Supplied wrong floor

sleepy1186

Hi there,
I'm hoping someone can advise me?
I recently purchased a flooring called American walnut herringbone, I purchased this in store based on an in-store display. I paid for my goods and arrange delivery through the supplier. Once the goods arrived by opened one of the boxes, checked the product and believed this was a product I had purchased. I instructed my joiner to then install the floor, upon completion of the Flooring being installed I realised that they have supplied me with the wrong product. They supplied me with an American walnut straight plank. I have taken this matter up with the supplier and they have advise me, because I inspected the floor before installation there is nothing they can do after the fact, because the floor has been inspected before installation and I instructed the fitters to go ahead.
Do I have any comeback at all??

neilmcl

I think they have a point. Yes, you were sent the wrong product but you inspected it and agreed for it to be installed, therefore accepting the apparent breach in contract. There's a big, and very noticeable difference between a herringbone style floor and a straight plank which you could easily have picked up on.

Is this laminate or wood?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Are you happy with the flooring? If so is there is a difference in cost at the same store between the 2?

unholyangel

Acceptance is no longer a "thing" under the consumer rights act. Even under its predecessor, the SoGA - where acceptance was a thing - if the goods consequently proved to not conform, then the consumer was entitled to redress.

Just that redress might be better suited as a partial refund or replacement rather than the right to reject.

However, the consumer rights act has no conditions attached. If the goods don't conform then in the first 30 days you have the right to reject (although can accept a repair, replacement or price reduction). After that, the retailer has 1 attempt to repair or replace within a reasonable time and without causing significant inconvenience. If they cannot or if the attempt fails, you again have the right to reject.

born_again

Re unholyangel post above.

If they decide to reject. Then it's not going to be a easy task to get the flooring back, as it maybe stuck down. Also they will have already have paid the joiner to install.
All costs of which they will not get back, and they will then have to pay again.

KeithP

But born again, note that Section 23 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 states:

23 Right to repair or replacement

(1) This section applies if the consumer has the right to repair or replacement (see section 19(3) and (4)).

(2) If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must—

(a) do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and

(b) bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

In particular, note para (2)(b).

As the Explanatory Notes say:

This includes the trader bearing any costs involved in the removal of an installed item and reinstallation of a replacement.

Also note para (8) of Section 23:

(8) In this Chapter, “repair” in relation to goods that do not conform to a contract, means making them conform.

unholyangel

born_again wrote: »

Re unholyangel post above.

If they decide to reject. Then it's not going to be a easy task to get the flooring back, as it maybe stuck down. Also they will have already have paid the joiner to install.
All costs of which they will not get back, and they will then have to pay again.

Just to cover the point of rejection since KeithP's focuses on repair & replacement....

The innocent party in a breach of contract should not be worse off for the breach. They shouldn't be better off, but they shouldn't be worse off. Having them incurring removal & installation costs would be worse off.

Damages are recoverable under two limbs.
1) Direct losses - these are damages that arise in the ordinary course of the breach. Aka it would be obvious to the world at large that such a type of loss could occur from such a breach. These are always recoverable.
2) Indirect (aka consequential) losses - these are losses that do not arise in the ordinary course but from special circumstances. These are recoverable if they were in the contemplation of the parties at the time of entering the contract.

Would you say it was obvious that removal & installation costs could be incurred if flooring did not conform to contract? I certainly would.

CardinalWolsey

I am not a judge... But if this were to be presented to me via MCOL, I would likely err with the vendor. There may not be acceptance in the sense being portrayed, but it could be argued that with the inspection of the goods, and the subsequent installation, the customer has agreed to vary their contract by action. i.e. inspection and installation.

To contrast, if the customer had had the flooring delivered to a second home, where their installer subsequently installed without the customer having the opportunity to inspect, and the error only noticed post-installation, then yes - I would be ordering the vendor to uplift and lay the correct flooring.

But in the OP's scenario, no.

unholyangel

CardinalWolsey wrote: »

I am not a judge... But if this were to be presented to me via MCOL, I would likely err with the vendor. There may not be acceptance in the sense being portrayed, but it could be argued that with the inspection of the goods, and the subsequent installation, the customer has agreed to vary their contract by action. i.e. inspection and installation.

To contrast, if the customer had had the flooring delivered to a second home, where their installer subsequently installed without the customer having the opportunity to inspect, and the error only noticed post-installation, then yes - I would be ordering the vendor to uplift and lay the correct flooring.

But in the OP's scenario, no.

Sure they could argue that, but it would fail because it has no legal basis. A judge can't ignore legislation even if they do feel sympathetic, they're bound to interpret it as it's written. The law isn't about whats fair, its about whats legal.

This is from OFT's unfair term guidance when the SoGA was in force:

Terms which end rights to redress after the consumer has dealt with
the goods in a particular way.
Even where goods have been legally 'accepted', for example, by being
used repeatedly or modified in some way, the supplier remains liable to provide redress if they subsequently prove to have been defective
when sold.

CMA's guidance on the same subject (unfair terms) when CRA is in force now says:

 Terms which end rights to redress 30 days after delivery of the goods.
Even where the consumer has lost the short-term right to reject
defective goods, the trader remains legally obliged to provide other
redress if the goods subsequently prove to have been defective when
sold.

Similarly, if they were to make such an argument then I would be making the argument that they also had the opportunity to check the goods before dispatching.

lincroft1710

But the floor is not "defective", it is not the type the OP ordered.