Beko Tumble Dryer Manufacturer Recall - rights

somethingcorporate

amcg100 wrote: »

The sale of goods act is not the only piece of legislation ever to be passed by parliament. Consumer law stretches far further than SOGA.
If a retailer fails to supply goods of a merchandisable quality then they can be held as negligent, In this case, the negligence is exacerbated because of the risk of injury or even death from the fire hazard.

Do you actually know what you are talking about?

Risk of anything is rubbish, cars have the risk of killing people, does that mean car manufacturers are negligent? I think you will find courts only care about what actually happens not what may happen.

Additionally, it is fairly evident they are not being negligent if they have put in place the processes to make the fixes to the machines.

You sound like you have a small amount of what sounds "like" legal knowledge but in reality are quite wrong on a number of points.

amcg100

George_Michael wrote: »

Agreed, so I will ask you again.
And the legislation to back your claim up is?
If you are going to advise people, at least try to provide something other than your opinion.



Only if the retailer was aware that the goods were faulty at the time of the sale or became aware at a later date and failed to act on their knowledge.

Law of Tort is not based on legislation but upon case law and is a very complex area. It is however based primarily upon equity, and what any reasonable person would deduce. It seems to me that in this case the retailer may be held negligent in that they have failed to carry out sufficient checks on their suppliers to ensure that they are not engaged in the supply of dangerous goods. This could possibly be evidenced if there are multiple cases from the same retailer.
My advice to the poster was based on the threat of substantial legal action which will normally persuade the retailer to refund. It would take someone of significant substance to carry through a case based on tort, but hey, someone has to do it ! Only when we get good judgements in this type of case can we be true champions of consumer rights.

amcg100

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Do you actually know what you are talking about?

Risk of anything is rubbish, cars have the risk of killing people, does that mean car manufacturers are negligent? I think you will find courts only care about what actually happens not what may happen.

Additionally, it is fairly evident they are not being negligent if they have put in place the processes to make the fixes to the machines.

You sound like you have a small amount of what sounds "like" legal knowledge but in reality are quite wrong on a number of points.

As you suggest I do have legal knowledge, but more importantly I have a sense of fairness, which together with my creativity, produces quality solutions to difficult problems. Most interesting thing about your post was that you offered no solutions to the consumers problem, only destructive negative comments.

shaun_from_Africa

It seems to me that in this case the retailer may be held negligent in that they have failed to carry out sufficient checks on their suppliers to ensure that they are not engaged in the supply of dangerous goods

Well, if by any chance I ever end up on trial, I hope that you are not on the jury.

You have no idea whothe retailer purchased the tumble drier from, (it may have been a wholesale seller or it may have come directly from the manufacturer) nor do you have any idea of the checks carried out on their suppliers, yet you seem to think that they may have been negligent in their actions

I work in the aviation industry, an industry which is extremely heavily regulated and controlled and if I was to go to our stores and get a part (it could be a simple item such as a nut or bolt or a complex one such as a radio transceiver), every single component could be traced through the manufacturing process right the way back to the raw materials used.
Despite this, there are still "recalls" from the parts manufacturers, aircraft manufacturers and aviation authorities due to faulty or suspected faulty items.

If this can happen to aerospace items, it can happen to any other item as well.

amcg100

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Well, if by any chance I ever end up on trial, I hope that you are not on the jury.

You have no idea whothe retailer purchased the tumble drier from, (it may have been a wholesale seller or it may have come directly from the manufacturer) nor do you have any idea of the checks carried out on their suppliers, yet you seem to think that they may have been negligent in their actions

I work in the aviation industry, an industry which is extremely heavily regulated and controlled and if I was to go to our stores and get a part (it could be a simple item such as a nut or bolt or a complex one such as a radio transceiver), every single component could be traced through the manufacturing process right the way back to the raw materials used.
Despite this, there are still "recalls" from the parts manufacturers, aircraft manufacturers and aviation authorities due to faulty or suspected faulty items.

If this can happen to aerospace items, it can happen to any other item as well.

If you are genuinely interested in learning how common law can be relevant in the supply of defective goods, you could read chapter 10 ( defective products ) from Michael A. Jones, Textbook on Torts 6th Edition, Blackstone Press ltd,1998. I suspect however that the limit of your reading ability is probably a few pages of easy to understand rules ( such as the sale of goods act ) .
Even after reading Tort for some time, no-one can accurately predict the outcome ( except in very straightforward cases ) of an action brought under common law, because common law is constantly evolving and judgements can create new precedents. You will note that in my post I said that the retailer MAY be found negligent, and not that they would definitely. I am not sure why you post in such a negative manner, after all, you offer no alternative solutions of your own.
Go back to your nuts and bolts mate -

shaun_from_Africa

I am not sure why you post in such a negative manner, after all, you offer no alternative solutions of your own.

Because a solution has already been offered (a repair by the manufacturer) which appears to fulfil the legal obligations due to the OP.

I suspect however that the limit of your reading ability is probably a few pages of easy to understand rules ( such as the sale of goods act ) .

What you suspect is totally incorrect unless of course you think that the Air Navigation Order is easy reading.
I have just finished the application for an aviation engineering licence issued by a foreign country, and this involved taking various exams, the main one being air law relating to the country concerned.
This needed plenty of reading and understanding of the air legislation for that country, (this is my 3rd such licence in 4 years and I have had to go through the same process each time.)

Go back to your nuts and bolts mate

I don't do nuts and bolts due to me being an avionic engineer.

CoolHotCold

Just a sidenote for the people advocating pursuing cases through the court.


Proving negligence is VERY hard to do when a retailer has taken steps once notified of a potential problem. This isn't where a judge may side with a consumer under a SoGA where proof is a lot less, but you are talking professional reports and expensive costs to yourself.


In short, the people/person advocating tort law is giving foolish advice.

forgotmyname

The machine will be fixed for free so no worry there. The worry maybe you choose a new model thats going to be in next months recall for a wiring fault that has killed people.

Which model would you choose?

I was always told never buy the 1st model released of anything. When they have fixed all the niggles and bring out the next model buy one of the last of the old line.

amcg100

CoolHotCold wrote: »

Just a sidenote for the people advocating pursuing cases through the court.


Proving negligence is VERY hard to do when a retailer has taken steps once notified of a potential problem. This isn't where a judge may side with a consumer under a SoGA where proof is a lot less, but you are talking professional reports and expensive costs to yourself.


In short, the people/person advocating tort law is giving foolish advice.

It is the threat of the action and not the action itself which is often offensive.

amcg100

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Because a solution has already been offered (a repair by the manufacturer) which appears to fulfil the legal obligations due to the OP.


What you suspect is totally incorrect unless of course you think that the Air Navigation Order is easy reading.
I have just finished the application for an aviation engineering licence issued by a foreign country, and this involved taking various exams, the main one being air law relating to the country concerned.
This needed plenty of reading and understanding of the air legislation for that country, (this is my 3rd such licence in 4 years and I have had to go through the same process each time.)

Wow ! bet you got gold stars and everything.