Laptop purchse

wealdroam

Leo2020 wrote: »

This is from the The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers
Regulations 2002

"Additional implied terms in consumer cases
3.—(1) Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2C) insert—
“(2D) If the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, if a contract of sale is a consumer
contract, the relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2A) above include any
public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods made about them by the
seller, the producer or his representative, particularly in advertising or on labelling."

But this refers to the SOGA and not the Consumer Rights Act. Does the CRA supercede any rights within The Sale and Supply Act and therefore statements made by the manufacturer are no longer covered?

Schedule 1 of The Consumer Rights Act tells us:

53 The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 are revoked.

But Section 14 of SoGA is still in force.
However Schedule 1 of The CRA notes that subsection (2D) of Section 14 of SoGA has beed removed. It also adds a subsection (9) to that Section:

(9) This section does not apply to a contract to which Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies (but see the provision made about such contracts in sections 9, 10 and 18 of that Act).

Section 9 of The CRA now includes:

(5) The relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2)(c) include any public statement about the specific characteristics of the goods made by the trader, the producer or any representative of the trader or the producer.

(6) That includes, in particular, any public statement made in advertising or labelling.

That is qualified by subsection(7):

(7) But a public statement is not a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) if the trader shows that—
(a) when the contract was made, the trader was not, and could not reasonably have been, aware of the statement,

So the key point appears to be: was the seller aware, or should he have been aware, of that statement made by the manufacturer?

Leo2020

Thanks for that wealdrom.

From the OPs description it could be argued that the retailer should have been aware as it was mentioned on both the manufacturer's website and YouTube. It was clearly not hard to find information.

alumende27

Leo2020 wrote: »

From the OPs description it could be argued that the retailer should have been aware as it was mentioned on both the manufacturer's website and YouTube. It was clearly not hard to find information.

I'd agree. From what I've been able to research this was one of the selling point of this particular laptop.

But given his 9 months of use and the fact that even if it was upgradeable it would still require additional money to be spent, what can he practically expect at this stage over and above what has already been offered by the manufacturer?

unholyangel

I believe the relevant legislation you're looking for is the consumer rights act and the relevant sections are:

9Goods to be of satisfactory quality

(1)Every contract to supply goods is to be treated as including a term that the quality of the goods is satisfactory.

(2)The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of—

(a)any description of the goods,

(b)the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and

(c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5)).

(5)The relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2)(c) include any public statement about the specific characteristics of the goods made by the trader, the producer or any representative of the trader or the producer.

(6)That includes, in particular, any public statement made in advertising or labelling.

(7)But a public statement is not a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) if the trader shows that—

(a)when the contract was made, the trader was not, and could not reasonably have been, aware of the statement,

(b)before the contract was made, the statement had been publicly withdrawn or, to the extent that it contained anything which was incorrect or misleading, it had been publicly corrected, or

(c)the consumer’s decision to contract for the goods could not have been influenced by the statement.

ETA: I really should learn to refresh a page before posting.

I'd also note that the above only relates to characteristics/functioning/specification of the product - if the "public statement" was nothing more than an invitation to treat/part of the manufacturers offer then that wouldn't be binding on the retailer.

Leo2020

dsdhall wrote: »

I'd agree. From what I've been able to research this was one of the selling point of this particular laptop.

But given his 9 months of use and the fact that even if it was upgradeable it would still require additional money to be spent, what can he practically expect at this stage over and above what has already been offered by the manufacturer?

My advice to the OP is now they know what their consumer rights are go back to the retailer qouting the relevant section of the CRA. They may offer more than the manufacturer, may not but its worth asking. They could always come back here with the retailers offer to see what people's opinions are.