Table ordered is rickety - can I get a refund as my dad has binned the packaging?

shaun_from_Africa

I know that if an item is returned in accordance with the Distance selling regulations then the lack of the packaging shouldn't affect the seller refunding, and it's also the same if the table is returned due to a fault manifesting itself after acceptance, but what happens if the table is rejected within the reasonable time stated in the Sale of goods act?

The act basically states that a consumer has a reasonable time to inspect the goods to confirm that they comply with the terms of the contract and if they don't then they can be rejected.
However, another part of the act states that the goods can be deemed to have been accepted if "he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller".

Could the seller argue that as the buyer has disposed of the packaging, he has accepted ownership of the goods?.

If this is the case, I know that the buyer is still entitled to reject the goods if they are faulty, but if they do this, the seller can give an exchange rather than a refund.

Flyboy152

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I know that if an item is returned in accordance with the Distance selling regulations then the lack of the packaging shouldn't affect the seller refunding, and it's also the same if the table is returned due to a fault manifesting itself after acceptance, but what happens if the table is rejected within the reasonable time stated in the Sale of goods act?

The act basically states that a consumer has a reasonable time to inspect the goods to confirm that they comply with the terms of the contract and if they don't then they can be rejected.
However, another part of the act states that the goods can be deemed to have been accepted if "he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller".

Could the seller argue that as the buyer has disposed of the packaging, he has accepted ownership of the goods?.

If this is the case, I know that the buyer is still entitled to reject the goods if they are faulty, but if they do this, the seller can give an exchange rather than a refund.

It is unlikely, I would have thought. I would have considered the discarding of the packaging to be consistent with ownership. We are not expected to have tons of cardboard around the house for six years.

shaun_from_Africa

Flyboy152 wrote: »

It is unlikely, I would have thought. I would have considered the discarding of the packaging to be consistent with ownership. We are not expected to have tons of cardboard around the house for six years.

But this was my exact point.
The OP's father has discarded the packaging and if this implies that they have accepted the goods, then the retailer is under no obligation to give a refund. They could opt to give an exchange instead.

Then again it might not matter. It's just something I've been pondering.

unholyangel

George_Michael wrote: »

Go on then, enlighten us. (and without stating that the information can be found on Google).
Which other legislation states that the goods "must still be of merchantable quality and fit for purpose" irrespective of the price paid.

I have serious doubts any such legislation exists. Anything on google about merchantable quality also refers to price paid as an indication as to what kind of quality the item should be.

Then again, flyboy has had his own version of laws and legislations for so long now without being able to prove that any of them actually exist as he says they do.......you dont expect a leopard to change its spots now do you?

Flyboy152

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

But this was my exact point.
The OP's father has discarded the packaging and if this implies that they have accepted the goods, then the retailer is under no obligation to give a refund. They could opt to give an exchange instead.

Then again it might not matter. It's just something I've been pondering.

But you have quoted that acceptance will have taken place if the buyer does something which is inconsistent with normal ownership. As he has discarded the packaging, that would be consistent with normal ownership. So, discarding the packaging is not a sign of acceptance, based on the quote you referred to.

Or, are we talking about two different things? :huh:

Flyboy152

unholyangel wrote: »

I have serious doubts any such legislation exists. Anything on google about merchantable quality also refers to price paid as an indication as to what kind of quality the item should be.

Then again, flyboy has had his own version of laws and legislations for so long now without being able to prove that any of them actually exist as he says they do.......you dont expect a leopard to change its spots now do you?

First of all, where have I said legislation exist that uses that exact wording?

Secondly, are you saying that goods do not have to be of merchantable, or even satisfactory quality and be fit for purpose?

wealdroam

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But you have quoted that acceptance will have taken place if the buyer does something which is inconsistent with normal ownership. As he has discarded the packaging, that would be consistent with normal ownership. So, discarding the packaging is not a sign of acceptance, based on the quote you referred to.

Or, are we talking about two different things? :huh:

Flyboy, it is clear that you are talking about something different.

Surely you understood what Shaun said...

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

However, another part of the act states that the goods can be deemed to have been accepted if "he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller".

The recipient of the table has disposed of the packaging.
That is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller.

One really shouldn't be throwing away packaging if it belongs to someone else.

Or to put it another way...
if the recipient has discarded the packaging, then that is an act which can be seen to be one of acceptance of the goods.

Flyboy152

wealdroam wrote: »

Flyboy, it is clear that you are talking about something different.

Surely you understood what Shaun said...

The recipient of the table has disposed of the packaging.
That is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller.

One really shouldn't be throwing away packaging if it belongs to someone else.

Or to put it another way...
if the recipient has discarded the packaging, then that is an act which can be seen to be one of acceptance of the goods.

LOL Oops! I see where he is coming from now. :doh:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

unholyangel

Flyboy152 wrote: »

First of all, where have I said legislation exist that uses that exact wording?

Secondly, are you saying that goods do not have to be of merchantable, or even satisfactory quality and be fit for purpose?

