Consumer right after 1 year guarantee expires

gordikin

italiastar wrote: »

And that's why you'd be embarrassed? please elaborate

Are you not back at work!

Foggster

coljanscot wrote: »

Bought samsung home cinema system 06/08/09 it has ceased functioning. Really disappointed comet group are not interested. Do i have any rights under european law as to the expectation that an electrical system should last more than 1year 3 months:(

Have sent you a message.

gordikin

Foggster wrote: »

Have sent you a message.

Care to share?

neilmcl

italiastar wrote: »

How can you be allowed to post as an official representative and then give the same incorrect information that I would expect from one of your, or competitors stores. That's why John Lewis give a minimum 2 year guarantee - they are not giving anything extra, just making sure that they are compliant with EU (of which the UK is part of) law - same applies to Lidl Aldi Tichibo who are all German

What exactly is incorrect about the post. Under the Sale of Goods Act the onus is now on the buyer to proof that a inherent manufacturing fault existed, this would be done by them paying for an inspection, which is pretty much what the Comet rep is suggesting. If such an inspection provided this proof then they would be entitled to a remedy plus the costs of any inspection. I think you need to read up on the SOGA and forget "EU law" before criticising others for providing "incorrect information".

italiastar

neilmcl wrote: »

What exactly is incorrect about the post. Under the Sale of Goods Act the onus is now on the buyer to proof that a inherent manufacturing fault existed, this would be done by them paying for an inspection, which is pretty much what the Comet rep is suggesting. If such an inspection provided this proof then they would be entitled to a remedy plus the costs of any inspection. I think you need to read up on the SOGA and forget "EU law" before criticising others for providing "incorrect information".

EU law does not put the onus of proof on the buyer, so why use an act which makes things more difficult - Simples Eh!

neilmcl

italiastar wrote: »

EU law does not put the onus of proof on the buyer, so why use an act which makes things more difficult - Simples Eh!

You're just showing your ignorance again. Even under the EU Directive (its a directive not law) the burden of proof on the seller is still only for 6 months.

wealdroam

italiastar wrote: »

EU law does not put the onus of proof on the buyer, so why use an act which makes things more difficult - Simples Eh!

What Eu law is this?

Can you please elaborate, Italiastar?

From the Guardian link you posted earlier...

After the item is six months old, retailers can demand evidence that it failed as a result of a manufacturing fault. Try the Yellow Pages for an independent repairer. Most stores will reimburse the cost of an independent examination if the breakdown is the result of an inherent fault.

italiastar

neilmcl wrote: »

What exactly is incorrect about the post. Under the Sale of Goods Act the onus is now on the buyer to proof that a inherent manufacturing fault existed, this would be done by them paying for an inspection, which is pretty much what the Comet rep is suggesting. If such an inspection provided this proof then they would be entitled to a remedy plus the costs of any inspection. I think you need to read up on the SOGA and forget "EU law" before criticising others for providing "incorrect information".

Does this mean I can get someone to inspect my Dualit toaster and make a claim on that subject to their findings then?

neilmcl

italiastar wrote: »

Does this mean I can get someone to inspect my Dualit toaster and make a claim on that subject to their findings then?

Well considering Dualit have already offered you a suitable remedy I wouldn't see the point but if you wish to go after the retailer then have at it. Good of you to change the subject, btw.

italiastar

why should i pay for a solution when the SOGA provides a free remedy?