Manufacturer provided incorrect product information

clive2702

I checked with a manufacturer if one of their products, which I wanted to buy, was compatible with a product of theirs which I already owned. They said it did so I bought it from an online supplier (cost £211). When it arrived, it was not compatible so I had to return it at my own expense to the supplier. The product was large and heavy and only Parcel Force could courier it and this cost me £50. Do I have any claim against the manufacturer for the £50 Parcel Force costs? The supplier will refund me the £211 so no problem in that respect.

user1977

No, but you may have done if the retailer had given you the wrong information.

unholyangel

If it was a public statement by the manufacturer, then the retailer is liable. Other than that, I believe you'd be reliant on goodwill or proving negligence.  

Sandtree

unholyangel said:

If it was a public statement by the manufacturer, then the retailer is liable. Other than that, I believe you'd be reliant on goodwill or proving negligence.  

Presumably only if the retailer has repeated it... if the retailers own site hadn't stated something then you cannot hold them liable for something someone else is saying about the goods. 

clive2702 said:

Do I have any claim against the manufacturer for the £50 Parcel Force costs? 

Ulikely as you have no contract with them meaning you are reliant on less concrete forms of liability. Ultimately have a conversation with them and see what they say. When I was in a similar situation the manufacturer just shrugged and said I should have bought direct and then they'd have refunded but in my case it was £10 and so not worth the hassle of trying to take it further. 

Manxman_in_exile

Sandtree said:

unholyangel said:

If it was a public statement by the manufacturer, then the retailer is liable. Other than that, I believe you'd be reliant on goodwill or proving negligence.  

Presumably only if the retailer has repeated it... if the retailers own site hadn't stated something then you cannot hold them liable for something someone else is saying about the goods. 

Not even the manufacturer? 

If the manufacturer makes a "public statement" which is widely known about a particular one of their products having certain features or being compatible with another of their products, can't a retailer of that manufacturer's product be taken to endorse what the manufacturer has explicitly said - unless the retailer clearly states otherwise?

Sandtree

Manxman_in_exile said:

Sandtree said:

unholyangel said:

If it was a public statement by the manufacturer, then the retailer is liable. Other than that, I believe you'd be reliant on goodwill or proving negligence.  

Presumably only if the retailer has repeated it... if the retailers own site hadn't stated something then you cannot hold them liable for something someone else is saying about the goods. 

Not even the manufacturer? 

If the manufacturer makes a "public statement" which is widely known about a particular one of their products having certain features or being compatible with another of their products, can't a retailer of that manufacturer's product be taken to endorse what the manufacturer has explicitly said - unless the retailer clearly states otherwise?

For a start in this case it seems to have been a Q to the Manufacturer rather than public statement but we do love the hypothetical here...

You'd imagine it somewhat comes down to how fundamental the item/characteristic is on if they must actively state its different to what the manufacturer says -v- simply being mute on the subject. But how realistic is it that Samsung would advertise a TV as 8K but Currys realise its only 4k and so either reclassify it as 4k or be mute on if its 8k or 4k? They'd either be blindly repeating the Samsung messaging as they haven't realised in which case they have a liability or be on the phone to Samsung to deal with the issue. 

If its some left field element, like if only 4 or all 5 of the HDMI ports are HDCP v2.2 then half the time the manufacture themselves are silent on the matter in their marketing materials and its only after a lot of digging into tech specs that you may find out. In this sort of case I'd struggle more to say the retailer is liable if they have only said it has some HDCP2.2 ports and would suggest a customer should ask the person they intend to buy from if its critical to their needs. 

unholyangel

Sandtree said:

unholyangel said:

If it was a public statement by the manufacturer, then the retailer is liable. Other than that, I believe you'd be reliant on goodwill or proving negligence.  

Presumably only if the retailer has repeated it... if the retailers own site hadn't stated something then you cannot hold them liable for something someone else is saying about the goods. 

clive2702 said:

Do I have any claim against the manufacturer for the £50 Parcel Force costs? 

Ulikely as you have no contract with them meaning you are reliant on less concrete forms of liability. Ultimately have a conversation with them and see what they say. When I was in a similar situation the manufacturer just shrugged and said I should have bought direct and then they'd have refunded but in my case it was £10 and so not worth the hassle of trying to take it further. 

