bought the TV from, so it is their responsibility. You are well within your rights to demand either a replacement TV or a repair. You are able to get a refund as long as the item has broken with a "reasonable amount of time". This time differs from case to case, but you would certainly expect a TV to last more than a couple of months, so you would be well within your rights to demand a refund if you want it.

Remember the first point though, do not let them fob you off by sending you to Samsung, it's their responsibility.
 
Davey_Pitch said:
This time differs from case to case, but you would certainly expect a TV to last more than a couple of months, so you would be well within your rights to demand a refund if you want it.
Click to expand...
Yes, and no.

That "reasonable time" refers to the period you have to notify the seller that the goods were faulty on deliver and to reject them. I'd be VERY surprised if you'd get away with that after several months, unless circimstances were unusual.

However, I agree with the rest of what you've said. The SoGA gives you the right to repair/replacement, or to compensation if goods were not up to standard on delivery and this set was, from the description, clearly not.

While the buyer is not obliged to go to the manufacturer, it might sometimes be the best method. But, you're absolutely right, the contract is with the retailer not the manufacturer and THAT is precisely who I would be expecting to sort this out, not the manufacturer.
 
Sequoia said:
Yes, and no.

That "reasonable time" refers to the period you have to notify the seller that the goods were faulty on deliver and to reject them. I'd be VERY surprised if you'd get away with that after several months, unless circimstances were unusual.
Click to expand...

According to the DTI website, specifically question 4 on the above link, it gives the impression that you can demand a refund within that "reasonable time". It also states a bit higher up that some faults are not apparant right away but the fault would still be classed as inherent. As you know, within 6 months it's up to the retailer to prove the fault wasn't there at the time of sale, and I'm not sure how they could prove that in this instance, so I certainly don't see how they could refuse a refund.
 
Davey_Pitch said:
According to the DTI website, specifically question 4 on the above link, it gives the impression that you can demand a refund within that "reasonable time". It also states a bit higher up that some faults are not apparant right away but the fault would still be classed as inherent. As you know, within 6 months it's up to the retailer to prove the fault wasn't there at the time of sale, and I'm not sure how they could prove that in this instance, so I certainly don't see how they could refuse a refund.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's two different things. For a period after purchase, you can reject faulty goods, rescind the contract and the contract is then treated as if it had never existed. After you've "accepted" the goods, which can be done either explicitly or simply by not rejecting within that "reasonable" time, the right to rescind (and a full refund) is lost. That leaves you with repair/replacement/compensation. Or a partial refund, and for a nearly new product, the compensation is likely to be close to a full refund.
 
The retailer has the decision over a repair or replacement, this is not upto the customer. Whilst the warranty that comes with your product IS a manufacturers warranty and not a store warranty technically (that is why some stores offer their own, extended warranties), the store does have an obligation to organise this repair or exchange with the manufacturer on your behalf.
 
I'm not sure you're right here, it has to be to the customers satisfaction. Warranties etc are irrelevent as goods have to be fit for purpose and a telly should last a lot more than a year.

Anyway, this situation is in no way satisfactory for the customer, I would go back to the retailer and give them a certain amount of time to sort it out and then begin action (i bet the retailer will swap your tv straight away) at the end of the day the dealer knows the law and if you show you do, will sort it out.

good luck, you cannot insist on a refund unless things go very wrong. (you're at least half way there though)
 
Sequoia said:
After you've "accepted" the goods, which can be done either explicitly or simply by not rejecting within that "reasonable" time, the right to rescind (and a full refund) is lost.
Click to expand...

Ah, but in this case, it could be argued that he *is* rejecting the TV within the "reasonable" time, given that he bought the TV at Christmas and we're not even 5 months down the line. I suppose it would come down to the court's definition of what is reasonable for a TV, which would only happen if he went down the Small Claims Court route.
 
Davey_Pitch said:
Ah, but in this case, it could be argued that he *is* rejecting the TV within the "reasonable" time, given that he bought the TV at Christmas and we're not even 5 months down the line. I suppose it would come down to the court's definition of what is reasonable for a TV, which would only happen if he went down the Small Claims Court route.
Click to expand...
Case law suggests that "reasonable time" is most likely a few days, or less, and outside of exceptional circumstances, is VERY unlikely to be more than a month. It is just the time by which you should have discovered any faults, AND notified the seller. If you're going to do this, it needs to be done very promptly, and I'd be totally astonished if any court would entertain five months as reasonable time to reject, unless circumstances were exceptional (like going for a prolonged hospital stay immediately after purchase).

