Sale Of Goods Act Partial Refund Rules

Annisele

George_Michael wrote: »

Yes, if it ever got that far, I would assume that it would be the judge who decides the figure to be deducted for use the buyer has already had from the goods.

Indeed, that's exactly what happens. Very often all "the law" says is that something must be "reasonable" - and that leaves it up to the judge to decide what is reasonable in the circumstances of that particular case. Judges are human too, and the idea is that the judge's "reasonable" shouldn't be all that far from an ordinary person's "reasonable". That does mean that some judges would come to different decisions on the same case - but the law isn't as consistent as some people feel it should be.

IMO it makes sense to leave these things to the judges discretion - the alternative would be an enormous list of everything a consumer might wish to purchase and how long it should last. Which would be a waste of time, given that all reasonable people know that cars last longer than ice-creams!

squeaky

Thanks both,

But to get this into a FAQ I think I need a bit more than "just" an opinion. Is there a page anywhere from some "body" or other that outlines this?

George_Michael

This page isn't too bad.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

It gives the relevant info in fairly plain language.

And there's this one from Consumer direct.

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/after_you_buy/know-your-rights/SGAknowyourrights/

squeaky

Great thanks.

I'll draft a FAQ tomorrow and see how it goes.

fthl

I've seen DJs take two approaches, depending on the goods.

The first is expected lifespan, divided by purchase price and then deducted for every year of use. For eg, a hoojit at 6k, claim after three years, 3k refund. A 12k hoojit, claim after one year, 10k refund.

The other approach is based on a six year lifespan, the logic being that you can only claim for six years. So even if it should be expected to last longer, then they still divide the purhase price by six. For eg, a hoojit at 6k, claim after three years, 3k refund.

The first is more common, I think, but it depends on the thing. The latter seems to be the preferred option for more expensive stuff, furniture and the like.

moonrakerz

George_Michael wrote: »

So what does the law say then, and could you post a link to the legislation that shows this.

The Law states (roughly) what you quote:

"For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances."

It does NOT state that an item shall last for any specific period of time
It does NOT state that an item shall last longer if it costs more
It does NOT state that if it fails within a certain time that a pro-rata refund shall be given

It DOES state that the consumer can claim damages (6 yrs in England) if he believes the item fails to meet the requirements of the Act. BUT there are no laid down requirements in the Act

You seem to like to quote this bit:
"meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory"

"a reasonable person" would probably accept that things will break/go wrong at some stage. Why then, should that same "reasonable person" expect that this self same item should last for a given period of time? Have a good read about "reliability engineering", this applies just as much to your laptop as to a Rolls-Royce car.

Should a £1000 laptop last longer than a £200 one - maybe, maybe not.
Perhaps the £1000 model was bought because the user thought it would put up with more "robust" treatment than the £200 - and it then received even more "robust" treatment than it deserved.
Will a pair of Jimmy Choo shoes for £500 last longer than a pair from Clarks at £50 ? Ten times as long ? Dream on !

My main point is that much of the "advice" given regarding what SoGA says is grossly over simplistic and raises false expectations among consumers. If you feel aggrieved and believe that you have a good case - take it to Court; but you will get absolutely nowhere if your main piece of evidence is:
"If it is a £1000 laptop, I could reasonably expect it to last 5 years"

I would say that the best "defence" against having to resort to SoGA is to buy your goods from a reputable supplier who will give after sales service. If you want a cheap TV, buy it from Tesco but don't expect much sympathy (or a new TV) if it dies after 13 months.
You only have to peruse this site to see which retailers provide good support and those which keep cropping up as "sorry, it's out of warranty" merchants.

George_Michael

It does NOT state that an item shall last longer if it costs more

But it does say that the price should be taken into account.
"taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances."

Should a £1000 laptop last longer than a £200 one - maybe, maybe not.

I think that if you asked a selection of people, the general opinion would be yes, a £1000 item should last longer than a £200 one. (be it a laptop, suitcase or dvd player)

squeaky

Morning all

A rough draft of a FAQ question is now in the ReadMe... https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/41866860#Comment_41866860

What does it need in the way of fine tuning / references etc?


Edit: First thought is a link to this thread? It would save having the FAQ being too long and complicated. If the reader needs/wants to know more they can read the full debate here.

moonrakerz

George_Michael wrote: »

But it does say that the price should be taken into account.
"taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances."

There is a lot of difference, in Law, between "price (if relevant) should be taken into account" and the price "shall" be taken into account.

George_Michael wrote: »

I think that if you asked a selection of people, the general opinion would be yes, a £1000 item should last longer than a £200 one. (be it a laptop, suitcase or dvd player)

Sorry, but you do not understand the way the Law works - "the general opinion" of a "selection of people" does not make it the way that the Law actually sees it.

Here is an example I saw ages ago of how the Law looks at problems such as those that might fall under SoGA.

Take 1000 brand new Ford Mondeos (or any car). Is it reasonable or unreasonable to expect some of those cars to break down in the first 5 years of their life ?
Using your point of argument, "most" people (including you ?) would say that some of these cars will fail in that time, so it is "reasonable"; let's say just one fails .
If you are the owner of that failed car, it is perhaps understandable that you are a bit "hacked off". You might even say that it is "unreasonable" that your 4 year old car has failed at that point. BUT the opinion of those asked about the expected life of the car was that it was "reasonable" to expect some of them to break down within 5 years. Their view is now the opposite of yours; and your view of "reasonable" has now changed to "unreasonable" - who is correct ?
You have been been unlucky, "sod's law" , call it what you will - that's life.
In reliability engineering it is a "random failure". Unless you can find out that 41.7% of Mondeos have suffered from the same failure - then you have something to base a sound argument on.

If anyone has a good case against a retailer it is worth pursuing but don't waste money on a cause that is "dodgy" from the outset.

'nuff said .......................

PHYTHIAN

Moonrakerz.....sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point here ,but are you really saying that if you purchased a brand new Mondeo for about 20 grand and the engine blew up after 4 years you would simply scrap it and put it down to "sod's law" ? And you accept that you got "unlucky" having the one in 1000 cars that lasted far less than you could reasonably expect it to? Let's assume because it is a brand new car that you have asked Ford to carry out all servicing etc...you're just going to walk away and not expect any redress whatsoever?

Yes you could expect a failure rate within the 1000 cars and I would expect a proportion to fail also. However that does not mean that I am not entitled to redress on the basis that the car has not lasted as long as I could reasonably have expected it to.