"expectation"

chesters11

my first post so forgive me if been asked a million times .
i read here and bumped into it before and even asked the local trading standards about it (their reply was vague to the extreme)
we have a rule where things sold are supposed to last a reasonal period which could be longer than the warranty.

in the past i have pointed this out to big companies where i paid a great deal for something but it lasted no longer than a cheap bottom end applience ,i would "expect" a longer life as i would presume the expensive item would use higher grade components and designed to a higher specification therefore last longer unfortunately what i expect the company laugh at and apart from the small claims court theres no obvious way of putting your point across.

IE i have a 1957 prestcold fridge it works fine but if it died i would "expect" its replacement to be better than the previous one therefore last more than 60 years

the expectation of better is in the eye of the beholder how can you use a rule that can be flouted so easily?

frugal_mike

I'm not sure if you have a specific question (about a specific product), or whether this is purely hypothetical. I'm assuming its hypothetical.

The Sale of Goods Act says that goods must be durable. It does not specify specifically what this means, and a judge would decide as a matter of fact based on the specifics of each individual case. If the goods failed from accident or misuse, or because of fair wear and tear, then you wouldn't be entitled to a remedy. Only if the goods failed due to an inherent fault or unreasonable wear and tear would you have a claim.

In the first six months it is up to the retailer to prove the goods were not inherently faulty, but after that it is up to the consumer to prove that they are. The length of any warranty is not relevant though, you can still have a claim under the sale of goods act even if out of warranty.

As to your fridge example, the statute of limitations is 6 years. You couldn't make a claimafter 60 years. And goods are allowed to fail at some point; nothing lasts forever. Just because something broke does not mean you are automatically entitled to a brand new replacement.

chesters11

frugal_mike wrote: »

I'm not sure if you have a specific question (about a specific product), or whether this is purely hypothetical. I'm assuming its hypothetical.

The Sale of Goods Act says that goods must be durable. It does not specify specifically what this means, and a judge would decide as a matter of fact based on the specifics of each individual case. If the goods failed from accident or misuse, or because of fair wear and tear, then you wouldn't be entitled to a remedy. Only if the goods failed due to an inherent fault or unreasonable wear and tear would you have a claim.

In the first six months it is up to the retailer to prove the goods were not inherently faulty, but after that it is up to the consumer to prove that they are. The length of any warranty is not relevant though, you can still have a claim under the sale of goods act even if out of warranty.

As to your fridge example, the statute of limitations is 6 years. You couldn't make a claimafter 60 years. And goods are allowed to fail at some point; nothing lasts forever. Just because something broke does not mean you are automatically entitled to a brand new replacement.

What i meant was if said fridge lasted 60 years then i would expect a replacement fridge to last longer than the six years so why not force the manufacturer to have a 6 year warranty on all fridges ,our telly was 30 when we retired it to a modern flatscreen that lasted 18 months so why not a 6 year warrenty on tv's ,our freezer is over 20 so why not a 6 year warranty on freezers .
I would expect modern things made with modern materials using modern materials to last longer than anything made before but on the main all the warranty is is a year ,it was probably that on the old stuff .
Are we now expecting low quality goods ? No wonder the landfill sites are full of substandard rubbish if the companies are not forced to improve their wares

bris

Your kidding right, modern stuff is made with cheap Chinese junk components. It's what happens when British industry can't compete with the far east cheap factories that turn out the goods in their millions for the cheapest price.


Warranties are irrelevant, they are given by manufactures what we need to rely on is SOGA that's our law but saying we have up to 6 years is misleading, we have to jump through hoops to get anywhere with it. After 6 months the burden of proof is on our heads.

shaun_from_Africa

chesters11 wrote: »

IE i have a 1957 prestcold fridge it works fine but if it died i would "expect" its replacement to be better than the previous one therefore last more than 60 years

But how much would that fridge have cost in 1957 and what percentage of the average workers monthly pay would it have worked out at?

That 1957 fridge would have been totally assembled and tested by hand and in relative terms it would without a doubt have cost many times what an equivalent fridge would today so as it cost far more, then you should expect it to last far longer that its replacement.

Esqui

chesters11 wrote: »

What i meant was if said fridge lasted 60 years then i would expect a replacement fridge to last longer than the six years so why not force the manufacturer to have a 6 year warranty on all fridges

How does the lifetime of an entirely different product affect the expectation of the new one? Sure, if you buy an equivalent product, then yes, 6 years would be expected, and more. But if you spent £150 on a bottom-of-the-line fridge freezer, 6 years might be above expectation.


In short, you get what you pay for. But even cheap appliances, looked after well, will last you longer than just out of the warranty. My £170 Beko washing machine is 6 years and still fine.

hollydays

I think this is part of what this site tries to educate us about.

I am a buyer and seller of high quality things..used..

I think there are two kinds of people who buy high quality things.

Those who are prepared to spend big money for quality, and don't buy often.

Those who realise used high quality items are ridiculously cheaper and use sites like ebay.

Never presume these days that expensive items will be better.

New or used.

DONT BUY NEW.

George_Michael

hollydays wrote: »

DONT BUY NEW.

New items generally come with a manufacturers warranty, something that used goods may not and when buying new goods, it is often easier to enforce any SOGA rights you may have if you have purchased new goods from a retailer who has either a high street outlet or their own registered web business.

Yes, there are good bargains to be had with previously owned items from ebay sellers but however good the bargain is, the savings soon fade if the goods fail and you can't get any help from those sellers.

I'm not saying or implying that there aren't plenty of good sellers on ebay, but it's still a risk buying expensive items that you've not previously examined.

arcon5

Don't buy new? Wow what a sweeping statement. The used market is littered with as much from@p as it is good. More expensive but more risk free buying new - not everybody is so money orientated, loads of people would rather buy things like freezers New knowingly in all likelihood it will be okay

bod1467

Yet nobody bats an eyelid about buying a second-hand (used) car, or a second-hand (used) house.

vuvuzela

bod1467 wrote: »

Yet nobody bats an eyelid about buying a second-hand (used) car, or a second-hand (used) house.

I know people that will only buy new cars...