Question regarding 'durability' of item

unholyangel

neilmcl wrote: »

And don't take notice of people giving advice regarding consumer law from people who don't know that SOGA has not been in force for contracts since late 2015.

Also that the merchantable quality requirement was replaced in 1995.

Hermione_Granger

Azari wrote: »

Do not take too much notice of people here who say you don't have a reasonable case. Sadly these forums are patrolled by people who have very little idea of consumer law.

I know that it's already been pointed out by others but I do love it when someone posts on here in an attempt to denigrate other people but end up showing their own lack of knowledge on the subject being discussed.

mrdo, don't take too much notice of Azari as sadly this poster is normally of the opinion that retailers are wrong and consumers are right and sticks to this opinion irrespective of facts.

Azari

So I was using old terminology.

Boo-hoo.

That does not alter that fact that good must be of - in the current terms - fit or purpose and of satisfactory quality.

I also gave coherent reasons why this was not the case in this instance - unlike those who nit picked about the anachronistic terminology.


To keep the nit pickers happy, here is what I said with two minor changes, neither of which alter the substantive meaning.

Get in touch with them again and tell them that you do not believe that the item was of satisfactory quality as required under the 'Consumer Rights Act'.

It is made of a substance that is unsuitable for use in such an intrinsically unstable item, and as it seems obvious to most people here that it would break if it fell over, it is very clearly not of satisfactory quality.

If they won't play ball, send them a 'letter before action' (templates all over the internet). Whether or not you take it any further if they still won't refund you is up to you, but it will focus their minds.

Do not take too much notice of people here who say you don't have a reasonable case. Sadly these forums are patrolled by people who have very little idea of consumer law.

George_Michael

Azari wrote: »

So I was using old terminology.

No. you were using incorrect terminology.

Azari wrote: »

To keep the nit pickers happy, here is what I said with two minor changes, neither of which alter the substantive meaning.

Do you honestly think that advising someone that they are using legislation which hasn't related to consumer related contracts of sale for well over 2 years and using a legal phrase which stopped having any relevance over 22 years ago is "nit picking"?

unholyangel

Azari wrote: »

So I was using old terminology.

Boo-hoo.

That does not alter that fact that good must be of - in the current terms - fit or purpose and of satisfactory quality.

I also gave coherent reasons why this was not the case in this instance - unlike those who nit picked about the anachronistic terminology.


To keep the nit pickers happy, here is what I said with two minor changes, neither of which alter the substantive meaning.

Get in touch with them again and tell them that you do not believe that the item was of satisfactory quality as required under the 'Consumer Rights Act'.

It is made of a substance that is unsuitable for use in such an intrinsically unstable item, and as it seems obvious to most people here that it would break if it fell over, it is very clearly not of satisfactory quality.

If they won't play ball, send them a 'letter before action' (templates all over the internet). Whether or not you take it any further if they still won't refund you is up to you, but it will focus their minds.

Do not take too much notice of people here who say you don't have a reasonable case. Sadly these forums are patrolled by people who have very little idea of consumer law.

Ok, let me just go tell Richer Sounds they need to replace the tv my kids knocked over because its clearly not of satisfactory quality given they didn't make it impervious to such damage.

Fosterdog

I dropped a glass on the floor last week, should I also claim for it? I mean manufacturers must know how common it is to drop dinnerware but they still insist on making it from glass or other equally breakable materials.

Azari

[QUOTE=George_Michael;74088311]No. you were using incorrect terminology.[/quote]

Logic not your strong point.

The terminology was wrong, but that does not mean it was incorrect to say it was wrong. You're just silly point scoring.

Do you honestly think that advising someone that they are using legislation which hasn't related to consumer related contracts of sale for well over 2 years and using a legal phrase which stopped having any relevance over 22 years ago is "nit picking"?

Well, it didn't hurt that people pointed out that the terminology was wrong.

However, the consumer rights act simply replaced the SOGA with an updated version, and 'satisfactory quality' is a term that replaced 'merchantable quality' but is much the same thing but gives the consumer (and the retailer to some extent) slightly more protection. I used the old terms from force of habit but they made precisely no difference to the advice.

Again, you are just silly point scoring.

I note that you have nothing substantive that would aid the OP.

Azari

unholyangel wrote: »

Ok, let me just go tell Richer Sounds they need to replace the tv my kids knocked over because its clearly not of satisfactory quality given they didn't make it impervious to such damage.

Fosterdog wrote: »

I dropped a glass on the floor last week, should I also claim for it? I mean manufacturers must know how common it is to drop dinnerware but they still insist on making it from glass or other equally breakable materials.

Both these posts show a woeful lack of critical thinking.

When determining 'satisfactory quality' you have to consider both the nature of the item in question and its construction.

For example it would be unreasonable to expect a glass to fall to the floor and survive intact. Similarly it would be unreasonable to expect a TV to work correctly after a similar fall.

On the other hand you would not expect normal cutlery to break if it were dropped. If, on the other hand it were made of ceramic, you would expect to need to take a lot more care as it most likely would shatter.

In the case of this stand, there are two factors to be taken into consideration.

Firstly, is it reasonable to expect something that spends its life on the floor and is has poor inherent stability, would never be knocked over?

Secondly, is it reasonable to expect something made of a substance as supposedly strong as concrete to break simply because it is tipped over?

I would suggest that the answer to both these questions is: no, and I think that the OP should put these points to the retailer.

Manxman_in_exile

mrdo wrote: »

hi,

as you may have guessed, i have already contacted them and they are not being very helpful.

as i mentioned previously - all very frustrating because they originally sent me 2 by accident and i was honest enough to get back in touch with them to ask them to collect the extra one.

thanks for taking the time to reply though.

unfortunately, it sounds like a bit of a grey area.

Are you joking? A bit of a grey area? Do you live in the Barbican? Who would buy a concrete magazine holder? For £150?


BTW it looks more like cement than concrete.

Fosterdog

Azari wrote: »

Both these posts show a woeful lack of critical thinking.

When determining 'satisfactory quality' you have to consider both the nature of the item in question and its construction.

For example it would be unreasonable to expect a glass to fall to the floor and survive intact. Similarly it would be unreasonable to expect a TV to work correctly after a similar fall.

On the other hand you would not expect normal cutlery to break if it were dropped. If, on the other hand it were made of ceramic, you would expect to need to take a lot more care as it most likely would shatter.

In the case of this stand, there are two factors to be taken into consideration.

Firstly, is it reasonable to expect something that spends its life on the floor and is has poor inherent stability, would never be knocked over?

Secondly, is it reasonable to expect something made of a substance as supposedly strong as concrete to break simply because it is tipped over?

I would suggest that the answer to both these questions is: no, and I think that the OP should put these points to the retailer.

Okay, because you seem to like being deliberately obtuse and spend a lot of time trying to belittle others and attempt to make them look unintelligent (hint there's only one person that makes look bad, you'll find their image if you look at your reflection in the mirrored drawer thread)

Forget about the glass, although you have proven the point that it would be unreasonable to expect glass not to break, and it would also be unreasonable to expect a magazine rack of this design not to break if knocked over.

What if the item wasn't a magazine rack but a large freestanding vase, it is more like the rack in that it is a free standing piece of decorative furniture that also serves the purpose of holding items. They are both as likely as each other to be knocked over, and both equally likely to break if they are knocked over. Does that make all large freestanding vases not fit for purpose?

Plain and simply a magazine rack is no more designed to be knocked over than a plate, glass, vase, tv, chair, speaker, fridge (I could list tens of thousand more items here that would fit into the same category) that does not make any of the items not fit for purpose if they get knocked over and break.