Sale of Goods Act or Consumer Rights Act

jeb210

Which Act do we come under?

I ordered a vehicle back in May 2015, the deposit was paid in June 2015 and completion time was quoted as Sept 2015. It subsequently wasn't completed until Dec 2015, it was delivered 24th Dec. The outstanding payment was made at the mid Nov 2015, the vehicle had major problems which were obvious at the time of delivery, after a full detailed inspection it had 26 faults and it was rejected without having been used. The manager agreed on all the faults plus a few more and the vehicle was collected. He verbally agreed that we were entitled to a full refund. We have requested a full refund in writing which should have been made with in 14 days of them collecting the vehicle. They are now saying we can't reject the vehicle as the deposit was paid prior to the new consumer act and that they will repair it and then return it to us.
But as we did not receive the vehicle until after the change of act and to be fair could not agree to the quality of the vehicle when paying the deposit surely we should be covered by the new act? The vehicle was not of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose or effectively not as described due to the various issues!
So not really sure where we stand, but looks like its down the legal route!

neilmcl

I believe the contract would be covered by SOGA in this case.

bowlhead99

neilmcl wrote: »

I believe the contract would be covered by SOGA in this case.

Agreed. The CRA applies when you enter into a sales contract when the act is in force:

This Chapter applies to a contract for a trader to supply goods to a consumer.
(2)It applies only if the contract is one of these (defined for the purposes of this Part in sections 5 to 8)—

(a)a sales contract;

[snip stuff about other types of contract covered by the act]

(1)A contract is a sales contract if under it—

(a)the trader transfers or agrees to transfer ownership of goods to the consumer, and

(b)the consumer pays or agrees to pay the price.

(2)A contract is a sales contract (whether or not it would be one under subsection (1)) if under the contract—

(a)goods are to be manufactured or produced and the trader agrees to supply them to the consumer,

(b)on being supplied, the goods will be owned by the consumer, and

(c)the consumer pays or agrees to pay the price.

(3)A sales contract may be conditional (see section 3(5)), but in this Part “conditional sales contract” means a sales contract under which—

(a)the price for the goods or part of it is payable by instalments, and

(b)the trader retains ownership of the goods until the conditions specified in the contract (for the payment of instalments or otherwise) are met;

and it makes no difference whether or not the consumer possesses the goods.

So, based on the definitions, you entered into a sales contract. Goods would be manufactured with the intention that you would own them when they had supplied them. You paid or agreed to pay the price and the goods would be yours when you had finished paying for them although if you had not finished paying for them you still have a contract whether or not you possess the goods at a particular point.

When you entered into the sales contract, it was before the consumer rights act existed. You had a contract which was signed under the laws in force at that time (SOGA) and not under the rules for consumers entering into contracts with businesses in October (CRA).

So, long story short, you are on the 'old' set of consumer protections which are not as good as the new ones.

You're right, you couldn't have checked the quality when paying a deposit. You don't check it until you get it. But put simply, you signed a contract for them to get you a car, and you signed it under the sale of goods act so you can enforce the terms of that Act. If the car is not good enough, then under the sale of goods act you can make them fix it (irrespective of warranty, guarantees etc), so you get a car of reasonable quality; and it sounds like they are willing to do that.

But you can't rely on the CRA to tell them within the specific CRA time limits that they have to throw that car in the bin and go and make you another one. You've bought a car as per your contract that was written and signed under the sale of goods act, and if you want to pursue a legal remedy, that's the Act you have to follow.

It's perhaps worth noting that under SOGA you can still reject goods within a reasonable time - what's "reasonable" depends on what the fault is and how obvious. Then you can get faulty goods repaired or replaced if it's too late to outright reject.

SOGA 1994 says

Acceptance of goods and opportunity to examine them.

(1)In section 35 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (acceptance) for the words from “when he intimates” to “(2)” there is substituted— “subject 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.

(2)Where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he has not previously examined them, he is not deemed to have accepted them under subsection (1) above until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose—

(a)of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract, and

(b)in the case of a contract for sale by sample, of comparing the bulk with the sample.

(3)Where the buyer deals as consumer or (in Scotland) the contract of sale is a consumer contract, the buyer cannot lose his right to rely on subsection (2) above by agreement, waiver or otherwise.

(4)The buyer is also deemed to have accepted the goods when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them.

(5)The questions that are material in determining for the purposes of subsection (4) above whether a reasonable time has elapsed include whether the buyer has had a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2) above.

(6)The buyer is not by virtue of this section deemed to have accepted the goods merely because—

(a)he asks for, or agrees to, their repair by or under an arrangement with the seller, or

(b)the goods are delivered to another under a sub-sale or other disposition.

But the problem with SOGA is that the 'lapse of a reasonable time' is not defined (unlike the CRA) and it is relatively easier for the seller to say that you intimated you accepted them or that you acted as if the goods were now yours and not his.

So, you can pursue it in law but it will be SOGA law rather than CRA law.

Nessun_Dorma

The OP inspected the goods on receipt and promptly rejected the vehicle at the point of delivery. No one could ever argue that that was not within a reasonable time, regardless of which law is being applied.

bowlhead99

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

The OP inspected the goods on receipt and promptly rejected the vehicle at the point of delivery. No one could ever argue that that was not within a reasonable time, regardless of which law is being applied.

Well, it seems like the garage *is* arguing that the rejection is not valid; while they *do* agree that the quality is not good enough and there are faults, because they're going to fix them...

I'm not saying they are right, but if there's going to be a fight, might as well know what rules the fight will be fought under.

Car dealers are (generalising) quite well known for arguing that their goods are of good enough quality and fit for purpose without accepting a rejection argument - that's why the new CRA is particularly useful for consumers because it removes some of the vagueness over the remedies available and the timescales.

One thing to consider is if you ordered a car with a four or five month build time which ended up taking seven, and you like the car other than its faults... it may be folly to reject a car with basic faults which are easily fixed and then go back on a long queue again while another one gets built to your spec. The garage is obviously keen to not lose the sale, so may bend over backwards in terms of freebies to keep you onside, as long as you you know your rights and are willing to push them.

Nessun_Dorma

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Well, it seems like the garage *is* arguing that the rejection is not valid; while they *do* agree that the quality is not good enough and there are faults, because they're going to fix them...

I'm not saying they are right, but if there's going to be a fight, might as well know what rules the fight will be fought under.

Car dealers are (generalising) quite well known for arguing that their goods are of good enough quality and fit for purpose without accepting a rejection argument - that's why the new CRA is particularly useful for consumers because it removes some of the vagueness over the remedies available and the timescales.

One thing to consider is if you ordered a car with a four or five month build time which ended up taking seven, and you like the car other than its faults... it may be folly to reject a car with basic faults which are easily fixed and then go back on a long queue again while another one gets built to your spec. The garage is obviously keen to not lose the sale, so may bend over backwards in terms of freebies to keep you onside, as long as you you know your rights and are willing to push them.

Personally, if I had spent thousands of pounds and several months waiting for a car, I wouldn't be best pleased to find as many as twenty-six faults. I certainly would want one that has had twenty-six repairs, even before I had the chance to turn the key on it. I would be expecting the dealer to replace the car (as promised) and loan me a car whilst I was waiting for a replacement. From the dealer's point of view, he will need to take up the issue with the manufacturer.