Sale of Goods - TV broken after 14 months?

neilmcl

woody01 wrote: »

Because an INHERENT is a fault that was there at the time of purchase.
It's amazingly difficult to prove this and retailers/manufacturers know it.

Not necessarily. An inherent manufacturing fault can simply mean a component, such as a psu or motherboard etc, failing before its time. As long as it's not obvious that the fault caused due to outside influence then its usually accepted as an inherent fault of manufacture.

biscit

neilmcl wrote: »

Not necessarily. An inherent manufacturing fault can simply mean a component, such as a psu or motherboard etc, failing before its time. As long as it's not obvious that the fault caused due to outside influence then its usually accepted as an inherent fault of manufacture.

Yes I thought that when I first read his comment, but thinking about it there is no contradiction- a faulty component is there at the time of purchase. The fault takes time to manifest itself but is there at purchase- it fits the description of inherrant.

The argument is that if the TV goes wrong after 14 months, in what the owner judges to be OK conditions, could have developed a fault.

A technician*, or Engineer** would be able to diagnose an obvious non-inherrant fault.

* A technically skilled person who installs, repairs or inspects equipment.
** Someone with a degree level or equivalent qualification who designs equipment.

neilmcl

From the BERR website

Q1. What is an inherent fault?

A fault present at the time of purchase. Examples are:
• an error in design so that a product is manufactured incorrectly
• an error in manufacturing where a faulty component was inserted.
The "fault" may not become apparent immediately but it was there at the time of sale and so the product was not of satisfactory standard.

biscit

Yep.Pretty much as I explained it.

The inherrant fault is always there at time of purchase, even if it takes 14 months to become apparent.

You, I and woody01 are saying the same thing in different ways. Wahay we agree!

neilmcl

Whereas woody01 was insisting its near impossible to prove when in reality it isn't, which was the point I was making.

roddydogs

Why do people always try to Knock the SOG act? has anyone lost a case? not very many compared with the sucessful claims.