Sale of goods act

Leslie45

First of all my apologies if this situation has been covered elsewhere, but i am new to the forum.

In April last year I purchsed a Panasonic Microwave Oven online from John Lewis. After only 9 months it broke down but John lewis promptly replaced it with a slightly more expensive model, with me paying the difference.

The replacement has now broken after only three months but John lewis are now saying I must contact panasonic direct to claim under the warranty, as it is now over 12 months since my original purchase
.
This does not seem right. Surely it is unreasonable that the brand new appliance had broken after only 3 months. I would have thought that under the Sale of Goods Act my rights would be against the retailer not the manufacturer.

Can anyone advise me of my legal position, please.

Tozer

Leslie45 wrote: »

First of all my apologies if this situation has been covered elsewhere, but i am new to the forum.

In April last year I purchsed a Panasonic Microwave Oven online from John Lewis. After only 9 months it broke down but John lewis promptly replaced it with a slightly more expensive model, with me paying the difference.

The replacement has now broken after only three months but John lewis are now saying I must contact panasonic direct to claim under the warranty, as it is now over 12 months since my original purchase
.
This does not seem right. Surely it is unreasonable that the brand new appliance had broken after only 3 months. I would have thought that under the Sale of Goods Act my rights would be against the retailer not the manufacturer.

Can anyone advise me of my legal position, please.

You are correct. Time runs from the time of the replacement in this case.

McKneff

Your contract is with the retailer, stand your ground and dont let them fob you off.

bookworm1363

Tozer wrote: »

You are correct. Time runs from the time of the replacement in this case.

Why in this case?

The clock is ticking from the date of the original purchase, which is ridiculous, I agree, but that's what TS themselves advised when I had the same type of situation, which was further confirmed by someone I know whose speciality is consumer law.

This is confirmed by a Law Commission consultation response by the OFT in Feb 09 re: changes to consumer remedies, where it is proposed that the reverse burden of proof should start again following repair or replacement.

The six month reverse burden of proof

10.17 We provisionally propose that the six month reverse burden of proof should recommence after goods are redelivered following repair or replacement

(extremely interesting document, btw, but that's a different discussion)

Notwithstanding the above, your contract is with the retailer indeed and the fact that the appliance is over 12 mths old doesn't free them of their obligation, so go back to them and don't let them fob you off. Bear in mind however that whatever remedy you are entitled to will vary depending on the price and specs of the goods.

mookie

I have no advice to offer but would be interested in the replies, our TV was replaced by the manufacturer and we were told the warranty would only stand for the outstanding time left since the original purchase, I have no idea if this is legally correct but if the TV goes wrong its something I would certainly challenge.

phlogeston

Leslie45 wrote: »

In April last year I purchsed a Panasonic Microwave Oven online from John Lewis.

After only 9 months it broke down but John lewis promptly replaced it with a slightly more expensive model, with me paying the difference.

Arguably, the OP has purchased a new product, having made an additional payment.

This is different from a simple one for one replacement.

He has a new contract, therefore statutory rights begin again.

Discuss?

Tozer

phlogeston wrote: »

Arguably, the OP has purchased a new product, having made an additional payment.

This is different from a simple one for one replacement.

He has a new contract, therefore statutory rights begin again.

Discuss?

That's my view as well - particularly as the OP says that a more expensive unit was purchased and the OP paid extra for it. Therefore, there has been a further sale of goods.

Crazy_Jamie

Tozer wrote: »

That's my view as well - particularly as the OP says that a more expensive unit was purchased and the OP paid extra for it. Therefore, there has been a further sale of goods.

I agree entirely. New payment. New goods. New contract. Everything starts again.

Valli

I agree too - because it's new goods
and new consideration

"with me paying the difference"

so in effect OP took microwave back, was given 'credit' and chose to use that credit, along with an additional payment (or 'consideration') to buy new goods.

bookworm1363

Hmmm, not what TS said to me. In my case, it was a laptop and I did have to pay a bit on top as well, so exactly the same position as OP's. I'm going by what both TS and a specialist in consumer law said.

Tozer

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Hmmm, not what TS said to me. In my case, it was a laptop and I did have to pay a bit on top as well, so exactly the same position as OP's. I'm going by what both TS and a specialist in consumer law said.

Up to you but on the reading of what constitutes a "sale of goods", it seems very clear to me.