Multiple exchanges of goods and acceptance rule regards refunds?

deckhanddave

Hi

7 Months ago my friend bought a pair of DeWalt Safety Boots from Screwfix. In that 7 months they have had to be exchanged 3 times. The last time was 12 March and then today the 16 May. The problem was today, they couldn't replace them as they no longer do that boot. They asked me to choose a different boot but I was unable to do so as they were not mine to choose. They then insisted I accept a credit note as they would not do a refund due to the initial sale being 7 months ago. I pointed out that the goods were quite plainly unfit for purpose by virtue of the fact they had to be exchanged 3 times in 7 months. This fell on deaf ears and I had to accept the credit note. I believe they should have offered a refund on this basis and would like the opinion of others before I discuss it with him. Is this a grey area due to 'acceptance' rules?

bod1467

Was this a business purchase, as in a B2B contract? Or do Screwfix allow consumer purchases?

I believe they are predominantly a trade seller, but may also do consumer sales. If this was a business purchase then there are no consumer rights as such. Thus the contract of sale may well allow them the right to issue a credit note.

wealdroam

No grey area here... certainly not due to acceptance rules.
The goods have clearly been accepted after this length of time.

If the goods are inherently faulty, and it appears that the seller has accepted that they are, then the seller must supply a remedy.
That remedy could be a repair, replacement or refund. The consumer chooses but cannot force the seller to provide a disproportionately costly remedy.
It seems as though a an exchange has been agreed upon, but you, on the consumer's behalf, cannot decide what choice to make.

A credit note seems perfectly fair to me.

As an aside, if you were able to convince them to provide a refund, remember that any refund could be reduced to take account of the use that has been had.

wealdroam

bod1467 wrote: »

Was this a business purchase, as in a B2B contract? Or do Screwfix allow consumer purchases?

We do not know whether the OP, or their friend, were acting as a consumer or business, but Screwfix are perfectly happy to sell to consumers.

deckhanddave

My friend purchased them under his business so that, I believe, clarifies things regards his rights. I didn't know that it was a different rule for a business purchase. Regards consumer sales, Screwfix supply to retail customers as well as trade. So, the consensus of you all is that he accepted them even though each pair only lasted approx 2 months. I would have thought that proved they were inherently faulty and had a manufacture defect. Still, he has got a credit note, so he hasn't lost out. I just felt he had a case for a full refund due to the amount of exchanges and the short time each lasted.

ThumbRemote

Assuming it was a consumer contract (OK, it wasn't, but for the sake of argument) the remedy could be repair, refund or replacement.

I would argue that the retailer cannot make the consumer accept an alternative product as an exchange. They can offer this, but the consumer is free to turn it down.

Screwfix are unable to offer a replacement or repair, therefore have to give a refund - not a credit note.

wealdroam

OK, as a business to business transaction, clearly the buyer does not have the protections offered by Consumer laws.

Your friend is reliant on whatever terms he has agreed... see Screwfix's T&Cs.

Having said that, a credit note seems to me to be a good result... better that your friend might be entitled to... but I have not checked.

deckhanddave

Thanks to you all for your input. I can tell him what's been said and he can go from there. I'm still a bit perplexed by the acceptance rule. If an item lasts two months and you exchange it, you do so believing the exchange should last longer. Then when the exchange again wears in 2 months and you accept another exchange which also wears out in approx 2 months, surely acceptance should be deemed from the date of each exchange, not the initial sale? Is there a rule in law regarding this or is it a grey area? Thanks.

wealdroam

deckhanddave wrote: »

I'm still a bit perplexed by the acceptance rule.

Section 35 of The Sale of Goods Act says (amongst other things)...

35 Acceptance.
(1)The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods [F1subject to subsection (2) below—
(a)when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or
(b)when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller.

In other words the buyer has a short time to ensure that what he has conforms to the contract.
In the case of a pair of boots, I imagine the "short time" is in the order of days, or maybe hours.
If he then uses the goods as if they were his own, i.e. wears the boots at work, then he has accepted them.

Of course, those good words "satisfactory quality", "last a reasonable time", "fit for purpose", etc, etc, still apply.

If you want to understand more about this, have a read of MSE's Consumer Rights guide, but remember that it is about consumer rights.

deckhanddave

Thanks for that link wealdrome. I'll take a look. It seems like there is still a fair bit of interpretation in all this. As a 'consumer' not a business the following appears to apply.

The Sale And Supply of Goods To Consumers Regulations.

When goods are faulty, if you return them within six months then it's up to the shop to prove they weren't faulty when you bought them. After this, the burden of proof shifts and it's up to you to prove they were faulty when you bought them.

This raises an issue of it's own. The original boots were bought 7 months ago so outside the 6 month rule but they were proven faulty within 2 to 3 months of purchase and each set of boots thereafter. So the last set of boots were 2 months old therefore all were inside the 6 month rule of the shops responsibility to prove they weren't faulty, not the buyer. Could I have your opinion on this please?

deckhanddave

This question of his buying on his business account. I looked up the definition of 'consumer';

con·sum·er
/kənˈso͞omər/
Noun
A person who purchases goods and services for personal use.
A person or thing that eats or uses something.
Synonyms
user - purchaser - customer

The goods purchased are classed as PPE Personal Protective Equipment. They were purchased for his personal use and paid for using personal funds. That by definition makes him a consumer yet he cannot claim the consumers rights because he used a business account? I wish I'd been a lawyer, I love a good argument.