Damaged goods, our consumer rights?

lynsuk

Hiya,

My partner is a builder and is currently installing a wet room in Bath.
He ordered a screen, tray etc from a company he found online and it was delivered a couple of weeks ago. On unpacking it today he found that the metalwork on the screen had a big dent in and emailed the company telling them this. They responded back suggesting he wasn't telling the truth and suggesting he was saying this to get out of paying!!

I replied saying, actually no! :mad: We need this job finished asap and haven't the time to mess about in such a way, we just want a screen without a dent!

Anyway...my partner then suggested to me that we get a screen elsewhere. So get the damaged screen collected and returned to the company and ask for a revised invoice with the total amount for the remaining items ordered from them (and were not damaged and now being used)

The company emailed back saying as we signed for them, they are now ours and we have to pay for them, but they would replace the screen for an undamaged one. We haven't the time to wait until thursday (the day they specified for getting one to us)

I was wondering if anyone knew of our rights...? Do we not have a right to send back a damaged item and not get a replacement but go to another company (hope this is making sense...?)

We decided to try another since we were outraged by the way they dealt with us! We are happy to keep and pay for the undamaged items but would prefer to go elsewhere for the screen but the company is telling us we have to pay whatever!!!

Any advice much much much appreciated!!!!!!

MaximumImpact

He ordered a screen, tray etc from a company he found online and it was delivered a couple of weeks ago.

You are supposed to check all goods on delivery. If you take it from their point of view, you've had the goods a number of weeks and are telling them now that it is damaged. They are probably taking the point of view that you have damaged it and want a free replacement. It's not an unreasonable thing to think as some people do behave in that way.

They have been very good by offering to replace the damaged one and replace by Thursday as they didn't have to do that. Perhaps you may just have to take the offer?

I'm sure someone will be along shortly with full advice.

stugib

lynsuk wrote: »

My partner is a builder and is currently installing a wet room in Bath.

He probably has no consumer rights if he's ordered as a business.

lynsuk

stugib wrote: »

He probably has no consumer rights if he's ordered as a business.

Business'es have no consumer rights then? argh!
Thanks anyway!

lynsuk

MaximumImpact wrote: »

You are supposed to check all goods on delivery. If you take it from their point of view, you've had the goods a number of weeks and are telling them now that it is damaged. They are probably taking the point of view that you have damaged it and want a free replacement. It's not an unreasonable thing to think as some people do behave in that way.

They have been very good by offering to replace the damaged one and replace by Thursday as they didn't have to do that. Perhaps you may just have to take the offer?.

Yes I'm afraid you all are most probably right. I never looked at it in that way.
Good I came on here!

dmg24

lynsuk wrote: »

Business'es have no consumer rights then? argh!
Thanks anyway!

It does concern me that a business would not know the difference between themselves and a consumer.

OlliesDad

When goods are signed for you are singing to say they have been received in good condition. If it is left weeks before any damage is reported, the assumption has to be made that it has been damaged while with you on site. In addition, it would be unlikely the retailer could make a claim this far since delivery fgrom the courier.

While business to business customers still have rights, its not as much as a domestice customer. When agreeing to buying b2b it is a commercial contract being formed and you are bound by their ts and c's unless they are in breach of the Unfair Contract terms.

bookworm1363

OlliesDad wrote: »

When goods are signed for you are singing to say they have been received in good condition.

This in itself has no validity if the recipient doens't get given a chance to examine the goods.

If it is left weeks before any damage is reported, the assumption has to be made that it has been damaged while with you on site.

And you know what they say about assuming... Please bear in mind that making such an assumption is in fact accusing the recipient of deliberately attempting to deceive and defraud the sender, and one should be extremely cautious of making such accusations, especially when the burden of proof is on the sender.

In addition, it would be unlikely the retailer could make a claim this far since delivery fgrom the courier.

Not the recipient's problem.

While business to business customers still have rights, its not as much as a domestice customer.

Indeed. They still have the right to examine the goods and to reject goods which are not free from defects.

When agreeing to buying b2b it is a commercial contract being formed and you are bound by their ts and c's unless they are in breach of the Unfair Contract terms

Which is where the signing for goods without having a chance to examine them would come into it.

Lynsuk: If you want to make a stand, you can use the argument as above, querying why you would want to get out of paying for the screen when you had in fact go and buy another one with all the inconvenience it entails. You have a job to finish and since they can not remedy their breach of contract (supplying damaged goods) until thursday, then you had no choice but to go elsewhere.

If it were to go to court, it would be up to a judge on the balance of probabilities to decide who's telling the truth. It certainly isn't as clear-cut as other posters would have you believe, and really depends on how far you are prepared to take it.

OlliesDad

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Not the recipient's problem.

I absolutely agree that it is the retailers problem, and the only solution available for them is to provide a timescale for customers to report damage within. I personally feel that 24 hours is more than acceptable. It would be foolish to not examine the goods at the earliest opportunity and you need to accept the consequences of not doing so!

If it were to go to court, it would be up to a judge on the balance of probabilities to decide who's telling the truth.

As the purchaser is making an attempt to exceed the terms of the commercial contract, it is highly likely that they will not win. It is up to the purchaser to decide whether it is worth taking this to court and incurring costs with the strong posibility of receiving nothing in return.

It certainly isn't as clear-cut as other posters would have you believe

Legal matters never are!!

bookworm1363

OlliesDad wrote: »

I absolutely agree that it is the retailers problem, and the only solution available for them is to provide a timescale for customers to report damage within. I personally feel that 24 hours is more than acceptable. It would be foolish to not examine the goods at the earliest opportunity and you need to accept the consequences of not doing so!

But it is not necessarily possible. In the case of a workman on a job, bearing in mind that he has a duty to take all reasonable care with the seller's goods, it would be unreasonable for a buyer to open the goods when he is not going to be able to use them straight away, as there is more of a chance of the goods then getting damaged.

You may feel that 24 hours is acceptable, but that is just your opinion. I take the view that it all depends on reasonable (here's that word again!) circumstances.

As the purchaser is making an attempt to exceed the terms of the commercial contract,

Says who?

it is highly likely that they will not win.

Based on what? I'd say their chances are at the very least 50/50, and considering that the burden of proof would be on the seller to show that the goods were not damaged in the first place and to prove that the buyer damaged them, I think the seller would actually have a hard time proving their case.

It is up to the purchaser to decide whether it is worth taking this to court and incurring costs with the strong posibility of receiving nothing in return.

Or it is up to the purchaser to decide whether it is worth taking this to court and incurring costs with the strong possibility of winning their case should the seller decide to foolishly defend by making unproven accusations of deceipt and fraud by the buyer, thereby opening themselves to much further aggro and costs than by simply refusing to refund a faulty product.

OlliesDad

thereby opening themselves to much further aggro and costs than by simply refusing to refund a faulty product.

Are you aware that faulty i different to damaged on arrival.

Just out of interest, what is your background? What is your legal knowledge based from?