We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
I sucessfully sued Comet today for Breach of SoG Act
Aginoth
Posts: 124 Forumite
Yay me.
Sucessfully sued Comet today in the Small Claims Court for breach of Sales of Goods act. I was awarded £399 cost of goods plus costs
Below is my plaintiff statement to the court and it sums up the case, the judge found fo rme and that I had the right to reject the laptop involved despite Comet protesting that they be allowed to reinspect it.
Judge also told comet off for not responding to any of my letters, and for emailing their only response to me to the wrong email address, telling them that they should have corresponded in writing with me.
I purchased a Toshiba L350-70 Laptop from Comet PLC via their Weston-super-Mare store on November 15th 2008. On or around 22nd April 2009 the laptop developed a fault; that being that the power socket on the laptop became detached and non-functional.
Unfortunately, I was hospitalised due to illness almost immediately and was not able to present the laptop to Comet until 11th May 2009.
Comet took the Laptop for inspection, then returned the Laptop to the manufacturer for repair of a manufacturing defect that led to the failure. At this time we accepted repair under the Sales of Goods Act 1979 and EU Directive 199/44/EC, although under those auspices we had the right to request replacement as the manufacturing fault became apparent within 6 months of purchase.
On 31st August 2009 the same manufacturing fault recurred, in that the previously carried out repair failed.
On 1st September 2009 I returned the Laptop to the Comet store at Flowerdown Business Park, Weston-super-Mare. I informed the store manager that the repair of the manufacturing fault previously identified by Comet in May 2009 had failed.
I then asserted my right in law (of Goods Act 1979 and EU Directive 199/44/EC) to reject the Laptop due to a manufacturing fault that became apparent within 6 months of purchase and requested a full refund. Comet refused and verbally informed me that I had no rights to return the laptop. The manager offered to have the laptop inspected, however I refused this as they had already inspected and repaired this same fault in May 2009 and so I had already fulfilled my statutory requirement to allow them to inspect the Laptop.
I wrote to the manager stating my rejection of the Laptop and attempted to hand deliver the letter on 2nd September 2009. The Manager refused to touch, acknowledge or read the letter. I then sent the letter under covering letter to the manager by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery. To date no response has been made to either letter.
Having had no response from Comet I wrote to them again on September 9th 2009, this time addressing the letter to the Legal Department at their head office in Hull again by Recorded Delivery.
I asked them to respond by September 16th or I would begin Small Claims proceedings. No response was had so I entered the Small Claims papers.
<there was> no response to any correspondence, except the defence to the small claims case, has been received directly by me.
In Summary. The basis of my rejection of the laptop is that the same manufacturing fault occurred again within 15 weeks of the original repair, and we are not confident that further repair will resolve what is an obvious weakness of the laptop. Not being able to charge the laptop from the mains prevents the primary function of the unit being utilised, and nor do we wish to be subject to several weeks without the laptop every 3-4 months as the repair fails.
The Sale of Goods Act 1979 makes it an implied term of the contract that goods be as described of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. It is obvious that the Laptop is not fit for purpose since the fault has recurred once again rendering the Laptop unusable.
Therefore, due to this recurring fault I consider that the goods were not fit for purpose when sold, and therefore Comet are in breach of contract. I hereby exercise my legal rights in rejecting the Laptop
Case law on this matter is quite clear that the level of failure experience that makes an item rejectable due to not being fit for sale is commensurate with the expected quality of an item depending on its’ brand expectation. As this laptop is produced by a reputable company, Toshiba, I am reasonable to expect that the plugging in of the power cable to charge said laptop would not cause the power socket to detach and fall inside the unit so as to render the laptop unusable for it’s designed purpose of being a portable computer.
Directive 1999/44/EC requires that if a defect occurs within 6 months (as in this case) of purchase the consumer will not have to prove the product was defective at the moment of delivery. The onus will be on the seller to prove the item was without defect at purchase; having inspected and repaired the Laptop in May 2009 Comet have failed to prove the item was without defect at purchase..
Sucessfully sued Comet today in the Small Claims Court for breach of Sales of Goods act. I was awarded £399 cost of goods plus costs
Below is my plaintiff statement to the court and it sums up the case, the judge found fo rme and that I had the right to reject the laptop involved despite Comet protesting that they be allowed to reinspect it.
Judge also told comet off for not responding to any of my letters, and for emailing their only response to me to the wrong email address, telling them that they should have corresponded in writing with me.
I purchased a Toshiba L350-70 Laptop from Comet PLC via their Weston-super-Mare store on November 15th 2008. On or around 22nd April 2009 the laptop developed a fault; that being that the power socket on the laptop became detached and non-functional.
Unfortunately, I was hospitalised due to illness almost immediately and was not able to present the laptop to Comet until 11th May 2009.
Comet took the Laptop for inspection, then returned the Laptop to the manufacturer for repair of a manufacturing defect that led to the failure. At this time we accepted repair under the Sales of Goods Act 1979 and EU Directive 199/44/EC, although under those auspices we had the right to request replacement as the manufacturing fault became apparent within 6 months of purchase.
