sale of goods act

flipmode_2

Hi Guys,

I bought an LCD TV just over 3 years ago and has now become faulty ( I paid £950 via a credit card). Standard 1 year warranty

I have been told under 'Sale of Goods act' I can claim for a repair/replacment or my money back minus an amount for the use you have had of it, or keep the item and get a reduction on the price you paid within a six year period.

Is this correct???

Thanks

Tozer

Sale of Goods Act requires an item to be of satisfactory quality. This includes the requirement for it to be reasonably durable. the Act does not set down a time limit.

I think you would be fairly hard pressed to get anything other than a repair - and even then I suspect it will be difficult after 3 years.

latecomer

Unless you can demonstrate a fundamental fault in the design then I dont think you stand a chance or either a repair or replacement. There is a reason goods are guaranteed for 1 year rather than 5....

moggylover

Hi, the Sale of Good Acts says that an item must basically be "fit for the purpose" not only for the one year of its warranty (which is in ADDITION to your rights under the Sale of Goods Act but for up to 6 years, dependant upon what the item is of course:D

However, what you would need to post is whether the item is beyond economic repair, and whether the part in need of replacement is a "wear and tear item" . For instance, if you buy a new car, you get covered by the Sale of Goods Act, and also the manufacturers Warranty: if the brake shoes wear out through use, however, this is not covered as they have worn out through use and not through a manufacturing fault. If the friction material falls off the backing plate then this is a manufacturing fault and thus would be covered by both the SofG, and Warranty.

The Sale of Goods Act asks that the item be fit for use for that 6 year period OR "economically repairable within that time" (i.e. if it going to cost £30 to repair then you have no beef - but if it is going to cost £500 then you do) If it is, then you would probably be entitled to some compensation (i.e. about half of the cost of the TV - for the 3 years it failed to give service).

This might help:

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

moggylover

latecomer wrote: »

Unless you can demonstrate a fundamental fault in the design then I dont think you stand a chance or either a repair or replacement. There is a reason goods are guaranteed for 1 year rather than 5....

A guarantee offerred by the manufacturer is very nice - but just so much floss in actual fact: and is in ADDITION to ones rights under the Sale of Goods Act, which is why it often states that the warranty does not affect ones rights under the Sale of Goods Act.:D

Tozer

moggylover wrote: »

Hi, the Sale of Good Acts says that an item must basically be "fit for the purpose" not only for the one year of its warranty (which is in ADDITION to your rights under the Sale of Goods Act but for up to 6 years, dependant upon what the item is of course:D

However, what you would need to post is whether the item is beyond economic repair, and whether the part in need of replacement is a "wear and tear item" . For instance, if you buy a new car, you get covered by the Sale of Goods Act, and also the manufacturers Warranty: if the brake shoes wear out through use, however, this is not covered as they have worn out through use and not through a manufacturing fault. If the friction material falls off the backing plate then this is a manufacturing fault and thus would be covered by both the SofG, and Warranty.

The Sale of Goods Act asks that the item be fit for use for that 6 year period OR "economically repairable within that time" (i.e. if it going to cost £30 to repair then you have no beef - but if it is going to cost £500 then you do) If it is, then you would probably be entitled to some compensation (i.e. about half of the cost of the TV - for the 3 years it failed to give service).

This might help:

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

This is not correct. SOGA does not require that items be fit for use for 6 years at all. The 6 year period is a limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980 within which a claim must be brought.

SOGA does not specifically refer to any time periods as, obviously, different goods will be expected to last for different periods of time.

ormus

that is correct, but the county court would expect a 1000 quid telly to last more than 3 yrs. so its worth persuing.

Tozer

ormus wrote: »

that is correct, but the county court would expect a 1000 quid telly to last more than 3 yrs. so its worth persuing.

Not 100% sure that is right. Ultimately it comes down to the District Judge on the day. 50/50 in my view.

Of course, if you issue proceedings, more likely than not a settlement will be forthcoming.

moggylover

Tozer wrote: »

This is not correct. SOGA does not require that items be fit for use for 6 years at all. The 6 year period is a limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980 within which a claim must be brought.

SOGA does not specifically refer to any time periods as, obviously, different goods will be expected to last for different periods of time.

Well, I would call that splitting hairs Tozer:D . Certainly all goods would be expected to last different periods of time, but only those considered "consumables" (which would not, I think, include expensive tv's) would not be covered at all within that six years.

As I said, this TV would probably still be expected to be "economically repairable" and if it is not then the owner has a claim for it being unfit for the purpose unless the fault is due to someone tampering or the TV being used in a way which has caused damage:D . I suspect that a 50/50 on a new set would not be considered unreasonable by the Court if this television has failed and is not economically repairable.

Tozer

Again, I think I have to disagree. The Court will consider whether the burden of the implied warranties have been discharged by passage of time. If it considers that they haven't, then the OP would be entitled to full recovery of repair costs. If they have, the OP would be entitled to nothing.

kwatt

I'd agree with Tozer.

There is no guarantee of durability, it simply doesn't exist, it's all about what a particular court on a particular day in a particular case deem to be "reasonable".

If the machine has worked without fault for 3 years then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that it was indeed "fit for purpose" and it has worked as intended for that period, which is well beyond the expectation of most warranty requirements.

Therefore the argument would run that there were many ways in which this loss could have been insured and, because the OP chose not to insure that risk of failure then any costs are down to them. Or at least that's the argument that I've seen many a manufacturer use successfully many times.

In any event the best you could hope for is likely a contribution toward the cost of making good I expect.

Any refund would be based on the depreciated value of the goods based on the time in which they had worked. Bear in mind that, just like cars, half the value is wiped out as soon as you take it out the box so you can only expect, at the very best, 25-30% of the value refunded and that is only if you can prove that the defect was there from day one.

Beyond that, it's a simple failure and it's no-one's responsibility other than the owner's.

In short, I doubt you'd get anywhere and even if you did, what you'd get back wouldn't be worth the effort and cost.

If it's a known brand then the best you can do is badger the manufacturer telling them that you bought that brand in the expectation that it would have lasted longer etc. and hope they offer some concession, but don't hope for too much.

If it's a non-brand thing or some unknown brand, you've practically no chance of getting anywhere.

HTH

K.