Sale of Goods Act - Can anyone help with this one?

fthl

2) No wrong; the consumer can request a remedy; the retailer can refuse. The case would be decided on a reasonableness if it ever went to a court; it wouldnt be deemed reasonable for a refund simply because OP has replaced it otherwise everytime something broke down that would happen.

I think we are saying the same thing. The choice of remedy is the consumer's:

S48A
the buyer has the right—
(a)under and in accordance with section 48B below, to require the seller to repair or replace the goods, or
(b)under and in accordance with section 48C below—
(i)to require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or
(ii)to rescind the contract with regard to the goods in question.

But if the trader wants to refuse, the burden of proof is on them to show that the chosen remedy os disproportionate etc. Useful if you suspect that there is a high margin on the goods in question, or the goods are inexpensive in the first place.

UHA above makes a good point though, these rights only extend to business to consumer sales. Different rights attach if it is a business to business sale. Whether it is or not, that is a whole other debate.

OlliesDad

Sales of Goods Act does still apply in B2B transactions. The only difference is that parts of the SoGA can be contracted out of.

fthl

not all of it though, some bits don't apply. the provisions I noted above, for eg. also, the remedies can be different.

That said, we don't have enough info to say that this was a b2b sale. A business can act as a consumer in some circumstances.

To the OP - what is the nature of your business? Why was the sat nav bought? Why was the lack of it causing the business to lose money?

adam.mt

Afraid the problem is that you've bought a replacement before giving Handtec the chance to resolve/telling them that it's gone on long enough and you require a resolution within a reasonable time.

If the only time you contacted Handtec was initially when they referred you to TomTom and recently to return it, then in the meantime they were unaware the problem was still outstanding and as such it's difficult to blame them for the delay! Thus, it's now fair of them to only offer a repair or replacement.

If Handtec can't supply a resolution within a reasonable time from when you returned the Sat Nav to them then indeed you would be entitled to demand a refund due to significant inconvenience (although as mentioned it may only be partial to take into account existing use).

adam.mt

hhayley wrote: »

Should I have gone back to Handtec at an earlier stage?

Yes, once TomTom couldn't easily resolve you should have put the onus back on the retailer to sort it since that's who your rights are with.

adam.mt

hhayley wrote: »

Believe me it is an 'actual fault' - do you work for TomTom per chance?

Why do people asking for help assume others are out to get them or the manufacturer/retailer is secretly posting on here to try and deny them of their rights!?

By and large (apart from the odd joker) those on here that reply to people's requests for help are trying to help them, and sometimes there is a necessity to clarify details (and establish if it's a genuine fault and the customer is in the right; which in some cases they aren't!).

(Note, that this is a general observation and not specific to you OP)