How long should it take, Davey, to discover that a TV isn't working? An hour? A day? Maybe a week if you didn't unpack it straight away. But five months? I just don't see it.

Bear in mind that what we're talking about is how long it is reasonable to need to inspect goods, and failing to reject them will constitute acceptance, and "acceptance" is a legal term, not the common sense definition of the word.
 
Thanks for the help chaps.

I am not maxing the ring main, the fault is with the TV. I have tried it at my parents and work and it happens there as well.

I have escalated this to there complaints department, and they should callme back today ( I will believe it when It happens).

I have heard from friends that companies only have three chances to sort out a problem via repair or replacement before the are obliged to offer a brand new replacement or alternative settlement. Is this true ?

Thanks
Simon
 
Rikwaller said:
I have heard from friends that companies only have three chances to sort out a problem via repair or replacement before the are obliged to offer a brand new replacement or alternative settlement. Is this true ?
Click to expand...

There's nothing to that effect in the SoGA, but it may be company policy to follow something like that.
 
Rikwaller said:
I have heard from friends that companies only have three chances to sort out a problem via repair or replacement before the are obliged to offer a brand new replacement or alternative settlement. Is this true?
Click to expand...
Davey is right, in that the Sale of Goods Act (and various amendments and supporting legislation) don't say anything that categoric.

What they DO say, however, is that for the first six months of ownership, any faults that develop will be assumed to be inherent and to have existed at the time of purchase unless the seller can prove otherwise. And if the fault existed (even if it hadn't shown up, like a component on unsatisfactory quality that failed unreasonably quickly .... and that's a different "unreasonable" from the one we were talking about earlier, Davey ;)) ..... then the company is in breach of contract and you have a claim. In order for the company to prove the fault wasn't inherent, they'd need to be able to demonstrate the product had been abused, used for something it was not intended for, been damaged, suffered an accident, etc.

After 6 months, that burden of proof reverses and the buyer now has to show the fault existed at time of purchase, rather than the seller proving it didn't. That probably means the buyer getting independent indspections, reports, etc.

Assuming you are a consumer buying from a business, you have the right to require either a replacement or a repair. The seller must provide these, and must do so "within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;", unless the cost of doing what you want is :-

- impossible, or
- disproportionate in cost compared to the other option
- disproportionate in cost, compared to recission

If the seller cannot repair or replace "within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;", then you can go for recission. That means you rescind the contract, let the seller have his goods back and you get your money back .... BUT, unless recission within that initial "reasonable period", the seller IS entitled to make a reduction in the reimbursement to reflect the use you've had of the goods. That last bit comes from s.48C Para (3) of the The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, which amends the 1979 Sale of Goods Act, and that para says "(3) For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him."


The problem is, Rik, this type of legislation is nearly always phrased in terms of "reasonable" this, "reasonable" that. It's very rarely cut and dried, because if it is, it leaves courts no wriggle room when a case crops up that has circumstances the writers of the law hadn't thought about. So, the law nearly always specifies fiarly firm and hopefully clear principles, and it's down to the courts to interpret those principles, and to apply them in a way that is "reasonable".


So after all that, to address you're actual question directly, nothing I'm aware of in law says "three goes at repair and no more", but it does say the retailer must comply with his obligations "within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;". Ultimately, it's for a court to interpret exactly what that means. I rather suspect that more than three attempts, and the time delays involved, would be viewed as "unreasonable", but it's for a court.


And there's another issue. It's the manufacturer that is taking all this time, not the retailer, and the SoGA places an obligation on the retailer and not, other than it specific circumstances, on the manufacturer. Those specific circumstances do include where the manufacturerhas opted to offer additional warranty and where the buyer relied on that, as you did, when deciding to buy the product. Then, the manufacturer is also contractually committed by that warranty.

Further, you can argue (but it may not work) that you took the fault to the retailer, and are going to the manufacturer because that's what they told you to do, and therefore the time delay is down to their advice. But you're in a grey area, because your SoGA rights are against the retailer which, really, comes back to what Davey said ages ago, which was to not let the retailer fob you off by sending you to the manufacturer.

I hope that makes things a bit clear ... though I suspect it doesn't. The law is negver terribly clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom