AEG Lavatherm dead after two years..

bod1467

Please read your original post again ...

In Aug 2010 a friend bought an AEG Lavatherm model 56840L condenser drier. She paid quite a bit of money for it

YOU have no claim for ANY remedies ... THAT is the point being made.

neilmcl

C_Mababejive wrote: »

I clearly do have remedies under SOGA with the retailer and that will be the eventual target. I am merely inviting AEG Electrolux of Luton to comment at this stage.

Right, is this thread about YOU now or are we still going to make reference to your "friend". Do you want to clear this up before we go any further.

George_Michael

I think that "the friend" and the OP are one and the same and I can understand this type of post if it relates to something like:

"A friend was recently caught with a transvestite hooker, and I wondered what ­­­he could do to prevent this becoming public."

but I can't see why someone would feel the need to do the same due to problems to a household appliance.

C_Mababejive

I do appreciate that there are those in these forums who are wont to unpick the most minute detail of postings and i shall not criticise for I have been guilt of it myself however just to clarify and satisfy the curious reader, there is indeed a "friend" for if it had been my AEG machine I would have prosecuted my case in the correct manner. However since my "friend" is less knowledgeable,less assertive and now £167 out of pocket I do feel that I should at least help.

After all thats what friends are for isnt it?

So let us not debate semantics as there is a clear inference that this search for remedy is now a joint venture which has been duly sanctioned and has the support of the purchaser of the offending machine.

i do hope that this clears matter up and we can press on with the matter in hand. I shall keep you informed !

neilmcl

C_Mababejive wrote: »

I do appreciate that there are those in these forums who are wont to unpick the most minute detail of postings and i shall not criticise for I have been guilt of it myself however just to clarify and satisfy the curious reader, there is indeed a "friend" for if it had been my AEG machine I would have prosecuted my case in the correct manner. However since my "friend" is less knowledgeable,less assertive and now £167 out of pocket I do feel that I should at least help.

After all thats what friends are for isnt it?

So let us not debate semantics as there is a clear inference that this search for remedy is now a joint venture which has been duly sanctioned and has the support of the purchaser of the offending machine.

i do hope that this clears matter up and we can press on with the matter in hand. I shall keep you informed !

Nobody's debating semantics, we're just finding it difficult to understand your confusing posts and the way you keep insisting that YOU have rights, regarding this issue, under the SOGA.

For the 3rd and final time, YOU have no legal rights regarding this issue.

C_Mababejive

Latest update-In my continuing efforts to assist my friend to assert her rights under SOGA in this matter, I have now reached the stage where the retailer DRL limited ,are asking for an expert report.

The claim will be that the item was not of satisfactory quality given the brand,type,cost and limited usage of the appliance as outlined in the sale of Goods Act 1979 Chapter 54,paragraph 14 (implied terms about quality or fitness)

Incidentally, and whilst recognizing that there are no legal remedies against manufacturers. i did have an exchange with AEG Electrolux regarding this matter and their reply restated the high quality of AEG appliances,how much research and development went into them and yet were dismissive as to the premature failure of my friends appliance.

All useful.

unholyangel

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Latest update-In my continuing efforts to assist my friend to assert her rights under SOGA in this matter, I have now reached the stage where the retailer DRL limited ,are asking for an expert report.

The claim will be that the item was not of satisfactory quality given the brand,type,cost and limited usage of the appliance as outlined in the sale of Goods Act 1979 Chapter 54,paragraph 14 (implied terms about quality or fitness)

Incidentally, and whilst recognizing that there are no legal remedies against manufacturers. i did have an exchange with AEG Electrolux regarding this matter and their reply restated the high quality of AEG appliances,how much research and development went into them and yet were dismissive as to the premature failure of my friends appliance.

All useful.

Sometimes....S!!! happens. Nothing is flawless. Especially with items that have a sort of "on board computer. No manufacturer is ever going to have a product that never has a flaw. Plus, no contract exists between your friend and the manufacturer (and there is no interest on your part - you might think there is being a "concerned friend" and while that makes you a good friend, it doesnt give you legal rights).

DRL are asking for a report? Shouldnt be a problem then since you already had a report done Your friend may struggle against the retailer as effectively, they didnt give them the chance to remedy the breach. However if they've asked for the report, at least they're willing to take a look at it and hopefully will make an offer of some sort.

CoolHotCold

Friend or not, the fact the repair has been carried out, you/they have bypassed the SoGA and not given the retailer the chance to repair/refund/replace and as such you have no option but to pursue under gesture of goodwill.

Also, I doubt you have the PCB still, so getting a independent report done is pretty meaningless unless you have the faulty part.


Chase for goodwill, but if they refuse you have few options.

C_Mababejive

Just to reiterate my previous posts,my friend is perfectly able and willing to press this matter but has very little knowledge of the process involved and therefore i am merely assisting. Any proceedings/letters/etc are in here name and with her approval. This isnt about money,its about principle,reasonableness and the law. There are engineers repair reports available and we have retained the faulty part.I now also have a letter from AEG/Electrolux assuring me of the high quality of their appliances (except for this one).

Proceedings in the civil courts under the small claims procedure are inexpensive and that is where the matter will finally be settled.

At that point the court will weigh in the balance,what a reasonable person might expect.

As I consider that i am a reasonable person, and since i fully expect a premium quality appliance to last more than two years, i shall take that action since i believe that given the circumstances,the appliance was not of adequate quality and durability.

(for the purposes of this discussion "I" shall also denote "my friend" and any actions will be taken by the purchaser)

Quote
Implied terms about quality or fitness.

(1)Except as provided by this section and section 15 below and subject to any other enactment, there is no implied [F11term] about the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale.
[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.
(2A)For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.
(2B)For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—
(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b)appearance and finish,
(c)freedom from minor defects,
(d)safety, and
(e)durability

arcon5

Again you've missed the point...

The retailer can insist on prove the fault was inherent ie not user damaged, if provided can offer the most cost effective remedy... Which they haven't had the opportunity to provide... So at most you'll get a small portion of what you paid back but unlikely to recover 100% of what was paid