I sucessfully sued Comet today for Breach of SoG Act

somethingcorporate

Sponge wrote: »

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:

Only picking it apart to try and understand the reason for why the OP was successful, given the reasoning the OP gave seems incoherant with the SOGA.

My laymans understanding is it was likely to be around the inconvenience element that swung the OPs case rather than the rejection part that the OP put the emphasis on. It may be a consumer revenge website but that doesn't mean we are not all here to learn!

Edit: Sponge, you know the main purpose of the court of appeal right? it's there to challenge the decision of previous courts - proving that courts get things wrong all the time!!

Googlewhacker

Sponge wrote: »

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:

Everyone is saying well done to the OP, but the way the OP describes it is not actually quite how they got the judgement

mr.savage

Judas wrote: »

You maybe did win but your argument was flawed and in places legally incorrect.

Wow, please explain how?......

Judas wrote: »

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.

If you read the OP you will find out.:wall:

Judas wrote: »

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. .....

Again read the first post, the OP states Comet took it in for repair within six months.

toffe

somethingcorporate wrote: »

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:

The sales of goods act states that if a defect is discovered within 6 months it is assumed that the defect was present at the time of manufacture, the manufacturer admitted (from what the op says) that this was a manufacturing fault and therefore the op did have the right to either a repair or replacement, since the op allowed the shop/manufacturer the chance to repair the goods but that repair again failed it is little wonder the court ordered he be refunded and the contract of sale be disolved.

It was the right decision both morally and legally.

A bit of an explanation can be found here, if in doubt read the full sales of goods act;

http://whatconsumer.co.uk/my-responsibility/

4743hudsonj

mr.savage wrote: »

Wow, please explain how?......

1. The Eu directive is not a law in the sense that people assume it is, it has no "horizontal direct effect"(most directives dont due to their purpose), rather its "guidelines" for member states to then write or amend their OWN laws, in our case the SOGA was ammended a tiny amount but in large, it was already above and beyoond the directives requirements. So the OP should not have even mentioned this.

2. They seem to think they have a right to demand a replacement, incorrect, they have a right to a remedy not of significant inconvenience to themselves or of disproportional cost to the retailer in comparison to another remedy (so if a repair costs them £10 delivery, and a replacement £200, the OP has no right to demand a replacement).

3. They seem to be confused about the right to rejection and the "onus of proof". Rejection is only a right for a "reasonable time" for the customer to explore all features and characteristics of the goods. 6 months would certainly be construed as acceptance. The onus of proof is the first 6 months. In which the retailer must prove and item wasnt inherently faulty rather than the consumer proving it was.




Anyways i do like the result but as others have commented, i think its down to Comet being so unco-operative etc rather than any good legal research and use by the OP.

4743hudsonj

toffe wrote: »

since the op allowed the shop/manufacturer the chance to repair the goods but that repair again failed it is little wonder the court ordered he be refunded and the contract of sale be disolved.

There is absolutely no legal basis for this particular comment. The SOGA allows for an indefinite number of repairs etc providing they remain not of significant inconvenience (an extremely common occurrence of an issue or short time frames of failure may be construed as significant ). I do agree with the rest of your comment but that bit has no basis.

toffe

Oh dear, the post below is so wrong it's hard to know where to begin, but here goes.......

4743hudsonj wrote: »

1. The Eu directive is not a law in the sense that people assume it is, it has no "direct" effect, rather its "guidelines" for member states to then write or amend their OWN laws, in our case the SOGA was ammended a tiny amount but in large, it was already above and beyoond the directives requirements. So the OP should not have even mentioned this..

partly true, eu directives ar not in themselves law, well done on that point, i'm afraid it only gets worse from here on in.

4743hudsonj wrote: »

2. They seem to think they have a right to demand a replacement, incorrect, they have a right to a remedy not of significant inconvenience to themselves or of disproportional cost to the retailer in comparison to another remedy (so if a repair costs them £10 delivery, and a replacement £200, the OP has no right to demand a replacement)..

FALSE: they do have a right to either a repair or replacement if the fault is discovered within six months. (in some cases upto a year) under the sale of goods act.

4743hudsonj wrote: »

3. They seem to be confused about the right to rejection and the "onus of proof". Rejection is only a right for a "reasonable time" for the customer to explore all features and characteristics of the goods. 6 months would certainly be construed as acceptance. The onus of proof is the first 6 months. In which the retailer must prove and item wasnt inherently faulty rather than the consumer proving it was..

False: 6 months is not deemed "acceptance" of the goods as any fault discovered within six months is deemed automatically to have been present at the time of sale. While the is no automatic right of rejection if there is no suitable replacement or repair, or a repair is made but subsequently fails, as is the case with the op, then it's reasonable to expect a refund, thats why the court found in his favour, if this was not the case then where no suitable repair or replacement was available what recourse would the consumer have if not the right to a refund.

toffe

4743hudsonj wrote: »

There is absolutely no legal basis for this particular comment. The SOGA allows for an indefinite number of repairs etc providing they remain not of significant inconvenience (an extremely common occurrence of an issue or short time frames of failure may be construed as significant ). I do agree with the rest of your comment but that bit has no basis.

I see nothing in the sale of goods act that allows indefinate or infinate repair attempts on the manufacturers part.

it could easily be argued that having to have one repair, whereby the use of the laptop is lost for several days, is a massive inconvenience, it would be for me as i use mine for business, and so it would be easy to argue that one failed attempt at repair was inconvenient and that to be expected to endure a second inconvenience was unreasonable.

KeithP

toffe wrote: »

I see nothing in the sale of goods act that allows indefinate or infinate repair attempts on the manufacturers part.

it could easily be argued that having to have one repair, whereby the use of the laptop is lost for several days, is a massive inconvenience, it would be for me as i use mine for business, and so it would be easy to argue that one failed attempt at repair was inconvenient and that to be expected to endure a second inconvenience was unreasonable.

Let me apologise at the start by saying I am not a lawyer, so please forgive the lack of jargon.

Perhaps you would feel more comfortable with the phrase...
there is nothing in the SOGA which limits the number of repairs allowed. The important point, which 4743hudsonj made but you overlooked, is "providing they remain not of significant inconvenience".

4743hudsonj

toffe wrote: »

partly true, eu directives ar not in themselves law, well done on that point, i'm afraid it only gets worse from here on in.

Partly true? care to point out where my layman's explanation of vertical direct effect and directives (so that average joe on here can understand) is incorrect? (with actual law if you can this time, not just a link to an act which you hope proves your point, it doesnt)

toffe wrote: »

FALSE: they do have a right to either a repair or replacement if the fault is discovered within six months. (in some cases upto a year) under the sale of goods act.

.....or refund, in other words a remedy, AS I MENTIONED SHOUT SHOUT SHOUT CAPITAL LETTERS. And your understanding of the 6 months is either wrong or you have worded this poorly and once again failed to read what i have written, The 6 months is merely a burden of proof on the retailer, thats it, it does not grant extra rights. The right to rejection i completely separate hence why i attempted to explain the difference.

keeping up?

toffe wrote: »

False: 6 months is not deemed "acceptance" of the goods as any fault discovered within six months is deemed automatically to have been present at the time of sale. While the is no automatic right of rejection if there is no suitable replacement or repair, or a repair is made but subsequently fails, as is the case with the op, then it's reasonable to expect a refund, thats why the court found in his favour, if this was not the case then where no suitable repair or replacement was available what recourse would the consumer have if not the right to a refund.

Please read what i write. I never once said 6 months was deemed acceptance in all cases, i was separating the confusion of earlier posters and the OP, i was pointing out however that in her case after 6 months of use, it would have been deemed that the goods were accepted, otherwise the op would have stopped using it and returned it before 6 months no?


Toffe, i really cant understand you, you dont read things properly, you selectively pick out words and phrases and constuct your own little world in you head and immediately see red and start posting (mostly) correct law. Yet you fail to see that your 'slamming' me for saying the exact same thing!

Now lets talk about that word, 'mostly'. Ive encountered this before with you, you seem inept to back up some of your claims with actual written law, whilst most was good, i did point out that your comment about getting another remedy other than repair was at best very misleading, you at a minimum, implied that it was a right(yes you did not say this hence the word implied) or something similar.

Now i pointed out that theres not legal basis for this, which is correct, you duely replied and made an equally correct statement that there is also no comment saying there are an infinite number of the same remedies allowed. However, the fact that the act makes no mention whatsoever to a fixed number of attempts, you cannot possibly interpret any limit, its not possible. The only interpretation needed to be made is whether the new remedy is of significant inconvenience.

The general jist is read things and think twice before your reply and it seems like talking to a brick wall. You will duly be back on my ignore list (you were and will be the only member intolerable enough).