Sale of Goods Act. Exact wording advice

Halloway

hollydays wrote: »

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

You're the one that took it off-track. But you're right: enough petty squabbling.

yummymummy79

hollydays wrote: »

I could be wrong,but I think the term fit for purpose is often misinterpreted.Surely it is just "faulty".I don't think something not working means it's not fit for purpose,primarily,obviously when you bought it it was fit for purpose, as its a tv and you could view it,now its just a tv thats faulty.

Perhaps you are thinking more about the tv not being of "satisfactory quality"?

Definitely misinterpreted! Satisfactory quality is the phrase you should be using, as this includes fit for (general) purpose.

The 'fit for purpose' phrase used on it's own is actually meant to be 'fit for purpose made known' which is meant to be useful if you ask the salesperson if something will do a specific thing, they say it will but it then doesn't, even if it's not something you would expect to be part of it's normal use (mixing paint in a food mixer is always the example given in the legal training!).

People do often miss out the 'burden of proof' element of SOGA which is the having to prove the fault/unconformity to contract bit, but I would suggest that an engineer saying that it needs xyz repairs could be adequate to cover this?

One word that is used A LOT in SOGA is 'reasonable', so if it has not met it's reasonable lifespan or the expectations of the reasonable person then that is often enough for you to go with.

Depending on where you are, it may be possible for your case to be referred to Trading Standards for assistance before court becomes necessary so would def recommended getting a case set up with Consumer Direct and asking if TS in your area offer 2nd tier advice/assistance.

Blacksheep1979

OP, you do realise that after 6 months the onus of proof lies with you that there was an inherent fault in the TV at the time of purchase and that the fault is not anything caused by you? Do you also realise that you can't claim for the full value of the TV as you have had some benefit from it's use?

Be very careful with this claim as if you don't play it right and the retailer decides to defend they could easily win here.

sarlyka

I think you have to state that under the SOGA 1979, the TV is not of satisfactory quality and you would like it to be repaired or replaced.
I wrote to Consumer Direct about a computer monitor and they were extremely helpful. I bought the monitor from Tesco and had already written to them quoting the SOGA. However, they felt my case did not meet SOGA. I wrote again after advice from Consumer Direct. I asked for a full refund. Tesco said they would normally only offer a partial refund but have agreed a total refund as a gesture of goodwill.
I suggest you contact Consumer Direct then write to Comet.

Tozer

OP - you need to say that the item was not of satisfactory quality within the meaning of s.14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) and, in particular, was not of reasonable durability.

By the way, Comet will settle straight away. If you paid by credit card, you ought to join them into the action as well as co-Defendants.

And as for the comment about talking to a solicitor (you just did by the way!), as it is below £5,000 the claim will be dealt with in the small claims court and so parties are discouraged to use legal representation.

Good luck.

zootscoot

S.14 provides that goods must be of satisfactory quality. That is what a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory. As it is a consumer sale, the acceptability test applies which asks whether a reasonable consumer would have accepted the goods at the agreed price knowing of the fault see Shine v General Guarantee Corp. I would have thought not many people would agree to purchase a TV for £995 knowing it would last less than 2 years.

See further details on the Sale of Goods Act here:

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Statutory-implied-terms.php

Takoda

Halloway wrote: »

OP, if you want legal advice then go to a solicitor. 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. :-)

I can't read the rest of the thread because I am laughing too hard at that superb phrase. Halloway you've made my night. Thank you.

Dodger61

Ok, this is now going to court, just doing my forms online. Can anyone advise me whether the claim should be against the store ( who have been in touch by letter and phone ) -tried to fob me off. or to Comet Head Office.
Thanks Guys.

NiggyG

I'd guess your taking Comet to court as they are the entity. But my lack of certainty renders this comment pretty useless :rolleyes: Good luck with it though and post back your results!

Antispam

I went to moneyclaim and filled papers against the companies head office for SOGA not Comet but another big company