Sale of Goods Act. Exact wording advice

moonrakerz

Halloway wrote: »

If, on the other hand, you want the ill-informed ramblings of a bunch of random webmongs then you've come to the right place. :-)

Comet's actions are clearly in breach of SOGA and TS can be very effective in showing retailers the errors of their ways.

Sorry to say this - but your first statement is absolutely correct then your second just adds to that pile of "ill-informed ramblings" !
"Comet's actions are NOT clearly in breach of SOGA "

The Sale of Goods Act is the most mis-quoted piece of legislation that has ever been produced.

You reference the BERR website:

• "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).

• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.

• Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish durability and safety."

The goods appear to have met these criteria as they lasted for 17 months


"For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement)."


This is the bit that people love to (mis) quote ! However - they don't read these bits:-

"• In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).

After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity."

As as has been said the TV lasted for 17 months - can the consumer prove that it should have lasted longer ? Please note that it says "purchasers to prove ...............did not conform to contract AND should have reasonably lasted"

The average life of a TV is (say) 10 years, some will last 20 years, some will last 1 - where does it say that it should last 5 years or even 18 months ?

By all means if you think you have a good case, go ahead. Some retailers will take the pragmatic view that it is easier/cheaper to fix the problem than it is to fight it.

It saddens me to see misleading information constantly being posted about SOGA. It gives many people false hopes and leads to many heated "discussions" in shops over the shoppers "rights".

And before anyone else comes up with it: the so called "European Law" that says that electrical goods should last for two years is a myth - despite what the Daily Wail implies !!!

Halloway

moonrakerz wrote: »

Sorry to say this - but your first statement is absolutely correct then your second just adds to that pile of "ill-informed ramblings" !
"Comet's actions are NOT clearly in breach of SOGA "

Thanks for proving my point for me.

hollydays

Halloway ,quit stalking me on my panasonic breadmaker thread.You are worrying me,I might need legal advice now.

moonrakerz

Halloway wrote: »

Thanks for proving my point for me.

In that case perhaps you would like to fund Dodger's legal action ?

Halloway

moonrakerz wrote: »

"Comet's actions are NOT clearly in breach of SOGA "

I disagree. A television can reasonably be expected to last longer than 17 months because the majority of televisions sets do last a lot longer than that. Therefore a TV which fails after 17 months must contain a component or components which have failed and these failed components were present in the TV when it was built (obviously.) So the fault is inherent, whether by poor design or the inclusion of poor quality components. Therefore the OP has a good case for damages.

Halloway

hollydays wrote: »

Halloway ,quit stalking me on my panasonic breadmaker thread.You are worrying me,I might need legal advice now.

How the hell can responding to one post by you on another thread be described as 'stalking'?

Halloway

moonrakerz wrote: »

In that case perhaps you would like to fund Dodger's legal action ?

I'd certainly take a punt that Dodger will be successful.

Halloway

hollydays wrote: »

Oh,the irony...:rotfl:

Are you going to respond to this one, please?

hollydays

Halloway wrote: »

How the hell can responding to one post by you on another thread be described as 'stalking'?

So you didn't deliberately search out my posts on the Old style board today to try to pick fault in a very petty and pointless way? Calling me "pathetic" for bumping my thread on a saturday morning wasn't a crime last time I looked.

Let's move the thread back on track shall we?

Dodger61

Thank you guys for all your replies. All your comments have been noted. As mentioned before I will let the court decide and abide by their decision. Perhaps if Comet had a sign above a £995 TV saying " this product will only last 17 months" I would of looked at this differently. However this wasnt the case and it has become an issue of what I believe to be right.
I agree with Halloway, in taking am objective, not emotional view of my rights. Good advice thanks.
I will keep everyone updated. Maybe a few weeks before this hits the courts, but will update everyone then.
Appreciate your thoughts Guys.