Section 75 - I don’t understand!

DullGreyGuy

born_again said:

Ultimately, failing to try & deal with retailer can make it very hard to argue any breech of contract.

Only S75a requires the person to try and deal with retailer. 

Any physical goods sold will by law have to stand up to the requirements of reasonable durability etc of the Consumer Rights Act. Therefore by demonstrating your TV that died after 9 months was not reasonably durable is showing there has been a breach of contract. 

Sales of goods dont have complex contracts unlike like some services, eg home phone line, which may have clauses in it around outages and compensation and so isn't automatically a breach of contract just because one day the internet goes down for a few seconds. It still doesn't require you to involve the merchant but proving your outside the 99.5% uptime SLA etc may be difficult without them. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

eskbanker said:

born_again said:

Ultimately, failing to try & deal with retailer can make it very hard to argue any breech of contract.

Not convinced that's a viable rule of thumb, at least where the breach itself is distinct from potential attempts to remedy it - what sort of scenarios do you have in mind?

I would agree as by the same argument the retailer could say sorry no claim with us until you try the bank and that just goes round in a loop.

My understand of joint and severe liability is that you can attempt to recover from either party at your choosing, I appreciate a bank may not prefer you to do that but I guess if they implied you had to you have a valid complaint for being treated unfairly and there would possibly be a breach of the CPRs as well. 

greenplants14

Hi all,
thank you very much for your replies - I really do appreciate it. 

Yes, I have attempted to settle this issue with the retailer and can demonstrate via emails. I have asked for a copy of the complaints procedure but they have not provided one and none available online. They refuse a refund, but will offer a second repair. I don’t see that a repair wouldn’t fail in a similar timeframe - it isn’t a risk worth taking considering the nature of the goods.

I don’t want a replacement unit as I’ve been forced to purchase an alternative seat as otherwise I can’t take my child to school or hospital appointments. I’ve also lost faith in the brand.

The reason for the question about how S75 works; the retailer has been extremely assertive in refusing the refund. The product failed at 4 months so an inherent fault is assumed. Their repair now also fails, so I believe reg 25(4) sets out my rights to reject the goods. However, the retailer is refusing to budge at all, and I was concerned the bank would simply run into the same issue and reject my claim. From what you’ve all said though, the bank will assess based on objective facts rather than simply the retailers refusal.

As for whether the goods are faulty (aside from I know they have not been misused); firstly they failed at 4 months so inherent unless manufacturer proves otherwise. Secondly, when the repair was made, it was made under warranty. The warranty clearly states only goods with manufacturing defects will be repaired. Goods that have been damaged by the consumer will be refused. By repairing in the first instance there is an implied acceptance of fault. The allegation of misuse comes only now I attempt to exercise my rights. The retailer declines to inspect the goods, so I am unclear how they can be confident I am the cause of the issue.

For the avoidance of doubt the first failure and second failure are the failure.

greenplants14

Should have read:
first failure and second failure are the SAME failure 

born_again

eskbanker said:

born_again said:

Ultimately, failing to try & deal with retailer can make it very hard to argue any breech of contract.

Not convinced that's a viable rule of thumb, at least where the breach itself is distinct from potential attempts to remedy it - what sort of scenarios do you have in mind?

It's the stance our guys take.
As They require proof, of trying to resolve, as part of the breech of contract with retailer. Same as they require T/C of purchase.
How many complain, no  idea out of my remit to find out.

eskbanker

born_again said:

eskbanker said:

born_again said:

Ultimately, failing to try & deal with retailer can make it very hard to argue any breech of contract.

Not convinced that's a viable rule of thumb, at least where the breach itself is distinct from potential attempts to remedy it - what sort of scenarios do you have in mind?

It's the stance our guys take.
As They require proof, of trying to resolve, as part of the breech of contract with retailer. Same as they require T/C of purchase.
How many complain, no  idea out of my remit to find out.

But, as often discussed on this board, many companies ignore their legal obligations and choose to do things their own sweet way, but this doesn't make it right or acceptable!

It's obviously legitimate for the creditor to expect evidence of a breach of contract (which will often entail sight of the contract itself, although in this case it's implied terms under CRA) but there remains no legal obligation on the customer to try to resolve the issue with the supplier, so if your company puts that obstacle in the way of a valid s75 claim then it leaves itself open to challenge....