Question about consumer rights

Associate
Joined
26 Nov 2006
Posts
1,091
I sold an electronic device to a customer last year (just over 12 months ago) the item was sold as Grade A as was explained that the unit came with 12 months warranty but not with the orginial manufacturers but with the company I bought it from. Its now faulty and my suppliers are saying tough its over 12 months, customer aint happy. He now says that under consumer rights the contract is with me and is for 2 years.. this maybe the case with new items but where do I stand with items stated as Grade A? Also how do other suppliers go on for the 2 year warranty if the original manufacturers only warranty it for 12 months?
 
The chances are it will come down to an interpretation of what is reasonable and fit for purpose. If you've made it clear that the item was not new and that the item was warrantied for 12 months only then I'd suspect you are ok, however this is based on pretty limited information. The question that [TW]Fox asks is another that may affect what happens.
 

Your supplier is now irrelevent - thats between you and him. As far as the consumer is concerned, his beef is with you. Goods must last a reasonable length of time - if you've sold him a £500 hifi system its almost certain 13 months is not reasonable and you are liable to replace it.

If you sold him a £5 electric toothbrush he can go poke it.
 
is this still relevant if the item was sold as Grade A and not new? How do other companys go on if the original manu's wont warranty it? I remember a few years ago buying a VGA card from OCUK and it failed after 8 months, I had to RMA it with BFG and wait a few weeks for it to get sorted.
 
Uk law sucks for retailers, why should we hold the baby and yet the manu's get 12 months and thats it they're scott free even though its their design and product that failed. I'm going to get the item stripped and tested, it could be something simple or something major but caused by misuse or spillage.
 
[TW]Fox;15312710 said:
Because the customer bought it from you, not the manufacturer.

I think he means the inbalance between consumer contracts and business contracts, it's a real problem for small startups.
 
I think he means the inbalance between consumer contracts and business contracts, it's a real problem for small startups.

Yep, I fail to see the logic between forcing the retailer to take a risk that goods will last a reasonable time when manufactorers can stick with their 12 month warranty period, if the product should be expected to last a reasonable amount of time then the producer needs to be held responsible. I have nothing wrong with the idea of the retailer being held accountable for dealing with it but why on earth are they left footing the bill.
 
if you can establish that the fault is inherent in the item (design fault or in manufacturing process etc) and not due to misuse, wear and tear etc.

Then i would have thought you would have a case against the manufacturer?
 
arfur, the 2 years is NOT UK law* ;) (it's an EU one that the SOGA supersedes and gives better cover with anyway).

As Martini says it would help if we knew what was sold and at what price, as the SOGA relies quite heavily (after the 12 months) on how long something could reasonably be expected to last - a five pound "Savers" kettle is a very different thing to a £100 top of the line all singing, all dancing Kettle.


*Despite it being touted as a super secret EU law that retailers don't want us poor downtrodden consumers to know about, in some circles.
 
Back
Top Bottom