Sale of Goods act vs Vodafone

Silk

!!!!!! wrote: »

It was

http://www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission/docs/lc317_Consumer_Remedies_Faulty_Goods.pdf

That's a paper produced by the Law Commision of recommendations that have yet to be implemented

Silk

prosaver wrote: »

when you buy something
the shop is under a legal binding contract...
john lewis and yourself .
john lewis would have to defend themselves if they were not at fault.
why I hear you ask?
because every tom , !!!!!! and harry would be doing it.
John Lewis also would not lose out as they would recuperate the monies of the phone supplier.

Not realy ... it's a commercial decision. In a Small Claims Court each case is heard on it's own merits if it were to be heard in a High Court where there is a chance it could set a precedent they would defend themselves to the hilt

System

Silk wrote: »

That's a paper produced by the Law Commision of recommendations that have yet to be implemented

I take that you didn't look at Part 2 - The Current Law

The European remedies – the 1999 Consumer Sales Directive
1.12 In 2002, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 was amended to implement the CSD. .

The CSD being Directive 1999/44/EC of 25 May 1999 on Certain Aspectsof the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees, 1999 OJL 171 12-16 A.K.A the secret EU law.

The directive HAS been implemented into UK law.

Silk

!!!!!! wrote: »

I take that you didn't look at Part 2 - The Current Law

The CSD being Directive 1999/44/EC of 25 May 1999 on Certain Aspectsof the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees, 1999 OJL 171 12-16 A.K.A the secret EU law.

The directive HAS been implemented into UK law.

Only certain aspects have been implemented and as of yet the bit relevant ie 2yrs rather than 6 months has not yet been changed ....the section we are concerned with amendments were ......

Repair or replacement of the goods

48B—(1) If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller—

(a)to repair the goods, or

(b)to replace the goods.

(2) If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—

(a)repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;

(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

(3) The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—

(a)impossible, or

(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or

(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.

(4) One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—

(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,

(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and

(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

(5) Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined by reference to—

(a)the nature of the goods, and

(b)the purpose for which the goods were acquired.

As of yet we still have no resolve to the 2 year period which the EU respects

System

Silk wrote: »

Only certain aspects have been implemented and as of yet the bit relevant ie 2yrs rather than 6 months has not yet been changed ....the section we are concerned with amendments were ......

Repair or replacement of the goods


As of yet we still have no resolve to the 2 year period which the EU respects

But we do. That is our 6 year period. It is not a guarantee for the item but a guarantee that we can have a remedy against the retailer

The 2 year guarantee for the item is a misinterpretaion

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN02239.pdf part 2

And as far as the UK government and EU are concerned, our SOGA satisfactorily covers all areas of the directive. If it did not the EU would be taking action, as they have done against other countries.

Guys_Dad

!!!!!! wrote: »

But we do. That is our 6 year period. It is not a guarantee for the item but a guarantee that we can have a remedy against the retailer

The 2 year guarantee for the item is a misinterpretaion

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN02239.pdf part 2

And as far as the UK government and EU are concerned, our SOGA satisfactorily covers all areas of the directive. If it did not the EU would be taking action, as they have done against other countries.

Have you any example of case law in the UK where this has been found in consumers' favour ? Not knocking your post, but this would be genuinely most helpful.

boobies

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Have you any example of case law in the UK where this has been found in consumers' favour ? Not knocking your post, but this would be genuinely most helpful.

Little case law would be reported as the great majority of these cases would be heard in the small claims court. I have won three cases (and had several more settle), including one involving a four year old sofa that was proven to be inherently faulty.

Silk

!!!!!! wrote: »

But we do. That is our 6 year period. It is not a guarantee for the item but a guarantee that we can have a remedy against the retailer

The 2 year guarantee for the item is a misinterpretaion

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN02239.pdf part 2

And as far as the UK government and EU are concerned, our SOGA satisfactorily covers all areas of the directive. If it did not the EU would be taking action, as they have done against other countries.

