Currys sent wrong laptop and won't replace

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Baz_Warrington said:

~Quick update~

Currys have been in touch and they are replacing the laptop with the one I ordered and paid for!!

Thanks for updating the thread OP, great to hear  

Manxman_in_exile

Regarding the question of "acceptance"

My understanding is that a consumer can't be taken to have "accepted" goods that do not conform simply because of the passage of time.  That was one of the effects of the CRA 2015  [Edit:  and the lunatic's post about SOGA  confirms that]

However if @bris means that a consumer can - in a sense - "waive away" or lose their consumer rights by using or adopting goods that do not conform, and which they know do not conform, then a court might say that that was correct.

But if a consumer is not immediately aware that goods don't conform, then I don't think there is any practical time limit on rejecting goods that do not conform (except for the 6 year limitation period)

Thank you to @tightauldgit's post on the faulty car thread for making me think again about that...

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Manxman_in_exile said:

Regarding the question of "acceptance"

My understanding is that a consumer can't be taken to have "accepted" goods that do not conform simply because of the passage of time.  That was one of the effects of the CRA 2015

However if @bris means that a consumer can - in a sense - "waive away" their consumer rights by using or adopting goods that do not conform, and which they know do not conform, then a court might say that that was correct.

But if a consumer is not immediately aware that goods don't conform, then I don't think there is any practical time limit on rejecting goods that do not conform (except for the 6 year limitation period)

Thank you to @tightauldgit's post on the faulty car thread for making me think again about that...

If you have a look at the guidence notes for S21

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/1/3/4/3

The provision is in effect consistent with section 35A of SGA, although section 35A provides that acceptance of some goods does not prevent rejection of others, whereas that concept of acceptance does not apply under the Act. This section therefore provides clarity that the consumer nonetheless has equivalent rights to reject in part.

Basically when you have multiple goods under a contract and you reject those that do not conform and keep those that do you may not later rejected those that do conform, as you accepted them (unless of course it later transpires they do not conform), other than that no concept of acceptance.

Manxman_in_exile

Isn't the problem a semantic one around the meaning(s) of the word "acceptance".

The legal concept of "acceptance" has a different meaning from the everyday meaning of the word.

@bris (I think) uses the term in its legal meaning as it used to apply.  If that is what they are doing, then I think they are mistaken to say that "acceptance" still applies to consumer contracts.

But if they mean "acceptance" in the everyday sense of "to put up with" or "to use or adopt something fully aware that it doesn't conform to contract", then I think a court might look at it differently.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Manxman_in_exile said:

Isn't the problem a semantic one around the meaning(s) of the word "acceptance".

The legal concept of "acceptance" has a different meaning from the everyday meaning of the word.

@bris (I think) uses the term in its legal meaning as it used to apply.  If that is what they are doing, then I think they are mistaken to say that "acceptance" still applies to consumer contracts.

But if they mean "acceptance" in the everyday sense of "to put up with" or "to use or adopt something fully aware that it doesn't conform to contract", then I think a court might look at it differently.

Bris quoted the wording from the SOGA last time

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79994199#Comment_79994199

so I can only assume that's what they are referring to. 

The CRA is pretty black and white in dealing with goods that do not conform at the time of delivery. If they did not conform then they did not conform. 

If there were concern about the consumer gaining excessive use of the product the act could have reduced the time limit of a full refund from 6 months to 3 months or even not have one. 

The CRA is intended to give consumers confidence so they spend which supports business and the wider economy, businesses aren't micro managing every penny in the fastidious manner sometimes suggested here and equally the CRA isn't micro managing every variable otherwise it would be excessive in length causing confusion and reducing that confidence. 

At best you are going to get 30 days free use, after that you'd likely get a repair/replacement if the trader honours their obligations. If they can't for the reasons in the act then that's their choice to sell such goods. 

Baz_Warrington

Hi...

Just to finish off the thread, the replacement laptop arrived just now from Currys.... and it is the Lenovo ideapad in Blue, with 15.6" screen & the i3 processor I originally ordered and paid for!!

Thanks for the comments, have a great Bank Holiday weekend... what's left of it