Can I return this tablet

RaiderHammer

Do you need to install any virus protection on the Blackberry Playbook?

Flyboy152

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

The principle of carrying out work with reasonable care and skill is enshrined in the Supply of Goods Act Services Act 1982, which is a statute that applies where a contract where the contract includes the transfer of goods. However, it does not apply to contracts only involving the sale of goods (s.1(2)(a)). Contracts formed when you buy something from a shop are almost exclusively for the sale of goods, and the situation in this thread certainly is. As such in this situation there is no implied or explicit contractual term that would require the sales assistant in this case to positively provide information as you suggest.

But then, as the OP asked for advice, it could be argued that that was a service. He asked what the tablet included and how the available apps could be loaded and how they worked. The sales assistant, who at this point would have been considered the expert, then had the opportunity to establish if the buyer had the appropriate equipment to be able to load and use the included applications. The seller would have had the duty to do that with reasonable skill and care, which he clearly didn't.

Crazy_Jamie

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But then, as the OP asked for advice, it could be argued that that was a service. He asked what the tablet included and how the available apps could be loaded and how they worked. The sales assistant, who at this point would have been considered the expert, then had the opportunity to establish if the buyer had the appropriate equipment to be able to load and use the included applications. The seller would have had the duty to do that with reasonable skill and care, which he clearly didn't.

No, it could not. The price paid by the OP was for the sale of the tablet only. No provision or consideration was made for any service within that contract, whether advice or anything else. Simply put, the price advertised by Currys is for the sale of the individual items, and does not include advice or any related service as a contractual term. As the OP would not have paid extra for any such advice or service (indeed, Currys do not offer any such service in the manner that you describe), it cannot have formed part of the contract. As a result there was not and could not be any contractual liability for the sales assistant failing to advise the OP in the manner that you suggest.

Flyboy152

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

No, it could not. The price paid by the OP was for the sale of the tablet only. No provision or consideration was made for any service within that contract, whether advice or anything else. Simply put, the price advertised by Currys is for the sale of the individual items, and does not include advice or any related service as a contractual term. As the OP would not have paid extra for any such advice or service (indeed, Currys do not offer any such service in the manner that you describe), it cannot have formed part of the contract. As a result there was not and could not be any contractual liability for the sales assistant failing to advise the OP in the manner that you suggest.

Let's look at this another way. If you went to a chemist shop and asked them to supply you with a two products that would cause them to react with each other and the person behind the counter failed to warn you of that contraindication, would you consider that they have, or have not, carried out their work with reasonable skill and care?

Hermione_Granger

It all depends on what category of products that you buy from the chemist.
If they were marked with a "P" (Pharmacy only medicines), then they must be sold with the approval of a registered pharmacist. In this case it is a legal requirement that you should be told about possible problems with other items you are purchasing.
OTC medicines can be sold by anyone without a pharmacists approval.

There is no legal requirement for any Currys employee to have a good knowledge of the goods they are selling (although it makes sense that they should).

Flyboy152

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

It all depends on what category of products that you buy from the chemist.
If they were marked with a "P" (Pharmacy only medicines), then they must be sold with the approval of a registered pharmacist. In this case it is a legal requirement that you should be told about possible problems with other items you are purchasing.
OTC medicines can be sold by anyone without a pharmacists approval.

There is no legal requirement for any Currys employee to have a good knowledge of the goods they are selling (although it makes sense that they should).

No one is talking about any "legal requirement" to know everything, but when they declare themselves to offer expert advice, they have a duty to give the right advice.

Fiddlestick

Flyboy152 wrote: »

If a consumer buys a product that relies on another to make it work, then yes the retailer has a duty to explain that to a customer.

Rubbish.

If I go into HMV and buy a DVD, HMV don't have a duty to tell me that I need to own a DVD player in order to watch it.

Some things are implied!

Fiddlestick

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

There is no legal requirement for any Currys employee to have a good knowledge of the goods they are selling (although it makes sense that they should).

Au contraire.

I've never known a Curry's employee to have a good knowledge of anything!

shaun_from_Africa

Fiddlestick wrote: »

Au contraire.

I've never known a Curry's employee to have a good knowledge of anything!

I bet most of them have an extremely good knowledge of their sales record and commissions earned and how many more sales they have to make in order to get a bonus.

Crazy_Jamie

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Let's look at this another way. If you went to a chemist shop and asked them to supply you with a two products that would cause them to react with each other and the person behind the counter failed to warn you of that contraindication, would you consider that they have, or have not, carried out their work with reasonable skill and care?

The chemist example is entirely distinct because chemists have to be qualified to sell certain products. You don't need any qualifications to work in Currys. Besides which, why do we need to 'look at this another way'? The only way we need to look at this is from the perspective of the law relating to this specific scenario. And in that regard your assertion that the Currys sales assistant has a contractual or otherwise legal obligation to carry out their job with reasonable skill and care, to the extent of having a positive duty to give certain advice, is entirely erroneous.