Hi !!!!!!,
Our 6 year period has always existed ..that is for making a claim or refund etc etc always difficult because of our catch 22 phrase "reasonable"
To quote from your paper above

Where faulty goods are returned within the first six months of purchase, the consumer is entitled to a remedy unless it is clear that the defect did not exist at the time of purchase. In other words, during the first six months of purchase the consumer has the benefit of a presumption that the goods were not satisfactory when delivered. If the retailer does not agree, it is for him to prove that the goods were satisfactory at the time of sale. After the first six months and for up to six years, consumers are entitled to a remedy if they can show that the defect existed at the time of delivery. These rights are enforceable against the retailer,

The diffence is that the EU directive assumes that if it's faulty within the 2 year period the fault (Article 5) then the consumer is entitled to a replacement unless the retailer can prove it's down to missuse We on the other hand have to prove after 6 months that the fault was there at the time of purchase usualy by getting an engineers report etc etc
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2057937/Your-rights-mobile-phone-breaks-contract.html

EU directive 1999/44/EC states that: 'A two-year guarantee applies for the sale of all consumer goods everywhere in the EU. In some countries, this may be more, and some manufacturers also choose to offer a longer warranty period.'

Crucially a key point in the directive is that it doesn’t require the buyer to show the fault is inherent in the product and not down to their actions, unlike the Sale of Goods Act.

System

It is still only a directive that has no legal force and the UK is happy with SOGA so bottom line, that is all you have.

ETA

This has been done to death on these boards
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1712957 is one thread, go find the others yourself.

Taken directly from the Directive

Article 3
Rights of the consumer
1. The seller shall be liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists at the time the goods were delivered.
2. In the case of a lack of conformity, the consumer shall be entitled to have the goods brought into conformity free of charge by repair or replacement, in accordance with paragraph 3, or to have an appropriate reduction made in the price or the contract rescinded with regard to those goods, in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6.
3. In the first place, the consumer may require the seller to repair the goods or he may require the seller to replace them, in either case free of charge, unless this is impossible or disproportionate.
A remedy shall be deemed to be disproportionate if it imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison with the alternative remedy, are unreasonable, taking into account:
- the value the goods would have if there were no lack of conformity,
- the significance of the lack of conformity, and
- whether the alternative remedy could be completed without significant inconvenience to the consumer.
Any repair or replacement shall be completed within a reasonable time and without any significant inconvenience to the consumer, taking account of the nature of the goods and the purpose for which the consumer required the goods.
4. The terms "free of charge" in paragraphs 2 and 3 refer to the necessary costs incurred to bring the goods into conformity, particularly the cost of postage, labour and materials.
5. The consumer may require an appropriate reduction of the price or have the contract rescinded:
- if the consumer is entitled to neither repair nor replacement, or
- if the seller has not completed the remedy within a reasonable time, or
- if the seller has not completed the remedy without significant inconvenience to the consumer.
6. The consumer is not entitled to have the contract rescinded if the lack of conformity is minor.

Article 4
Right of redress
Where the final seller is liable to the consumer because of a lack of conformity resulting from an act or omission by the producer, a previous seller in the same chain of contracts or any other intermediary, the final seller shall be entitled to pursue remedies against the person or persons liable in the contractual chain. the person or persons liable against whom the final seller may pursue remedies, together with the relevant actions and conditions of exercise, shall be determined by national law.

Article 5
Time limits
1. The seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods. If, under national legislation, the rights laid down in Article 3(2) are subject to a limitation period, that period shall not expire within a period of two years from the time of delivery.
2. Member States may provide that, in order to benefit from his rights, the consumer must inform the seller of the lack of conformity within a period of two months from the date on which he detected such lack of conformity.
Member States shall inform the Commission of their use of this paragraph. The Commission shall monitor the effect of the existence of this option for the Member States on consumers and on the internal market.
Not later than 7 January 2003, the Commission shall prepare a report on the use made by Member States of this paragraph. This report shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
3. Unless proved otherwise, any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within six months of delivery of the goods shall be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery unless this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

Note that NOWHERE does it state that there is a 2 year guarantee.

eefee

Ok. As 6 months have elapsed, clearly I need to prove that my phone has an inherent fault.
I took it into a mobile phone shop, the engineer confirmed that it was dead but......
Only Apple can service the phone. It's impossible to get an independent engineers report.
How do I prove an inherent fault?
I'm living in Belgium at the moment. We don't even have Apple stores here. I would have to drive to Germany and even then, the report wouldn't be independent.