Indesit taking me to court for £100 to fix washing machine that was under warrenty

melbell

koolcat99 wrote: »

I dont see how, Indesit should not be supplying them to Makro in that case and Makro should not be putting a great big 12 months manufacturers warranty sticker on the machine. The washing machine was 350 including VAT, The going rate for the machine at that time was 350 including vat, if they even dare to imply that the washing machine was sold to me for resale purposes? What I am gonna mark it up by 2.5 and sell a 350quid washing machine for 875quid - this is laughable. Time to snap up the Makro membership card then I think, no wonder they are going bust.

Well. Makro are a wholesaler. it would be business suicide if they didnt.

You wouldn't mark it up by that much, As you bought using a business card. You bought it from whatever business was named on it.

Your points are invalid. Makro aren't going bust?

George_Michael

If my local Makro is anything to go by, they would have closed up shop by the end of the year if they hadn't been bought out by Bookers or another retailer.

A few years ago, whatever time you went in there were normally queues at every till.
Go in there nowadays it's not uncommon to only see a couple of dozen people in the whole store.
A Costco opened up a couple of miles away, and this store is significantly cheaper on most products, and they must be taking an awful lot of Makro customers.

Makro should not be putting a great big 12 months manufacturers warranty sticker on the machine.

The sticker is only an advert and not a contract.
It is the T&C's written into the smallprint of the warranty documents that determine if the machine is covered.

antrobus

wealdroam wrote: »

That is of course correct.

There are however, whole chunks of SOGA that only apply to consumer sales...

Like what, for example? I'm not really aware of any. SOGA is the 'Sale of Goods Act' it "applies to contracts of sale of goods made on or after (but not to those made before) 1 January 1894". It's that simple.

wealdroam wrote: »

It is also possible for a business customer to 'contract out' from sections of SOGA.
A consumer cannot do this.

So it is. But that has nothing to do with SOGA and everything to with the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, under which any attempt by a business seller to exclude liability under s14 would be deemed unfair and thus void.

wealdroam wrote: »

Twice now you have effectively posted that business customers and consumer customers are similarly treated under SOGA.
That is simply wrong.

Twice I've been correct. SOGA is an act that covers the Sale of Goods, it makes no distinction between business and non business customers.

The trouble is that people read things on the interweb about 'consumer rights under the SOGA' and so think SOGA only applies to consumers. The original version was passed in 1893 to codify the existing common law on commercial contracts; the 1979 version was simply a tidying up exercise that consolidated the 1893 act with all the various 'updates' passed in the previous eighty years or so.

To put it as simply as possible; s14(2) SOGA 1979 states "Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality."

Thus if Makro sells a washing machine in the "course of business" there is an implied term in the contract that the washing machine is of "satisfactory quality". It is perfectly true that Makro could, if it wanted, put a term into its standard terms and conditions, specifically excluding liability under s14, and that would be perfectly valid if the goods concerned were purchased by a business. But unless Makro has done so, then s14 applies.

I hope that's all now clear.

antrobus

George_Michael wrote: »

....The sticker is only an advert and not a contract. It is the T&C's written into the smallprint of the warranty documents that determine if the machine is covered.

If a retailer places a "big 12 months manufacturers warranty sticker on the machine" and it turns out that there isn't a manufacturers warranty on the machine, then that would be misrepresentation. As a general rule, misrepresentation renders contracts voidable if its material or fradulent, and at the very least gives rise to damages.

antrobus

antrobus wrote: »

Like what, for example? I'm not really aware of any. SOGA is the 'Sale of Goods Act' it "applies to contracts of sale of goods made on or after (but not to those made before) 1 January 1894". It's that simple.

Well OK, apart from part "5A Additional Rights of Buyer in Comsumer Cases". But the fact that it refers to "additional rights" of "consumers" merely highlights the fact that the act itself applies equally to consumers and non consumers.

(It's such a long time since I originally looked at this kind of stuff.)

George_Michael

antrobus wrote: »

If a retailer places a "big 12 months manufacturers warranty sticker on the machine" and it turns out that there isn't a manufacturers warranty on the machine, then that would be misrepresentation. As a general rule, misrepresentation renders contracts voidable if its material or fradulent, and at the very least gives rise to damages.

But at the moment, there is no way of knowing if the sticker was put on there by Makro or Indesit.

Even if Makro put it on, there may well be a "terms and conditions apply" comment written on the sticker.

shaun_from_Africa

Well OK, apart from part "5A Additional Rights of Buyer in Comsumer Cases". But the fact that it refers to "additional rights" of "consumers" merely highlights the fact that the act itself applies equally to consumers and non consumers

It is not only part 5A that differentiates between contumers and businesses.
The whole of the SOGA is littered with differences between consumer and non consumer contracts.

[F12(2)Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality

[F13(2D)If the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, if a contract of sale is a consumer contract, the relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2A) above include any public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods made about them by the seller, the producer or his representative, particularly in advertising or on labellin

[F2015A Modification of remedies for breach of condition in non-consumer cases.
(1)Where in the case of a contract of sale—

(a)the buyer would, apart from this subsection, have the right to reject goods by reason of a breach on the part of the seller of a term implied by section 13, 14 or 15 above, but

(b)the breach is so slight that it would be unreasonable for him to reject them,
then, if the buyer does not deal as consumer, the breach is not to be treated as a breach of condition but may be treated as a breach of warranty.

[F25(4)In a case where the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, where there is a consumer contract in which the buyer is a consumer, subsections (1) to (3) above must be ignored and the goods remain at the seller’s risk until they are delivered to the consumer.

(3)Where the buyer deals as consumer or (in Scotland) the contract of sale is a consumer contract, the buyer cannot lose his right to rely on subsection (2) above by agreement, waiver or otherwise.

vax2002

I think I would be cancelling the other warranty you bought and letting them sue for the repair, the letters make reference to the end of the old policy and you dont have to prove you had a warranty, they would have to prove you did not as Plaintiff and requesting full disclosure on all information they hold would put the cat amongst them.

koolcat99

Also just to add fuel to the fire? I am in Scotland, so if they want to take me to court, does it not have to be in Scotland?

antrobus

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

It is not only part 5A that differentiates between contumers and businesses.
The whole of the SOGA is littered with differences between consumer and non consumer contracts.

OK fair enough but, take your first quote for example;

Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality

Yes exactly, that's the point I'm making, where the "seller sells goods in the course of business" the goods must be of "satisfasctory quality". Makro is selling goods in the course of business, hence s14 applies irrespective of whether or not the goods are supplied to a business or a consumer.