Faulty shower, lost small claim

unholyangel

Aristotle67 wrote: »

On the basis of what the OP has written throughout this thread, his faulty shower would appear to be a like-for-like product. Once again, perhaps he can confirm?

Of course, consumer misuse negates the argument as to the durability of a product and reasonable expectation and if that is what has occurred then the OP has no case. From what he has written I haven't seen any evidence of misuse.

There is a trend running through this thread that the OP should simply accept that showers will go wrong and will scale up; and that it would be unfair to hold the seller responsible for something over which he has no control (i.e. the water and limescale). Whilst that is not unreasonable, the law on Sale of Goods is such as to greatly protect the purchaser. It is not caveat emptor; it is caveat venditor.

Ok first, why did you change equaliser's name when you quoted him? Not sure if it was deliberate or perhaps you mistakenly deleted his name when quoting and had to retype? Not that its relevant, my nose is just bothering me

Second (and relevant to the thread)....while you havent seen any evidence of misuse.....have you seen any evidence of an inherent fault? Because I havent. Nor did the judge (as confirmed by the OP).

As I said, it is not enough that a fault exists. SoGA only holds retailers liable for inherent faults. Clearly the judge felt there was not enough "evidence" of an inherent fault on the balance of probabilities.

Aristotle67

Equaliser123 wrote: »

But the judge is finding on the facts. There is no appealable point of law here.

I disagree. Reasonable expectation as to durability and time that any appliance should last under Sale of Goods is a matter of law.

Equaliser123

Aristotle67 wrote: »

I disagree. Reasonable expectation as to durability and time that any appliance should last under Sale of Goods is a matter of law.

But as a matter of FACT, the DJ would have considered the duty fulfilled.

stugib

I've always struggled with where the durability clause would be relevant even after following this forum for years.

We focus a lot on 'inherent fault' which is usually interpreted on here as 'faulty at the time of purchase'. However durability, taking into account price, quality of brand etc, can fall below expectations even if you can't prove there was a fault when it was bought. But then we're into subjective opinions and comparisons (which as far as I can see is all the OP based their case on) rather than evidence-based inspections (even if the 'evidence' is the opinion of someone qualified to give it).

So how are these two aspects squared up? How can you prove that it's not been reasonably durable? Can you get the product inspected to demonstrate that the inherent 'fault' was effectively a design flaw which meant it was more likely to fail quickly?

Aristotle67

unholyangel wrote: »

Ok first, why did you change equaliser's name when you quoted him? Not sure if it was deliberate or perhaps you mistakenly deleted his name when quoting and had to retype? Not that its relevant, my nose is just bothering me

I copied Equalizer's words and then added his name. I am not great when it comes to that sort of thing!

Second (and relevant to the thread)....while you havent seen any evidence of misuse.....have you seen any evidence of an inherent fault? Because I havent. Nor did the judge (as confirmed by the OP)

As I said, it is not enough that a fault exists. SoGA only holds retailers liable for inherent faults.

.

I agree that I haven't as yet seen anything in the OP's writing which is evidence of an inherent fault. That said, if I was the OP I would point out that the antiscale device has obviously failed as the shower is scaled up. The OP might be advised to get that confirmed if indeed it is the case.

It is my opinion that the OP need only show that his reasonable expectation of the durability of a product, which I maintain is a point of law that the judge is obliged to consider, has not been met and that the product has not been misused.

It is not reasonable for a product to fail to function very shortly after the guarantee/warranty expires. If it was, white goods which come with a one year warranty could reasonably be expected to fail not long after the warranty expires. A car with a three year warranty could be expected to no longer be on the road for much more than three years. In short, it would be the case that any product is only expected to last for the length of time of the warranty/guarantee; that is contrary to the SoG Act and would mean that the SoG Act would be redundant in respect of such matters. That is not the intention of Parliament.

Hopefully, that will show why I believe this is a matter of law and how the judge is wrong to not consider this but focus on other things.

I am struggling to think of any domestic appliance where 2 years and 2 months from brand new is a reasonable length of time to satisfy the requirement of durability.

stugib

Aristotle67 wrote: »

I am struggling to think of any domestic appliance where 2 years and 2 months from brand new is a reasonable length of time to satisfy the requirement of durability.

I think if it was that black and white then a specific timeframe would've been legislated rather than rely on 'reasonable'. I was looking at a £100 no-mark tumble dryer from Argos recently. I know it's at the bottom end of the market, I wouldn't complain if I got 2 years use out of it.

Aristotle67

stugib wrote: »

I think if it was that black and white then a specific timeframe would've been legislated rather than rely on 'reasonable'. I was looking at a £100 no-mark tumble dryer from Argos recently. I know it's at the bottom end of the market, I wouldn't complain if I got 2 years use out of it.

Maybe you have found the exception here. I think that if you get two months from an Argos product you are doing well! I only say that as I know from the experience of family and friends how goods are handled behind the scenes and that is enough for me not to buy anything from them.

LikesWhisky

Equaliser123 wrote: »

The point regarding the 6 months period is interesting. It does not require expert evidence (indeed Small Claims discourages this) but does put the burden of proof on the part of the claimant.

Can you explain further please? I understood that an expert report was required, because otherwise the two parties have a disagreement, and the judge needs technical info in order to decide.

What if the supplier of the goods in dispute pays for and commissions an 'independent' report that finds in their favour? - Despite facts and common sense showing otherwise. If going to Small Claims, does the consumer have to match that report with their own report?

unholyangel

Aristotle67 wrote: »

I copied Equalizer's words and then added his name. I am not great when it comes to that sort of thing!

LOL I know the feeling. Not sure if you know or not but the icon at the bottom of posts that compromises of 2 speech bubbles (one is orange and the other is kind of pink/purple i think), you can select multiple posts to quote. Just click that icon on each post you want to quote and then hit the reply button when you've got all the ones you want to reply to Although I think you need to be signed in to see this option, you can sign in at the top of any page.

Aristotle67

Equaliser123 wrote: »

But as a matter of FACT, the DJ would have considered the duty fulfilled.

If he has decided the duty fulfilled, I would argue he has gone wrong, and that he has gone wrong in law for the reason I outlined above. From what the OP has been saying I am not clear that the DJ even considered this.

Sorry for mis-spelling your name, Equaliser.