Post #23

You quoted wealdroam saying:
The Sale of Goods Act says this about quality...
It seems that price, amongst other things, does matter.

And replied:

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Then you need to read about other related legislation. The SOGA is not solely one single act.

Flyboy, I have no idea why you respond as you do. You have in the past managed to give decent/very good advice to people on here. But for some reason, every so often you'll come out with utter rubbish and refuse to back it up when asked - I even remember one time you gave someone wrong advice that could have had adverse consequences for them.

Why? The purpose of this board is not to get one over on each other or pretend you're smarter. Its to help people who have problems, don't know their rights and to hopefully educate people as to what their rights are so they don't look like complete fools when declaring "i know my rights" when they are sadly disillusioned.

NOT quoting your sources is only going to have limited function of causing more harm than good for the OP. Quoting sources to back up what you say will not only educate the regulars of MSE (and newcomers) but will also enable people with problems to know that they are being given correct advice AND something to use as a source themselves when dealing with the retailer.

Or are they just going to say "you're breaching my rights because a random person on the internet told me so even though he couldn't provide any proof to back up his claims"?

Come on. Come out of the sandpit and lets work together to educate people on their rights please.

Flyboy152

unholyangel wrote: »

Post #23

You quoted wealdroam saying:
The Sale of Goods Act says this about quality...
It seems that price, amongst other things, does matter.

And replied:



Flyboy, I have no idea why you respond as you do. You have in the past managed to give decent/very good advice to people on here. But for some reason, every so often you'll come out with utter rubbish and refuse to back it up when asked - I even remember one time you gave someone wrong advice that could have had adverse consequences for them.

Why? The purpose of this board is not to get one over on each other or pretend you're smarter. Its to help people who have problems, don't know their rights and to hopefully educate people as to what their rights are so they don't look like complete fools when declaring "i know my rights" when they are sadly disillusioned.

NOT quoting your sources is only going to have limited function of causing more harm than good for the OP. Quoting sources to back up what you say will not only educate the regulars of MSE (and newcomers) but will also enable people with problems to know that they are being given correct advice AND something to use as a source themselves when dealing with the retailer.

Or are they just going to say "you're breaching my rights because a random person on the internet told me so even though he couldn't provide any proof to back up his claims"?

Come on. Come out of the sandpit and lets work together to educate people on their rights please.

For heaven's sake....you know what, you could have an argument with the Son of God if he told you his name was Jesus.

You declare yourself something of an authority on the word of the "law" and challenge almost anyone about anything, almost to point of dogmatic pedagoguery. Not everything in law is written in the same way as in the actual legislation, it is the interpretation of the points of law and its spirit that is most important. Surely, even you couldn't disagree with that.

Your unerring adherence to the belief that merchantable or satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose is solely dependent on price, is worrying and your pedantic search for conflict is starting to get a bit silly.

The concepts of satisfactory or merchantable quality and fitness for purpose, is among some of the basic principles of consumer protection. You yourself have already pointed out the concept, but seem to refuse to acknowledge that they actually exist.

The principles of satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose, I am sure you already know, are; they should do what they are supposed to do, be safe to use, be free of defects, even minor ones, function properly for a reasonable amount of time and have a reasonable finish and appearance. The price does come in to what is reasonable; you will not expect the same quality of finish or appearance, for example, from a table costing ten pounds, to one costing a thousand pounds, I will not argue with that.

However, in the case of the OP, if it is not level, it is not, in anyone's mind, a reasonable expectation of satisfactory quality, irrespective of the price. If nothing will sit on the surface of the table, it is not functioning as it is supposed to, for any period of time at all. If it won't sit on top of the table and falls off, it is not safe. Not being level, is not being free from defects. All of these principles have no bearing on the price of the goods.

There is little point in me providing links, because you and others would spend the next few hours poring over them and declaring them as inconclusive, incomplete, ambiguous or even, heaven forfend, not worded exactly as written in the Sales of Goods Act. However, to satisfy your insistence that you have such things,here are some links:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Consumerrights/Yourconsumerrightswhenbuyinggoodsandservices/DG_182935

http://www.mertonchamber.co.uk/cmsdata/InfoAdvice/jonrushcontracts.pdf

http://www.desktoplawyer.co.uk/dtl/index.cfm?event=base:article&node=A76062B76276D33506

Sale of Goods Act 1979

Where goods are sold in the course of business, the Act provides once again for the goods to be of merchantable quality. There are two exceptions: firstly where specific defects are drawn to the attention of the buyer before the contract is made and, secondly, the buyer has examined the goods before the contract is made and the defects are ones that the examination ought to reveal.....

.......'Merchantable' is a word that has fallen into disuse. It encompasses functional fitness. Satisfactory has a wider definition with a broader spectrum of qualities. By way of example, a bedroom light that hums loudly is of merchantable quality, but hardly satisfactory

I await your and others inevitable response telling me that these people are wrong.