We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Iron bought from Makro - are they exempt from consumer rights?
Options
Comments
-
See above - section 5(2) Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
That relates to how a company must treat a consumer, not how to distinguish whether a purchaser is a business or not.
When the individual signs the contract with Makro on behalf of the business, they are entering into a commercial contract. This clearly stipulates that the goods can only be purchased in the course of business. This is why to sigh up you need 2 purchase orders over £50 and a utility bill in the name of the company.
Otherwise the individual is purchasing by posing as the company, which is called obtaining by deception.0 -
That relates to how a company must treat a consumer, not how to distinguish whether a purchaser is a business or not.
When the individual signs the contract with Makro on behalf of the business, they are entering into a commercial contract. This clearly stipulates that the goods can only be purchased in the course of business. This is why to sigh up you need 2 purchase orders over £50 and a utility bill in the name of the company.
Otherwise the individual is purchasing by posing as the company, which is called obtaining by deception.
No, it relates to the fact that implied terms under SoGA cannot be excluded and whether the goods are for consumer use or otherwise.
Anyway, what difference does it make? The rights against Makro are the same whether purchaser was a consumer or acting in the course of a trade or business.0 -
Hi all, I find the discussion very interesting and i'm sure that if you really wanted to test the fact to see if the customer was acting as a consumer or business you could launch a court action, or perhaps Trading Standards would do so.
The reality is however that the original product was £80, do you really want to spend more money on legal action which may end up costing much more than the £100 to buy a phillips or braun steam generator from argos which means that if it breaks within 2-3 years you can take it back as a consumer?0 -
No, it relates to the fact that implied terms under SoGA cannot be excluded and whether the goods are for consumer use or otherwise.
Anyway, what difference does it make? The rights against Makro are the same whether purchaser was a consumer or acting in the course of a trade or business.
Not quite correct. A company cannot exclude these terms in dealing with a consumer. Other than negligence, a company can exclude whatever terms it pleases in its dealings with another company.
If you look at SOGA it is entirely possible to write a contract to entirely exclude the terms of SOGA. Indeed in anly legal dispute the contract will automatically take precedence over SOGA in a b2b transaction. In this case the 1 year warrantee displayed in store will take clear precedence over the "reasonable time" term in SOGA.
Sorry OP, there is no case here.0 -
Not quite correct. A company cannot exclude these terms in dealing with a consumer. Other than negligence, a company can exclude whatever terms it pleases in its dealings with another company.
If you look at SOGA it is entirely possible to write a contract to entirely exclude the terms of SOGA. Indeed in anly legal dispute the contract will automatically take precedence over SOGA in a b2b transaction. In this case the 1 year warrantee displayed in store will take clear precedence over the "reasonable time" term in SOGA.
Sorry OP, there is no case here.
Couple of points:
1. I disagree that this is a B2B transaction as the customer was not acting in the course of a trade or business.
2. Businesses cannot "exclude whatever terms it pleases in its dealings with another company". Any limitations on its liability when dealing on standard terms are subject to a "reasonabless test" under UCTA.
3. If you actually look at Makro's terms and conditions, they do NOT exclude the implied terms in any event. Hence, s.14(2) SOGA (satisfactory quality) remains.
4. Even if Makro did try to exclude s.14(2), it would be subject to the reasonableness test. Given the size of Makro and the size of most of its purchasers, availability of insurance, back-to-back contracts with its suppliers, etc, I do not think the reasonableness test would be satisified.0 -
Couple of points:
1. I disagree that this is a B2B transaction as the customer was not acting in the course of a trade or business.
2. Businesses cannot "exclude whatever terms it pleases in its dealings with another company". Any limitations on its liability when dealing on standard terms are subject to a "reasonabless test" under UCTA.
3. If you actually look at Makro's terms and conditions, they do NOT exclude the implied terms in any event. Hence, s.14(2) SOGA (satisfactory quality) remains.
4. Even if Makro did try to exclude s.14(2), it would be subject to the reasonableness test. Given the size of Makro and the size of most of its purchasers, availability of insurance, back-to-back contracts with its suppliers, etc, I do not think the reasonableness test would be satisified.
Just one question, if a company business buys goods from another business, would this not be calssed as a business to business transaction? As previously stated, the membership is not held by one person alone, it is held by the company in which they represent.
Why dont you give your local trading standards a call, i know from experience, that they have already vetted the t's and c's from Makro and deemed them to be reasonable (i know this as i work for the company who supplies their catering equipment and have had many tours of their premises).
Also, there t's and c's state what the warranty is on the goods, therefore they do omit themselves from the relevant part from the SOGA.
Obviously you can carry on advising the OP to take them to court and try and sue them but this will end very expensive and fruitless for them.0 -
Not sure how UCTA would come into this? When the OP signed up with Macro they will have signed up to Macro's standard trading terms - unless the terms contined a misrepresentation any exclusion clauses in those terms will be effective.
I would refer OP to the precedent set in L’Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394 as the case has many similarities to this situation.
If you check your Macro receipts they name the business they are dealing with - they are quite clear that they believe themselves to be engaging in b2b sales therefore standard business law will apply.0 -
Not sure how UCTA would come into this? When the OP signed up with Macro they will have signed up to Macro's standard trading terms - unless the terms contined a misrepresentation any exclusion clauses in those terms will be effective.
I would refer OP to the precedent set in L’Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394 as the case has many similarities to this situation.
If you check your Macro receipts they name the business they are dealing with - they are quite clear that they believe themselves to be engaging in b2b sales therefore standard business law will apply.
Not correct. UCTA expressly states that when dealing with consumers, exclusion clauses cannot exclude rights under SoGA and when dealing B2B must satisfy the reasonableness test.0 -
Just one question, if a company business buys goods from another business, would this not be calssed as a business to business transaction? As previously stated, the membership is not held by one person alone, it is held by the company in which they represent.
Why dont you give your local trading standards a call, i know from experience, that they have already vetted the t's and c's from Makro and deemed them to be reasonable (i know this as i work for the company who supplies their catering equipment and have had many tours of their premises).
Also, there t's and c's state what the warranty is on the goods, therefore they do omit themselves from the relevant part from the SOGA.
Obviously you can carry on advising the OP to take them to court and try and sue them but this will end very expensive and fruitless for them.
Yes if it is a genuine business to business transaction. There have been some cases where a business buys or sells something out of the ordinary and it has been successfully argued that it is not acting in the course of a business.
Do Makro expressly disapply SoGA provisions? I couldn't see it in their terms, hence they will remain implied.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards