I sucessfully sued Comet today for Breach of SoG Act

somethingcorporate

toffe wrote: »

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.

toffe wrote: »

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.

You appear to have changed your tune!

Rejection has quite a specific meaning in the context of the SOGA and your mentioning it in your top post I have quoted is inaccurate. Your bottom post is right on the money though, they can seek remedy, but not via rejection as this would automatically entitle the OP to a refund.

Toffe: After reading back through your posts I think you need to read up on the SOGA about acceptance, rejection and the right to remedies. Hudson has posted good stuff here, as always.

roddydogs

One in the eye for all the SOG critics "Its not a 6 Year Gtee, you have to prove, yada yada stuff they always post.

Esqui

roddydogs wrote: »

One in the eye for all the SOG critics "Its not a 6 Year Gtee, you have to prove, yada yada stuff they always post.

Do explain...

roddydogs

Esqui wrote: »

Do explain...

You obviously dont read this forum much........nearly everytime the SOG act is mentioned, the critics appear "You have to prove its an inherent fault," etc that we all know anyway, just because they cant be bothered to use it and go to court.

unholyangel

Only thing i've seen posted along those lines is that within 6 months, it is assumed the fault was present at sale and the onus is on the retailer to prove otherwise.

Outwith 6 months it is up to the customer to prove it was there at time of sale and hasnt developed due to misuse or wear and tear (which you do by commissioning a report at your own cost - if found in your favour that cost would be refunded).

At least i think thats what you were going on about.....

Plus i'm sure the OP said that the fault was originally present before the 6 month deadline and later reoccured after they "fixed" it.

Esqui

roddydogs wrote: »

You obviously dont read this forum much........nearly everytime the SOG act is mentioned, the critics appear "You have to prove its an inherent fault," etc that we all know anyway, just because they cant be bothered to use it and go to court.

By stating the law, that makes one a critic?

Googlewhacker

toffe wrote: »

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/

Actually what it states is that the retailer has to prove there was not an inherent fault with the product and the defect that has arisen in the first 6 months is down to wear or tear or misuse

Aginoth

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Actually what it states is that the retailer has to prove there was not an inherent fault with the product and the defect that has arisen in the first 6 months is down to wear or tear or misuse

for clarity.

The Retailer (Comet) and Manufacturer (Toshiba) admitted the existence of an inherent fault in their evidence to the court, but prior to that did not communicate that fact to me themselves. Even though this was teh cas Comet maintained that the original repair was carried out as a good will gesture and that the damage was due to misuse, which was a lie on their part.

Only thru my own investigation after the original repair did I discover a product-wide defect existed at manufacture, to date there has also been no recall btw, so if you do own a late 2008 vintage Toshiba Sattelite Laptop I suggest you be careful of the power socket.

At court the judge agreed I did not need to allow a further inspection or repair due to the added inconveinience it would cause me and so Comet should have offered me a replacement when I correctly under the SOGA rejected the goods in their store in person. He confirmed I had the right to reject under SOGA due to the fault inherrent at manufacture and purchase.

As pointed out Comet were required by the judge to refund at court because of their inability to communicate with me and therefore leaving me 10 months without a laptop. Totally unacceptable inconveinience.

As for fair usage and time to assess, the fact I had the laptop for 6 months prior to the fault becoming apparent led the judge to refuse my claim for statutory interest.

Peggy40

Aginoth wrote: »

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..

Interesting that you sued someone in the small claims court. I have been tempted to do something similar, but actually chicked out because I wasnt sure what was involved, and what liability I would have if I didnt win. Basically someone failed to deliver against a contract, and they said they would pay compensation, and never did ? Can you tell me whats involved and the process ? Do I have to attend court ?

Peggy40

Interesting that you sued someone in the small claims court. I have been tempted to do something similar, but actually chicked out because I wasnt sure what was involved, and what liability I would have if I didnt win. Basically someone failed to deliver against a contract, and they said they would pay compensation, and never did ? Can you tell me whats involved and the process ? Do I have to attend court ?