Why presumably? Section 9(5) Consumer rights act 2015 would suggest that a trader can be held liable for something said by the manufacturer, even if they didn't repeat it themselves. 

There are some caveats, just the trader not repeating it isn't one of them. 

Ergates

unholyangel said:

Sandtree said:

unholyangel said:

If it was a public statement by the manufacturer, then the retailer is liable. Other than that, I believe you'd be reliant on goodwill or proving negligence.  

Presumably only if the retailer has repeated it... if the retailers own site hadn't stated something then you cannot hold them liable for something someone else is saying about the goods. 

clive2702 said:

Do I have any claim against the manufacturer for the £50 Parcel Force costs? 

Ulikely as you have no contract with them meaning you are reliant on less concrete forms of liability. Ultimately have a conversation with them and see what they say. When I was in a similar situation the manufacturer just shrugged and said I should have bought direct and then they'd have refunded but in my case it was £10 and so not worth the hassle of trying to take it further. 

Why presumably? Section 9(5) Consumer rights act 2015 would suggest that a trader can be held liable for something said by the manufacturer, even if they didn't repeat it themselves. 

There are some caveats, just the trader not repeating it isn't one of them. 

That would likely depend on how reasonable/realistic it would be for the retailer to know/not know if the statement made was correct (and/or even know about the statement).

In the OPs case, it was a private communication between the OP and the manufacturer that the retailer was not privy to, so I don't see how the retailer could be held liable for that.

born_again

Is there a new version of the product out? Which manufacture responded to with the answer, but the retailer has sold a older version?

Manxman_in_exile

Ergates said:

unholyangel said:

Sandtree said:

unholyangel said:

If it was a public statement by the manufacturer, then the retailer is liable. Other than that, I believe you'd be reliant on goodwill or proving negligence.  

Presumably only if the retailer has repeated it... if the retailers own site hadn't stated something then you cannot hold them liable for something someone else is saying about the goods. 

clive2702 said:

Do I have any claim against the manufacturer for the £50 Parcel Force costs? 

Ulikely as you have no contract with them meaning you are reliant on less concrete forms of liability. Ultimately have a conversation with them and see what they say. When I was in a similar situation the manufacturer just shrugged and said I should have bought direct and then they'd have refunded but in my case it was £10 and so not worth the hassle of trying to take it further. 

Why presumably? Section 9(5) Consumer rights act 2015 would suggest that a trader can be held liable for something said by the manufacturer, even if they didn't repeat it themselves. 

There are some caveats, just the trader not repeating it isn't one of them. 

That would likely depend on how reasonable/realistic it would be for the retailer to know/not know if the statement made was correct (and/or even know about the statement)...

I think the post you quote was simply pointing out that the previous blanket statement that traders could only be held responsible for statements made by manufacturers if the trader had repeated those responses themselves seems to contradict the legislation.

But yes - that wouldn't apply to the OP's situation here anyway.

Manxman_in_exile

@clive2702 -  you basically don't have any legal claim* against the manufacturer.

But if I were you I would contact them and complain that you had sought specific advice from them regarding whether two of their products were compatible with each other, one of which products you already owned.  Having decided to buy the second product based on the advice they gave you, you discovered that their advice had been wrong, and as a result you have incurred costs of £50 in returning the unwanted product to the retailer.  (Unwanted because despite their advice it is NOT compatible with the product you already own).  The retailer has correctly refunded the retail price, but you cannot recover the £50 return delivery costs.

Suggest to them that it would be a nice gesture - given their error - if they would refund you the £50 extra expenditure that they have caused you to incur.

Obviously include all evidence of the advice that you were given - emails, letters etc.  If a 'phone call state date and time in case they record calls.

*As previously suggested you might possibly have some sort of claim against the manufacturer based in negligence, but it's hardly worth the effort for £50 and not certain to succeed.  Try appealing to their better nature first.  If they accept they've made an error I'd be surprised if they didn't offer you something.  Possibly more than £50. If they refuse you can decide whether to drop it or pursue it further.  But it probably wouldn't be worthwhile to pursue it further.