Faulty carpet - Fitting costs

kingborris

the issue with the carpet is pretty subtle. The fitters didn't notice and I didn't notice for a couple of days (once I'd vacuumed it became more apparent). so a pre-fitting inspection would probably not have spotted it. I did check colour and make / model was correct, but unrolling / rerolling a big bit of carpet in a small 1 bed flat by yourself wouldn't the easiest thing.

martinsurrey

unholyangel wrote: »

You were talking about arranging delivery for a certain date (or at least I was to which you replied about T&C's saying delivery is only advisory). You cannot agree a date then rely on T&C's to override the contractual commitments you agreed to undertake.

I think this a crossed wire, maybe I didn't phrase it quite as clearly as I could, most T&C's only offer advisory delivery dates, you seem to contradict your self

unholyangel wrote: »

You cannot agree a date then rely on T&C's to override the contractual commitments you agreed to undertake.

the T&C's form part of the contract, if the delivery date is covered by a T&C that states its an advisory date, the contract only contains an advisory delivery date, and as such there is no ocntractual agreement to deliver on that date...

unholyangel wrote: »

As for inspecting before booking installation.... Again, you are not expected to do everything humanly possible. Nor does mitigation kick in until there has been a breach - so you cannot use the argument that OP failing to anticipate a breach of contract is failure to mitigate. Mitigation is steps taken after a breach - not in preparation for a breach which may or may not happen.

The breach was already present, it was a manufacturing defect, this isnt Schrodingers cat, the breach was already there, the fact the op didn't take ANY steps to check the product doesn't mean the company is off the hook, just that they are not on the hook for the installation costs, as they could have been mitigated as required by the Act

unholyangel wrote: »

Even under the old SOGA, (as a consumer) where goods were delivered and you had not previously examined them, you were not deemed to have accepted them until you had a reasonable opportunity to examine them to assess whether they conform to contract. However if you were not a consumer, you could lose the right to reject by treating the goods in a way that was inconsistent with the retailer retaining ownership (ie treating the goods as your own - by cutting & fitting it for example).

But under CRA acceptance is no longer a "thing".

SOGA is 100% not relevant, so lets not worry about it, the CRA is very clear

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/42/notes

208
"reasonably have acted to limit or mitigate" is it reasonable to check a product before installing it? if you say no, I doubt your sanity.

Again, this isn't about limiting the liability of the supplier to complete the contract, its about limiting onward liability by putting in the contract the reasonable actions the consumer should take, in effect these terms just flesh out what the Consumer Rights Act EXPECTS of the consumer.

martinsurrey

kingborris wrote: »

the issue with the carpet is pretty subtle. The fitters didn't notice and I didn't notice for a couple of days (once I'd vacuumed it became more apparent). so a pre-fitting inspection would probably not have spotted it. I did check colour and make / model was correct, but unrolling / rerolling a big bit of carpet in a small 1 bed flat by yourself wouldn't the easiest thing.

In that case I would be going for full fitting AND removal costs.

Get your fitter to write a brief letter that the defect was not visible until AFTER installation.

I stand by my points, your problem seemed like it should have been visible before laying :-) thanks for the extra info

good luck

unholyangel

martinsurrey wrote: »

I think this a crossed wire, maybe I didn't phrase it quite as clearly as I could, most T&C's only offer advisory delivery dates, you seem to contradict your self



the T&C's form part of the contract, if the delivery date is covered by a T&C that states its an advisory date, the contract only contains an advisory delivery date, and as such there is no ocntractual agreement to deliver on that date...



The breach was already present, it was a manufacturing defect, this isnt Schrodingers cat, the breach was already there, the fact the op didn't take ANY steps to check the product doesn't mean the company is off the hook, just that they are not on the hook for the installation costs, as they could have been mitigated as required by the Act



SOGA is 100% not relevant, so lets not worry about it, the CRA is very clear

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/42/notes

208
"reasonably have acted to limit or mitigate" is it reasonable to check a product before installing it? if you say no, I doubt your sanity.

Again, this isn't about limiting the liability of the supplier to complete the contract, its about limiting onward liability by putting in the contract the reasonable actions the consumer should take, in effect these terms just flesh out what the Consumer Rights Act EXPECTS of the consumer.

Its not contradictory if you understand it.

Scenario 1, you agree a specific date for delivery - that means the agreed delivery date forms part of the contract. You cannot then override individually negotiated terms with standard terms for the reasons stated above (unfair term, makes it legally binding on consumer but not supplier & allows the supplier to ignore commitments undertaken by their agents).

Scenario 2, you dont agree a specific date for delivery but the company offers you a delivery date. They can stipulate in their terms that this date is an estimate only BUT it also needs to comply with the CRA & CCRs in respect of delivery (that is, within 30 days).

ETA this paragraph: And for completeness, scenario 3 would be where no date is agreed, no delivery date is given, its just delivered when its delivered (although again, would still be the 30 days provision).

As for the breach part, again you misunderstand. The lack of conformity has been present since manufacture, the breach of contract has not. The breach happened when the retailer failed to supply goods that were within the conformity of the contract. Faulty goods simply existing is not a breach of contract - only when the goods are supplied under a contract and the goods inherently fail to conform to the terms of the contract.