Multiple exchanges of goods and acceptance rule regards refunds?

unholyangel

deckhanddave wrote: »

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.

Earlier you said he used his business to buy them. Now you're saying he bought them as a consumer?

Were they bought to be used in the course of his business activities? Is your friend a sole trader?

wealdroam

deckhanddave wrote: »

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?

You are right, there is a fair bit of interpretation.
Some of that is because the laws about selling to consumers have to cover the purchase a pair of shoelaces and the purchase of a top of the range Lamborghini.... and beyond.
And of course it is the lawyers who make (some of) their money doing that interpretation.

So back to your purchase...

The boots were bought seven months ago and you rightly say that the burden of proof is with the seller for the first six months, i.e. it is for the seller to prove that the boots were not faulty at the time of sale.
At the time of the first and second replacements Screwfix appear to have decided it wasn't worth trying to prove the boots weren't inherently faulty and have replaced them without question.

As the time of the request for the third replacement was over six months from the date of the sale, Screwfix could've asked you (your friend) to prove that the boots were faulty at the time of sale and that the damage wasn't caused by misuse or fair wear and tear.
It seems on this occasion Screwfix have also decided it wasn't worth their while asking you to prove this.

Leaving aside whether this was a business purchase or not, I think Screwfix have behaved very well throughout.

Edited to add:
You also need to remember that you were not the purchaser, so Screwfix have no contract with you and are always unlikely to offer you a refund.
For them to offer you a credit note is in my opinion commendable.

deckhanddave

I'd like to clarify the situation with regards his purchase. He is employed by Parcel Force. He also has a small business as a tiler. When he bought the boots they were for his use at Parcel Force. When Screwfix did the invoice his name brought up his business name and printed that on the invoice. I've told him what has been said on here so he can rectify and separate his personal purchases next time.

We're not unhappy about the Screwfix response but certain things puzzled me and I wanted to explore them further so to gain a better understanding of consumer rights.

unholyangel

deckhanddave wrote: »

I'd like to clarify the situation with regards his purchase. He is employed by Parcel Force. He also has a small business as a tiler. When he bought the boots they were for his use at Parcel Force. When Screwfix did the invoice his name brought up his business name and printed that on the invoice. I've told him what has been said on here so he can rectify and separate his personal purchases next time.

We're not unhappy about the Screwfix response but certain things puzzled me and I wanted to explore them further so to gain a better understanding of consumer rights.

If theres anything we havent explained/you're unsure of, ask and we'll try our best.

But yes, consumers are pretty well protected when it comes to contracts. You literally cannot sign away your consumer rights - even if you agree to it.

Where with a business, you can. Perhaps because the business world revolves around contracts quite heavily, so they are expected to be more aware of the risks/liabilities than a consumer would. However some of SoGA does still apply to B2B sales (unfortunately the really good parts only apply to consumer purchases) and just like consumer contracts, B2B contracts should be "balanced" (just what is balanced in a business contract may not be balanced in a consumer one).

[Deleted User]

unholyangel wrote: »

Is your friend a sole trader?

Probably why his boots are faulty!:D

deckhanddave

Nice one Moneyineptitude!

System

Screwfix sell to trade and public , maybe the problem was how the original purchase was paid , if the buyer paid by card then any refund has to be on the card with the buyer present as the card signature has to be checked.

if thats the case then any refund would have been put as a credit on the buyers account to be used against a future purchase

Screwfix don't do credit notes as such

System

deckhanddave wrote: »

I'd like to clarify the situation with regards his purchase. He is employed by Parcel Force. He also has a small business as a tiler. When he bought the boots they were for his use at Parcel Force. When Screwfix did the invoice his name brought up his business name and printed that on the invoice. I've told him what has been said on here so he can rectify and separate his personal purchases next time.

We're not unhappy about the Screwfix response but certain things puzzled me and I wanted to explore them further so to gain a better understanding of consumer rights.

he needs to supply the sales assistant with the correct post code , the address is confirmed before the sale proceeds ie " is that house number ?? any issues could have been prevented at that point.

bris

You have to remember that the boots were 7 months old, even the last pair were 7 months old as the last pair are a continuation of the first pair and cant be taken as new for warranty purposes.

So if you want to get all clever on them , then because they were 7 months old they can ask you to provide a report stating they were inherently faulty.

Now if you did manage to find an expert to do that and they accepted it, then they are allowed to refund you for a pair of second hand 7 month old boots rather than a brand new pair, so you have to ask yourself is all this hassle worth it for £2.75.

This is of course assuming it was a consumer purchase which it wasn't anyway so it's just a mute point. I think your friend did well to get a credit note for the full amount.

deckhanddave

It seems like I think differently to the majority of you regards this third pair of boots being 7 month old as the initial pair were purchased then. To me it seems logical that if a pair of boots fail in two to three months and then so do the next two replacements, they must have an inherent fault. As such they were not fit for purpose and therefore the purchaser should be able to get his money back. Anyway, that part of the story is now done with and thank you all for your input.

I would now like to ask you all if my thoughts on the next stage of this are correct,

The credit note plus an extra £5.00 were used to purchase a different type of boot. This sale is now a new sale albeit still under his trade account? Therefore his twelve month warranty starts from the day they were purchased, is this correct?