washing machine under 6 months old!!!!

unholyangel

ThumbRemote wrote: »

I don't understand what mitigating losses has to do with getting your washing done. The only issue is the SoGA remedy being offered by the retailer.

You dont understand the significance of mitigation in a breach of contract?

Let me try explain. It not enough to merely claim a loss (ie the loss of your washing machine). You're supposed to reasonably try to mitigate your loss. A court may hold that using a laundrette/friends or family machine is nothing more than taking reasonable steps to mitigate the loss of your washing machine.

The party in breach has no liability for any "loss" which could be reasonably avoided by the innocent party. However it is up to the party in breach to show the innocent party has not taken reasonable steps.

What are reasonable steps? Again (like significant inconvenience) this is a question of fact based on circumstances etc.

ThumbRemote

unholyangel wrote: »

You dont understand the significance of mitigation in a breach of contract?

Let me try explain. It not enough to merely claim a loss (ie the loss of your washing machine). You're supposed to reasonably try to mitigate your loss. A court may hold that using a laundrette/friends or family machine is nothing more than taking reasonable steps to mitigate the loss of your washing machine.

The party in breach has no liability for any "loss" which could be reasonably avoided by the innocent party. However it is up to the party in breach to show the innocent party has not taken reasonable steps.

What are reasonable steps? Again (like significant inconvenience) this is a question of fact based on circumstances etc.

But the OP hadn't discussed claiming for the cost of getting washing done (or any other losses), nor had it come up in the thread. The discussion was purely about rights under the SoGA. The only loss in this case was the washing machine, not consequential losses.

unholyangel

ThumbRemote wrote: »

But the OP hadn't discussed claiming for the cost of getting washing done (or any other losses), nor had it come up in the thread. The discussion was purely about rights under the SoGA. The only loss in this case was the washing machine, not consequential losses.

The OP didnt mention anything, but you said:

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Personally, I would find being without a washing machine for over a fortnight to be a significant inconvenience, as at that point I would have to find a laundrette or a neighbour who would let us use their machine. I'm fairly sure a court would accept this, and I could demonstrate the inconvenience it caused.

And I replied stating that a court may actually expect you to mitigate your losses by using laundrette/another machine instead of (as your paragraph reads) seeing the need to use another machine as a sign that significant inconvenience had been caused.

ThumbRemote

unholyangel wrote: »

And I replied stating that a court may actually expect you to mitigate your losses by using laundrette/another machine instead of (as your paragraph reads) seeing the need to use another machine as a sign that significant inconvenience had been caused.

The Sale of Goods Act states that any remedy must not cause significant inconvenience. If a repair takes an excessive amount of time, thus causing a consumer significant inconvenience, it is not a suitable remedy. The retailer must therefore offer an alternative - a refund or replacement.

It is nothing to do with losses. You cannot bring in other aspects of contract law and start to overrule parts of the SoGA.

unholyangel

ThumbRemote wrote: »

The Sale of Goods Act states that any remedy must not cause significant inconvenience. If a repair takes an excessive amount of time, thus causing a consumer significant inconvenience, it is not a suitable remedy. The retailer must therefore offer an alternative - a refund or replacement.

It is nothing to do with losses. You cannot bring in other aspects of contract law and start to overrule parts of the SoGA.

LOL so are you saying common law doesnt apply to contracts for the sale of goods? Be very careful here with your answer.

SoGA is all about losses. The whole reason you're entitled a repair/replacement/refund is because you have suffered a loss.

Slowhand

ThumbRemote wrote: »

The Sale of Goods Act states that any remedy must not cause significant inconvenience. If a repair takes an excessive amount of time, thus causing a consumer significant inconvenience, it is not a suitable remedy. The retailer must therefore offer an alternative - a refund or replacement.

It is nothing to do with losses. You cannot bring in other aspects of contract law and start to overrule parts of the SoGA.

Can you give us links to all of that. It's not my reading of it and understanding. Thank you.

ThumbRemote

unholyangel wrote: »

LOL so are you saying common law doesnt apply to contracts for the sale of goods? Be very careful here with your answer.

SoGA is all about losses. The whole reason you're entitled a repair/replacement/refund is because you have suffered a loss.

You are conflating the direct loss of the washing machine and consequential loss, such as the costs of washing while the machine is out of action.

The SoGA spells out the remedies for the direct loss. The loss is clear; the OP no longer has a working washing machine. The act states that the retailer is responsible for the remedy. As long as the OP does nothing to make the loss worse (eg smash up the machine with a hammer), they have fulfilled their requirements. They have mitigated their losses.

For consequential loss the OP would mitigate their losses by using a laundrette, rather than a dry cleaners or hotel laundry service for every item. But consequential losses aren't under discussion.

unholyangel

ThumbRemote wrote: »

You are conflating the direct loss of the washing machine and consequential loss, such as the costs of washing while the machine is out of action.

The SoGA spells out the remedies for the direct loss. The loss is clear; the OP no longer has a working washing machine. The act states that the retailer is responsible for the remedy. As long as the OP does nothing to make the loss worse (eg smash up the machine with a hammer), they have fulfilled their requirements. They have mitigated their losses.

For consequential loss the OP would mitigate their losses by using a laundrette, rather than a dry cleaners or hotel laundry service for every item. But consequential losses aren't under discussion.

I notice you didnt answer my question.


Are you saying that common law does not apply to contracts for the sale of goods?

And btw, it is you who is conflating. AFAIK I've mentioned nothing about consequential loss. I've only ever said loss. Inconvenience is still a loss. The duty to mitigate applies to all losses.

Slowhand

ThumbRemote wrote: »

You are conflating the direct loss of the washing machine and consequential loss, such as the costs of washing while the machine is out of action.

The SoGA spells out the remedies for the direct loss. The loss is clear; the OP no longer has a working washing machine. The act states that the retailer is responsible for the remedy. As long as the OP does nothing to make the loss worse (eg smash up the machine with a hammer), they have fulfilled their requirements. They have mitigated their losses.

For consequential loss the OP would mitigate their losses by using a laundrette, rather than a dry cleaners or hotel laundry service for every item. But consequential losses aren't under discussion.

Smoke and mirrors as usual from you...in the real world we live in none of what you go on about usually happens in reality. Is the word PISH allowed on MSE?

adam1875

See my previous post re Currys.

Trying citizens advice as I'm gonna fight till I get a new machine. After several calls to manufacturer and currys, nobody willing to replace an item which has developed a major fault within the first 6 months, I will prevail until it is replaced. No sign off parts till probably next week- this is since Christmas day!!!

Hope when you all buy an item from currys, that it lasts more than 28 days, caus after that they aint bothered.

Keep you posted!!!