Question about ‘fit for purpose’

vitriol83

Hello,

I am looking for advice regarding the fit for purpose clause in the consumer rights act.

As background I recently bought some over ear headphones from currys’. I subsequently found out that they are quite tight and so will give me headaches after a few hours use. I also found that the user reviews on the manufacturers website indicate that this is a relatively common experience. Therefore I tried to get a refund from curry’s on the basis that they are not fit for their intended purpose.

Unsurprisingly, curry’s position is that they cannot give a refund because the headphones are functioning ‘as designed’. My position is that under the consumer rights act any goods sold must be fit for their intended purpose, and that headphones which habitually cause headaches are not. The frustrating thing is that curry’s only quote their policy, and do not appear to acknowledge they have any other legal obligations under the consumer rights act.

My question is, who is right in this case, and separately who actually enforces the consumer rights act in cases that retailers ignore it?

Thanks,
David

Fosterdog

Them being small doesn't mean they are not fit for purpose, they would be perfectly good for someone with a smaller head. It's like buying a size 8 dress when you are a size 16, it won't fit but that doesn't mean it's not fit for purpose.

vitriol83

As it happens I have quite a small head !!!55358;!!!56631;!!!8205;!!!9792;!!!65039;Like all over ear headphones it!!!8217;s adjustable, so the size isn!!!8217;t the issue. the issues people have been reporting are due to tightness of the headphone band.

It!!!8217;s not really comparable to buying clothes, as there is no size indicated, and typically headphones are one size fits all.

LilElvis

A few hours of use before experiencing discomfort doesn't sound unreasonable - the headache could possibly be cause by the volume level as opposed to the tightness of the phones. I have small ears and find that most in-ear phones are excruciating after 5 minutes.

When you bought the phones will make a difference to your consumer rights - less than 30 days, 30 days to 6 months, 6 months +?

vitriol83

They’re over ear headphones, so don’t cause the same issues as in ear headphones, I agree some can be quite painful (particularly Apple ones). Actually I would argue they are not fit for purpose too! I guess what’s reasonable is a matter of interpretation. I have had over ear headphones before and since and never had the same issues.

I bought them about two months ago now, though my first at attempt at refund was a little over a month.

meer53

Is this an April Fool post ?

peachyprice

Are they Marshall headphones OP?

My husband had a problem with a pair of those, they pressed on either side of the top of his head after 15-20 mins, luckily he bought them from Amazon so sent them back for a full refund.

Deastons

vitriol83 wrote: »

Hello,

I am looking for advice regarding the fit for purpose clause in the consumer rights act.

As background I recently bought some over ear headphones from currys’. I subsequently found out that they are quite tight and so will give me headaches after a few hours use. I also found that the user reviews on the manufacturers website indicate that this is a relatively common experience. Therefore I tried to get a refund from curry’s on the basis that they are not fit for their intended purpose.

Unsurprisingly, curry’s position is that they cannot give a refund because the headphones are functioning ‘as designed’. My position is that under the consumer rights act any goods sold must be fit for their intended purpose, and that headphones which habitually cause headaches are not. The frustrating thing is that curry’s only quote their policy, and do not appear to acknowledge they have any other legal obligations under the consumer rights act.

My question is, who is right in this case, and separately who actually enforces the consumer rights act in cases that retailers ignore it?

Thanks,
David

I guess it's the court that actually enforce the consumer rights act. And if it got that far, you'd have to argue that they're not fit for purpose, and the manufacturer would be arguing that they are.

I think you would ultimately have to prove that headphones being 'too tight' cause headaches, which I don't think you could ever do. They could also argue that they're not designed to be used for "a few hours". In fact, most headphones will somewhere have a disclaimer saying you shouldn't use them for extended periods to prevent damage to hearing.

Would Curry's have allowed you to try them on if you had asked? They often have demo pairs.

I think you'd have trouble winning this one, as they are fit for their intended purpose - listening to music.

kingfisherblue

If the reviews state that this is a common occurence, why did you buy them? I wouldn't have.

Les79

kingfisherblue wrote: »

If the reviews state that this is a common occurence, why did you buy them? I wouldn't have.

To be fair, it is probably only something you find out if you are experiencing the problem yourself. It is also potentially actually "rare" but looks "common" because people experiencing the same problems clump together.

vitriol83

Thanks everyone for replies. To answer your question I only read the professional reviews which didn’t have such experiences. Obviously if I had read the user reviews might not have bought it!

I take the point that proving causal link is somewhat difficult. I’m still of the opinion that if you could then it wouldn’t be fit for purpose. For example if It was to get too hot as to be uncomfortable to wear then i imagine that would be regarded as not fit for purpose.

Needless to say I’ve sold them on and am going to buy from somewhere with more reasonable returns policy in future (ironically usually buy from amazon and it’s always easy to return in the rare cases I need to)