On 31st August 2009 the same manufacturing fault recurred, in that the previously carried out repair failed.
On 1st September 2009 I returned the Laptop to the Comet store at Flowerdown Business Park, Weston-super-Mare. I informed the store manager that the repair of the manufacturing fault previously identified by Comet in May 2009 had failed.
I then asserted my right in law (of Goods Act 1979 and EU Directive 199/44/EC) to reject the Laptop due to a manufacturing fault that became apparent within 6 months of purchase and requested a full refund. Comet refused and verbally informed me that I had no rights to return the laptop. The manager offered to have the laptop inspected, however I refused this as they had already inspected and repaired this same fault in May 2009 and so I had already fulfilled my statutory requirement to allow them to inspect the Laptop.
I wrote to the manager stating my rejection of the Laptop and attempted to hand deliver the letter on 2nd September 2009. The Manager refused to touch, acknowledge or read the letter. I then sent the letter under covering letter to the manager by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery. To date no response has been made to either letter.
Having had no response from Comet I wrote to them again on September 9th 2009, this time addressing the letter to the Legal Department at their head office in Hull again by Recorded Delivery.
I asked them to respond by September 16th or I would begin Small Claims proceedings. No response was had so I entered the Small Claims papers.
<there was> no response to any correspondence, except the defence to the small claims case, has been received directly by me.
In Summary. The basis of my rejection of the laptop is that the same manufacturing fault occurred again within 15 weeks of the original repair, and we are not confident that further repair will resolve what is an obvious weakness of the laptop. Not being able to charge the laptop from the mains prevents the primary function of the unit being utilised, and nor do we wish to be subject to several weeks without the laptop every 3-4 months as the repair fails.
The Sale of Goods Act 1979 makes it an implied term of the contract that goods be as described of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. It is obvious that the Laptop is not fit for purpose since the fault has recurred once again rendering the Laptop unusable.
Therefore, due to this recurring fault I consider that the goods were not fit for purpose when sold, and therefore Comet are in breach of contract. I hereby exercise my legal rights in rejecting the Laptop
Case law on this matter is quite clear that the level of failure experience that makes an item rejectable due to not being fit for sale is commensurate with the expected quality of an item depending on its’ brand expectation. As this laptop is produced by a reputable company, Toshiba, I am reasonable to expect that the plugging in of the power cable to charge said laptop would not cause the power socket to detach and fall inside the unit so as to render the laptop unusable for it’s designed purpose of being a portable computer.
Directive 1999/44/EC requires that if a defect occurs within 6 months (as in this case) of purchase the consumer will not have to prove the product was defective at the moment of delivery. The onus will be on the seller to prove the item was without defect at purchase; having inspected and repaired the Laptop in May 2009 Comet have failed to prove the item was without defect at purchase..
0
Comments
-
I purchased a Toshiba L350-70 Laptop from Comet PLC via their Weston-super-Mare store on November 15th 2008. On or around 22nd April 2008 the laptop developed a fault; that being that the power socket on the laptop became detached and non-functional...
There's a wrong date in there and I'm surprised nobody picked up on it.0 -
You did, and its only been posted 15 mins!0
-
I think it is a fair judgement however it is generally accepted that the retailer has the right to replace or refund as it deems suitable (ie cheapest to the company) regardless of the time of the fault being found (it is just harder for the customer after 6 months)
I applaud you for following it through though and getting the result!The Googlewhacker referance is to Dave Gorman and not to my opinion of the search engine!
If I give you advice it is only a view and always always take professional advice before acting!!!
4 people on the ignore list....Bliss!0 -
Good on you. More people should stand up to Comet. I have had dealings with them before, and found there customer service extremely lacking.Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies0
-
Plus they had a customer services rep on here a few months back who wriggled, twisted and stuck his fingers in his ears. He was not going to acknowledge the SOGA applies to Comet.Good on you. More people should stand up to Comet. I have had dealings with them before, and found there customer service extremely lacking.Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
Great result, well done. :j
Can someone please explain why the timescales detailed above (5 months from purchase) would not be construed as acceptance and hence the OP would have lost the right to reject the goods outrightly?Thinking critically since 1996....0 -
I pity the fool who messes with a moneysaver!
Go get em tiger!0 -
Good effort!0
-
I agree, OP puts too much emphasis on that. I imagine the ruling was due to Comet ignoring his letters - which would be causing 'significant incovenience'.somethingcorporate wrote: »
Can someone please explain why the timescales detailed above (5 months from purchase) would not be construed as acceptance and hence the OP would have lost the right to reject the goods outrightly?
Equally, a first failed repair wouldn't normally be enough to warrant a replacementSquirrel!If I tell you who I work for, I'm not allowed to help you. If I don't say, then I can help you with questions and fixing products. Regardless, there's still no secret EU law.
Now 20% cooler0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 261.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards