Faulty Tap replacement costs liability

Johnfact_hunter

I brought a tap from a local plumbers merchant in Febuary and got the plumber working on my bathroom to fit it. The tap now leaves rust marks on the new bath. The merchants has agreed the tap is faulty but won't pay a plumber to remove the tap and fit a replacement only supply a new tap on an exchange basis.
Who is liable for the removal / fitting costs as I feel I am not at fault for the faulty product so why should I be out of pocket.

KeithP

Johnfact_hunter wrote: »

I brought a tap from a local plumbers merchant in Febuary and got the plumber working on my bathroom to fit it. The tap now leaves rust marks on the new bath. The merchants has agreed the tap is faulty but won't pay a plumber to remove the tap and fit a replacement only supply a new tap on an exchange basis.
Who is liable for the removal / fitting costs as I feel I am not at fault for the faulty product so why should I be out of pocket.

If you made this purchase as a consumer, then you have a statutory right to insist that the seller covers "any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage)".

That's from Consumer Right Act Section 23.

m0bov

Its a consequential loss. So yes, get the tap replaced, get it fitted and forward them the receipt. Make sure its reasonable amount, might need to get a couple of quotes.

KeithP

m0bov wrote: »

Its a consequential loss. So yes, get the tap replaced, get it fitted and forward them the receipt. Make sure its reasonable amount, might need to get a couple of quotes.

In legal terms, a consequential loss is one which, although consequential according to the dictionary definition, could not be a reasonably foreseen loss due to the breach of contract.

In the OP's situation, the cost of removing and replacing the tap is a direct loss. I.e. this loss could easily be seen as a necessary cost of the breach of contract.

So, the word 'consequential' has a different meaning when used in a legal context.

unholyangel

KeithP wrote: »

In legal terms, a consequential loss is one which, although consequential according to the dictionary definition, could not be a reasonably foreseen loss due to the breach of contract.

In the OP's situation, the cost of removing and replacing the tap is a direct loss. I.e. this loss could easily be seen as a necessary cost of the breach of contract.

So, the word 'consequential' has a different meaning when used in a legal context.

Sorry but the explanation of consequential loss is incorrect. There are two types/limbs of loss - direct & indirect. Direct losses are losses naturally arising from the breach in the ordinary course of things. Consequential/indirect loss are losses that do not arise in the natural course of things but through special circumstances. I believe the relevant case law in which they were defined is Hadley v Baxendale.

For any loss to be recoverable, it needs to be foreseeable. Under the first limb, it would be recoverable if its obvious to the world at large that such a loss would result from the breach. Under the 2nd limb, its recoverable if the parties were aware of the special circumstances and it was in their contemplation at the time of entering the contract - even if such a loss would not have been obvious to the world at large.

I would suggest that since taps don't fit themselves (and also that most people wouldn't know how to fit a tap themselves), that the fitters costs is a direct loss and not a consequential one.

However worth noting you can't disclaim liability for consequential losses in a consumer contract (its considered an unfair term).

societys_child

(and also that most people wouldn't know how to fit a tap themselves)

Aww. That's sad . . .:(

bris

Hadley v Baxendale is a poor choice of as it's a contract law, which in this cas was relevant to a B2B contract.


The OP's case is clear cut consumer right.

unholyangel

bris wrote: »

Hadley v Baxendale is a poor choice of as it's a contract law, which in this cas was relevant to a B2B contract.


The OP's case is clear cut consumer right.

This is still contract law. If OP had to file a claim, it would be a claim found on simple contract. Theres no option for a claim found on consumer rights.

There is no difference to the definitions of direct/indirect loss in a consumer contract compared to a b2b contract.