BBQ bought from Woolies less than a year ago now condemned

Tozer

moonrakerz wrote: »

I do wish people would get there facts right before posting totally misleading information on this site !

You have NO rights against the manufacturer. The comment about being "contractual" is meaningless - you have NO contract with the manufacturer - only the retailer.

Your "warranty" rests with the retailer - only if you pay the manufacturer direct for a warranty, does it lie with him, as you would then have a contract with him.

Olliesdad is correct when he says "Alot of items warranty is normally supported by the manufacturer" (my highlighting) - that is solely because the retailer pays the manufacturer to do this.
I will repeat something I posted here last year. A retailer of white goods (whose name I have forgotten) was not paying his suppliers for warranties on equipment he was retailing. The manufacturers put out public notices that for goods bought from this retailer, after a certain date, they would not carry out warranty work. They were quite entitled to this.

"It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract"

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

I really wish you would get your facts right.

You have implied warranties pursuant to the Sale of Goods Act 1979 against the retailer.

If the manufacturer offers a guarantee you have rights against the manufacturer.

Tozer

moonrakerz wrote: »

I do wish people would get there facts right before posting totally misleading information on this site !

You have NO rights against the manufacturer. The comment about being "contractual" is meaningless - you have NO contract with the manufacturer - only the retailer.

Your "warranty" rests with the retailer - only if you pay the manufacturer direct for a warranty, does it lie with him, as you would then have a contract with him.

Olliesdad is correct when he says "Alot of items warranty is normally supported by the manufacturer" (my highlighting) - that is solely because the retailer pays the manufacturer to do this.
I will repeat something I posted here last year. A retailer of white goods (whose name I have forgotten) was not paying his suppliers for warranties on equipment he was retailing. The manufacturers put out public notices that for goods bought from this retailer, after a certain date, they would not carry out warranty work. They were quite entitled to this.

"It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract"

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

This is not the first time you have posted wrong advice.

You seem to be getting yourself confused with the situation of insurance backed extended warranties. That is not what we are talking about.

If a manufacturer provides a guarantee - typically 12 months, maybe up to 5 years - then that is a collateral contract which you have. Dependent upon the terms of the guarantee, there is a remedy against the manufacturer.

IT IS IN ADDITION TO SOGA RIGHTS.

Doubt I will get an apology but an acknowledgment that I am right would be nice.

dmg24

Tozer wrote: »

I really wish you would get your facts right.

You have implied warranties pursuant to the Sale of Goods Act 1979 against the retailer.

If the manufacturer offers a guarantee you have rights against the manufacturer.

Agreed. Methinks someone has been reading 'The Law According to Google' a little too much.

Tozer

dmg24 wrote: »

Agreed. Methinks someone has been reading 'The Law According to Google' a little too much.

I think that's right.

Seem to recall from University days the law of collateral contracts - involved a paint manufacturer and a pier! Harland versus someone.

Of course, all of this has, in any event been enhanced by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

But ho hum, I'm posting misleading information again....

Tozer

Under the heading of "I know when I am wrong", the case was not Harland v. anyone.

It was Shanklin Pier -v- Detel Products (1951). Knew it involved a pier....

moonrakerz

"Relevant or Related Legislation:

Sale of Goods Act 1979. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.
Key Facts:

• Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).

• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.

Q6. Is it true that I have to complain to the manufacturer?

No. You bought the goods from the trader, not the manufacturer, and the trader is liable for any breaches of contract (unless he was acting as the manufacturer's agent)."

(Dept of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.)

This supports fully my original statement:

" the retailer is responsible for a "standard" warranty, not the manufacturer."

Who mentioned Insurance backed warranties ? - I didn't. Who mentioned "collateral contracts" ? I didn't. That is why I used the word "standard" - not insurance backed, not collateral, not 10 years, 20 years or whatever - just a "standard " warranty"

You are perfectly correct when you say "If a manufacturer provides a guarantee .......................... then that is a collateral contract which you have" - but that was totally irrelevant to the statement that I made.
The overwhelming majority of goods sold do not have a manufacturer's warranty.

You seem to have trouble reading or understanding what I said - perhaps you would like to offer an apology ?
You seem to be desperately scratching round to get out the hole you are digging yourselves into contradicting something I didn't say !

dmg24

moonrakerz, you are looking at one piece of legislation and not considering the bigger picture. Surely you can understand that the law consists of more than one instrument (and one website :rolleyes:)?

Tozer has quoted statute and precedent that support their argument. If you are so certain of your facts, perhaps you should come back with an argument as to why the supporting evidence that Tozer has presented is not relevant?

The internet has some excellent resources for basic legal concepts. However, it tends to be overly simplified, and therefore it can at times be misleading. Many people seem to think that consumer law is all encompassed in SOGA, and do not realise that it is really only a tiny part of it.

Tozer

Hang on, you said that there are no such things as manufacturer guarantees????? THERE ARE!

And I totally disagree that the "overwhelming majority of goods" do not have such guarantees. I'm looking at a tub of margarine at the moment and even that does!

shandypants5

Errr, just to get back on topic....

whats actually wrong with your Barby, theres not much to them anyway, it may be quite cheap to fix and continue using.

(I had to change the gas reg on mine recently as the old gas bottle style was discontinued.)

MX5huggy

Exactly, and who condems BBQ's anyway not sure you have to get your BBQ past a test every year.