Sales of goods act - help please!

moneysaver_77

I got a repair report from the company who fixed the problem. Clearly stated the what the fault was. Your right, I think I may have got a bit lucky but a the same time I think common sense prevailed. The judge did ask the defendant how long he expected the appliance to work. The answer got was 'it depends. On very rare occasions some appliances do develop faults'.

I'm still glad I saw this through, despite being up against their legal dept and all I had was Consumer Direct and the internet!

fred7777

visidigi wrote: »

The engineers report after 6 months ownership needs to define it as inherent - then it would go in your favour and would have the report fee refunded by the manufacturer and the repair performed - if its wear and tear then you're liable, despite the 6 years.

Not always the case. Wear and tear can prove an inherent fault.

If the part broke due to wear but the unit had not been subjected to unreasonable use and should have been expected to last longer (up to 6 years in some cases) then a failure due to wear becomes an indicator of an inherent fault i.e. the part isn't fit for purpose.

For example I once had a car fan motor pack up on me. Taking the motor apart showed the bushes had worn but the motor should have lasted at least 4 times longer so the wear indicated that there was an inherent fault in the bush material or other parts of the motor which were causing excessive wear.