Manufacturer provided incorrect product information

Ergates

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

For the OPs case yes, but I also think so for cases where it wouldn't be reasonable for the retailer to know the statement wasn't correct.  How much detailed technical knowledge is it reasonable for a retailer to have?  Like the examples that Sandtree gives - it would be reasonable for an electronics shop (e.g. Curries) to notice that the TV claiming to be 8K was only 4K.  But would it be reasonable to expect them to have measured the data throughput rate of all the HMDI ports to ensure that the information provided by the manufacturer was correct? And that's a relatively simple check to perform.

Jenni_D

I think the point @unholyangel was making was that it doesn't matter. It might not seem fair (on the seller) but that's the way the law sees it (in her view).

user1977

I think it perfectly reasonable that the customer can rely on information on e.g. the packaging of the item - which is obviously prepared by the manufacturer, and possibly never even read by the retailer, never mind repeated by them - but you could still do a "not as described" return on that basis.

And I don't think it's pushing that principle too far if you include e.g. a specification on the manufacturer's website.

Manxman_in_exile

Ergates said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

For the OPs case yes, but I also think so for cases where it wouldn't be reasonable for the retailer to know the statement wasn't correct...

I don't believe that the trader needs to know if any "public statement"  is correct or not, and they don't need to have checked it either.

But - if I understand the legislation correctly - the trader does need to have been at least aware of the statement or should reasonably have been aware of it.

As @Jenni_D says, it might seem harsh on a trader but it is legislation designed to protect the consumer and that appears to be the intended effect of the wording

As I posted earlier, if I were the OP I'd simply complain to the manufacturer that - based on the answer they gave to a specific question I had asked - their advice has cost me £50 I didn't need to spend

F1shyFingers

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. 

For a start

(5)The relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2)(c) include any public statement about the specific characteristics of the goods made by the trader, the producer or any representative of the trader or the producer.

Nobody made a public statement about this.  Speaking to someone over email etc is not public.

Also.

(7)But a public statement is not a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) if the trader shows that—

(a)when the contract was made, the trader was not, and could not reasonably have been, aware of the statement,

(b)before the contract was made, the statement had been publicly withdrawn or, to the extent that it contained anything which was incorrect or misleading, it had been publicly corrected, or

(c)the consumer’s decision to contract for the goods could not have been influenced by the statement.

Check, and mate.

And before you say it, all three do not need to apply, it's either or.

Manxman_in_exile

I see you've been banned - yet again.

Before you post under yet another alter ego you really need to brush up your comprehension skills - or perhaps tiredness from posting at 2am explains your confusion.

Nobody has suggested that in this case the retailer might be liable for any statements made by the manufacturer.

The general point being made was in response to Sandtree's sweeping but mistaken statement that presumably a retailer could only be held responsible for public statements made by a manufacturer if the retailer had repeated them.  (Which doesn't really make sense as the statements would then become the trader's statements after being repeated by them).

But thanks for quoting the law and clarifying that retailers can be liable for public statements made by a manufacturer in certain circumstances, and that they don't necessarily have to be repeated by the retailer.

unholyangel

F1shyFingers 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. 

For a start

(5)The relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2)(c) include any public statement about the specific characteristics of the goods made by the trader, the producer or any representative of the trader or the producer.

Nobody made a public statement about this.  Speaking to someone over email etc is not public.

Also.

(7)But a public statement is not a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) if the trader shows that—

(a)when the contract was made, the trader was not, and could not reasonably have been, aware of the statement,

(b)before the contract was made, the statement had been publicly withdrawn or, to the extent that it contained anything which was incorrect or misleading, it had been publicly corrected, or

(c)the consumer’s decision to contract for the goods could not have been influenced by the statement.

Check, and mate.

And before you say it, all three do not need to apply, it's either or.

You realise the very first comment I made, which is included in the reply chain you're quoting, was:

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.  


So I'm not quite sure what you think you've check mated, unless you're a pigeon playing chess. 

Also (@manxman_in_exile too, since I see you raised a point earlier about it), it is that the trader was not and could not have been aware. Could, not should. It would also be for the trader to prove, if they wished to benefit from that exemption. 

I would agree email isn't a public statement. But a support forum/help centre or any information on a manufacturers website could be. 

unholyangel

Ergates said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

For the OPs case yes, but I also think so for cases where it wouldn't be reasonable for the retailer to know the statement wasn't correct.  How much detailed technical knowledge is it reasonable for a retailer to have?  Like the examples that Sandtree gives - it would be reasonable for an electronics shop (e.g. Curries) to notice that the TV claiming to be 8K was only 4K.  But would it be reasonable to expect them to have measured the data throughput rate of all the HMDI ports to ensure that the information provided by the manufacturer was correct? And that's a relatively simple check to perform.

They don't need to know if the statement is accurate or not. If its not then, unless they've been very stupid in contract negotiations, they'd be able to return the item to the manufacturer. 

To put another spin on it, it's not the retailers fault if a manufacturer uses substandard components and they have no control over it or even knowledge of it unless they undertook detailed technical tests. But they're still liable for it. Why? And why do you think it should only stop at the physical goods and not their packaging or advertising?