I sucessfully sued Comet today for Breach of SoG Act

Aginoth

somethingcorporate wrote: »

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?

Defects that become aparent within 6 months after purchase - retailer has to prove that the fault was not present at purchase. In this case it was a manufactring fault (confirmed by toshiba who were also the repairer) and therefore, in line with EU Directive 1999/44/EU and SOGA, the purchaser (me) is entitled to reject the goods as not being fit for purpose at purchase and is entitled to replacement or repair, or refund at retailers discretion. The repair of the fault failed and so in effect the original fault still existed 15 weeks after the repair

in this case the judge awarded me refund because Comet had made no comensurate effort to communicate with me and had ignored all efforts on my part to communicate with them and to settle the matter amicably. Comet even went so far as to reveal the discussion we had in confidential mediation in their court evidence, which you are specifically not allowed to do in a smal claims case; the judge also berated them for this.

somethingcorporate

Aginoth wrote: »

Defects that become aparent within 6 months after purchase - retailer has to prove that the fault was not present at purchase. In this case it was a manufactring fault and therefore, in line with EU Directive 1999/44/EU and SOGA, the purchaser (me) is entitled to reject the goods as not being fit for purpose at purchase and is entitled to replacement or repair, or refund at retailers discretion.

in this case the judge awarded me refund because Comet had made no comensurate effort to communicate with me and had ignored all efforts on my part o communicate with them and to settle the matter amicably. Comet even went so far as to reveal the discussion we had in confidential mediation in their court evidence, which you are specifically not allowed to do in a smal claims case; the judge also berated them for this.

Thanks, still not sure I follow but I am still very pleased for you.

Congratulations! :beer:

Esqui

Aginoth wrote: »

Defects that become aparent within 6 months after purchase - the purchaser (me) is entitled to reject the goods as not being fit for purpose at purchase and is entitled to replacement or repair, or refund at retailers discretion

Sort of. As I understand it, the right of rejection exists to enable you to test out goods and check they are working fully and no faults are immediately apparent. As the laptop was with you for a few months (and I expect you used it during that), I would guess the fault developed due to faulty component, etc, which wasn't apparent at the time of purchase.

If you're still following, after that time (not legally defined, for a laptop, I would say a week - but of course most places allow 14/28/30 days), if a fault becomes apparent, you can't reject the item, but can request a remedy from the retailer, as you say, repair/replacement/refund.

Either way, moot point as you've won. But the retailer has to provide this remedy without causing you significant inconvenience...and as they refused to respond to your letters, they've broken the law as much as if they'd refused to repair it, or asked you to prove within first 6 months.

adam.mt

This is a well known fault with a number of Toshiba laptop designs. I know this since I used to work for a computer shop and within a couple of months we had two Toshiba's in (and we weren't a Toshiba dealer). When we contacted Toshiba's official repairer they were happy to fix the machines almost without question even though they were both out of warranty! Thus, I'm surprised Comet weren't also aware of this and thus clued up in order to deal with the matter better.

Seems the ruling serves them right for trying to ignore a legitimate customer complaint. Good on you!

toffe

Esqui wrote: »

Sort of. As I understand it, the right of rejection exists to enable you to test out goods and check they are working fully and no faults are immediately apparent. As the laptop was with you for a few months (and I expect you used it during that), I would guess the fault developed due to faulty component, etc, which wasn't apparent at the time of purchase.

If you're still following, after that time (not legally defined, for a laptop, I would say a week - but of course most places allow 14/28/30 days), if a fault becomes apparent, you can't reject the item, but can request a remedy from the retailer, as you say, repair/replacement/refund.

Either way, moot point as you've won. But the retailer has to provide this remedy without causing you significant inconvenience...and as they refused to respond to your letters, they've broken the law as much as if they'd refused to repair it, or asked you to prove within first 6 months.

i don't really think you understand the sale of goods act.

The fact here is that the fault is a manufacturers fault and therefore the fault (i.e. weak connection on the power inlet socket) occured/was created at the time of manufacture and therefore already existed at the time the the laptop was sold.

The fault came to light within six months and the buyer (the op) is entitled to reject the goods on the basis that the goods were faulty (even if the fault was not apparent at the time of sale) at the time they were sold to him.

The retailers standard returns policy, be it a week or 28 day's really doesn't come into it.

Googlewhacker

toffe wrote: »

i don't really think you understand the sale of goods act.

The fact here is that the fault is a manufacturers fault and therefore the fault (i.e. weak connection on the power inlet socket) occured/was created at the time of manufacture and therefore already existed at the time the the laptop was sold.

The fault came to light within six months and the buyer (the op) is entitled to reject the goods on the basis that the goods were faulty (even if the fault was not apparent at the time of sale) at the time they were sold to him.

The retailers standard returns policy, be it a week or 28 day's really doesn't come into it.

5 months is more than reasonable to test the product, the OP already stated that he got the judgement because the company were inept in helping him out, it still remains that if it is outside a reasonable testing time (which is hard to judge but not likely to be 5 months) then the company has the right to choose repair or replacement

somethingcorporate

toffe wrote: »

i don't really think you understand the sale of goods act.

The fact here is that the fault is a manufacturers fault and therefore the fault (i.e. weak connection on the power inlet socket) occured/was created at the time of manufacture and therefore already existed at the time the the laptop was sold.

The fault came to light within six months and the buyer (the op) is entitled to reject the goods on the basis that the goods were faulty (even if the fault was not apparent at the time of sale) at the time they were sold to him.

The retailers standard returns policy, be it a week or 28 day's really doesn't come into it.

I think it maybe you that doesn't understand - rejection can only occur before acceptance of the good (a short period of time that I would not construe 5 months to be for a laptop).

After that only remedy (refund/repair/replace) is the possible solution which cannot be enforced (only requested) by the purchaser. I am guessing, as others have picked up on here, that the law was breached by causing significant inconvenience by being ignorant at the OPs attempts at resolution.

:beer:

Antispam

Well done to you

Last year I took Currys to small claims court Faulty freezer other a year old defective freezer I lost £130 of frozen food. It was a manufacturing defect which was confirmed by independent repair man, he repaired it later and manufacturer paid. The issue was with consquential loose as a result of a manufactured defect this was due to a sensor in the freezer that despite it being frost free didnt maintain a adequate temperature and food was spoilt

They denied liability even though I showed the the report I took photos of spoiled goods my freezer was almost full a large freezer. Issues small claims court proceeding and with 2 weeks got a call from there legal department asking to stop proceeding if they send a cheque for £130 + costs. I did only after cheque was cashed

Its worth perusing it isnt expensive but you must be reasonable, patience and give the other side reasonable grounds to correct there mistakes

Judas

You maybe did win but your argument was flawed and in places legally incorrect. Luckily for you this didnt affect the facts too much.
Out of interest did Comet even defend it or was it a default win? I am guessing the latter.

Just to clarify yes you do not need to prove a fault within the first 6 months but I doubt your word is enough that it was faulty within 6 months in most cases otherwise everyone would just claim this. Furthermore you have reasonable time to reject; not 6 months; in most cases reasonable is seen as a month. In this case I would suggest you got your wires crossed. You had the right to a SOGA remedy and not to reject it. Probably would have got it all sorted a lot quicker if you had simply used the warranty.

But then again I suspect some people just like the whole consumer warrior situation

Sponge

Yeah, and considering this is a 'consumer revenge' website, what's your point? If you disagree with the op and what they did, or the whole 'consumer warrior' thing, maybe you shouldn't be here?

I love the way MSE forum experts are picking apart a decision made by a court and suggesting it was wrong.

Well done OP! :money: