Any Lawyers About? Question About The Sale Of Goods Act

Rex_Mundi

Only a court of law can decide, I doubt you'll find a "proper legal opinion" that will stand up in court for free within this forum.

Sorry.......I don't think I made myself clear in exactly what I meant.

OK....I'll try again. If the warranty states that they expect the appliance to last 2½ years, and the appliance goes wrong in under this time.

If the shop refused to fix the appliance (don't forget, I'm saying that in this case we don't buy the warranty) say after 2 years.

The sale of goods act states that after six months it's down to the customer to prove that the item wasn't sold as advertised. Now say this case went to court. Could I use the offer of a three year warranty in court as my proof that the shop expected it to last longer than the two years before it broke down? So I would stand up and say, look when I bought this item, the shop offered me a three year warranty. Because I did not buy this policy. Now after two years they are telling me this appliance would only be expected to last this long.

It seems to me that this could constitute very good proof that after two years, the item was still in its 'reasonable lifespan of the product' which would give us full protection under the sale of goods act.

As I said before, it was Martin that suggested that we need a lawyer to look at this to be able to tell us if this is the case or not. I'm thinking that if this offer an extended warranty would be good proof in court. Then if we keep the paperwork of the offer with the receipt, then we stand a good chance of getting our goods repaired for quite a long time, even if we don't buy the warranty.

BFG_2

Th ewarranty that the shop sells is a similar to a 'bet' in a gambling shop/life insurance - the price of the warranty in combination with the expected 'average' life span of the product/person in conjunction with the 'typical cost of a repair/payout' are all factored by an actuarian and they come up with a relationship/price that means the shop 'wins' ie on avg it pays out less in repairs/replacements than it gets from 'warranty/insurance sales'.

Thus some goods will fail 'within' the warranty period, most will not. It's only if the 'soonest' failure is not of a reasonable period of time that you could have a case.

As a separate point, the advice (on warranties in general) is don't buy them, they ain't worth it!!!

Rex_Mundi

Thanks BFG

Looking at what you've said. It looks like there is a possibility of using the offer of a warranty as proof that a shop would expect most items of that particular model to last for at least as long as the warranty period.

I know this hasn't been the easiest question to answer exactly, but I'm thinking that this info could save us all money in the respect that the sale of goods act would be enough to cover us for repairs up to the time limit that we would have been covered had we taken out a warranty. After all, the formula you've mentioned seems to take into account that the majority of items would last at least the time of the warranty without needing a repair or going wrong.

valiant23

My view on these warranties and the SoG Act.

If you buy a low priced electrical good such as a kettle. There is no real need to pay for a warranty because (i) The cost is prohibitive (ii) Any faults should develop in the near future and would/should be covered by 'fit for purpose'

If you buy a high priced electrical item such as a TV. There is no real need to pay for a warranty because (i) It may carry a manufacturers guarantee (ii) It should be 'fit for purpose' for a few years longer than most guarantees (iii) By the time a fault develops, it would probably still be cheaper, and more efficient to get it repaired by a competent technician.