Lifetime warranty claims from a company that will not honor them?

Alderbank

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Okell said:

 Would that apply to a lifetime guarantee?  (Unless the T&Cs said so).

This isn't a CRA claim

Okell said:

 Would that apply to a lifetime guarantee?  (Unless the T&Cs said so).

This isn't a CRA claim


Worth noting although warranties are above consumer rights, Part 2 of the CRA applies to "a contract between a trader and a consumer" (excluding employment), the unfair terms section still applies here. 

So

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/69

I agree with @Okell that this isn't a CRA claim.

The relevant law is the law which is current when the contract of sale was made. OP said that was in 2008, many years before CRA2015 was even thought of.

The relevant law will be one of the later revisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

OP might have grounds for a claim that the dart is not of merchantable quality. To do that he would need to show that the dart has not lasted as long as a similar dart of merchantable quality would have done.

Okell

Ergates said:

Okell said:

Regarding what a lifetime guarantee is I'll give Tilley hats a free advert again.

Tilley honoured their lifetime guarantee on a hat that was over 20 years old and that I hadn't looked after particularly well.

I asked a local retailer - who I hadn't purchased it from - whether it was worth trying to claim on the guarantee after over 20 years and he told me "Yes!" and that in his experience Tilley always honoured the gurantee.

Tilley didn't need proof of purchase either - they were satisfied by a hat with a hole in it

Had you been feeding it to an elephant?

No         

But it had had a very tough life.  I was amazed that they just replaced it no questions asked.  I was super impressed

sheramber

My husband  had an old Tilley hat  had been worn and washed for more than 20 years so was a bit the worse for wear. 
He was going to throw it out but decided to the replacement guarantee.

It was replaced with a new one by return of post.

I wanted a Navy one but none of the stockists had any as navy  was no longer available.

Contacted them.  They  searched their  stocks and came up with one in my size.

Wolf78

Thank you for all the advice, I will have to let this one go as I basically have no leg to stand on. I will be very wary of such 'lifetime warranty' offers on any other purchases in the future. Regards to you all.

GDB2222

Wolf78 said:

Thank you for all the advice, I will have to let this one go as I basically have no leg to stand on. I will be very wary of such 'lifetime warranty' offers on any other purchases in the future. Regards to you all.

I think you have a very good case. The warranty seems clear enough. You have provided proof of purchase, through eBay. I would send a letter before action, then sue them using MCOL. 

That then puts the ball firmly in their court, and they have to decide whether to turn up in court to defend the case or just send you some new darts. 

 The famous contract law case that covers this is issue is 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Co

Wolf78

GDB2222 said:

Wolf78 said:

Thank you for all the advice, I will have to let this one go as I basically have no leg to stand on. I will be very wary of such 'lifetime warranty' offers on any other purchases in the future. Regards to you all.

I think you have a very good case. The warranty seems clear enough. You have provided proof of purchase, through eBay. I would send a letter before action, then sue them using MCOL. 

That then puts the ball firmly in their court, and they have to decide whether to turn up in court to defend the case or just send you some new darts. 

 The famous contract law case that covers this is issue is 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Co

Thank you for your advice, I have used this, and it appears to have added some leverage to my case, and they are seemingly wanting to communicate with me, but they are requesting this via a telephone call to explain the issues with my offering of proof of purchase, I am reluctant for that to happen unless I can record it as I believe they will offer this or that and or dismiss my case quite quickly and because it is not a recorded medium such as email I have no evidence to argue what will have been said. What do you think? I am so grateful for all the help and advice received so far.

HillStreetBlues

Alderbank said:

I agree with @Okell that this isn't a CRA claim.

The relevant law is the law which is current when the contract of sale was made. OP said that was in 2008, many years before CRA2015 was even thought of.

The relevant law will be one of the later revisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

OP might have grounds for a claim that the dart is not of merchantable quality. To do that he would need to show that the dart has not lasted as long as a similar dart of merchantable quality would have done.

That wouldn't work. If trying the merchantable quality, the breach would have happened when item was purchased, so well outside the time-frame for action.
By refusing the lifetime warranty the breach happened when they refused, so the clock starts with the refusal.

Alderbank

HillStreetBlues said:

Alderbank said:

I agree with @Okell that this isn't a CRA claim.

The relevant law is the law which is current when the contract of sale was made. OP said that was in 2008, many years before CRA2015 was even thought of.

The relevant law will be one of the later revisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

OP might have grounds for a claim that the dart is not of merchantable quality. To do that he would need to show that the dart has not lasted as long as a similar dart of merchantable quality would have done.

That wouldn't work. If trying the merchantable quality, the breach would have happened when item was purchased, so well outside the time-frame for action.
By refusing the lifetime warranty the breach happened when they refused, so the clock starts with the refusal.

Target haven't refused to honour the lifetime warranty though. They are waiting patiently for the OP to comply with the warranty T&Cs. Only when the OP manages to find the required documents and Target say 'We aren't paying' would they be in breach.

If the seller breached the Sale of Goods Act in 2008 then they are still in breach today. The Act is not time limited, the breach doesn't just go away.
Separately, in England&Wales the Limitations Act means the OP can't at this stage bring an action in court to enforce the debt but they do have the moral satisfaction of knowing that they might have been right.

HillStreetBlues

Alderbank said:

HillStreetBlues said:

Alderbank said:

I agree with @Okell that this isn't a CRA claim.

The relevant law is the law which is current when the contract of sale was made. OP said that was in 2008, many years before CRA2015 was even thought of.

The relevant law will be one of the later revisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

OP might have grounds for a claim that the dart is not of merchantable quality. To do that he would need to show that the dart has not lasted as long as a similar dart of merchantable quality would have done.

That wouldn't work. If trying the merchantable quality, the breach would have happened when item was purchased, so well outside the time-frame for action.
By refusing the lifetime warranty the breach happened when they refused, so the clock starts with the refusal.

Target haven't refused to honour the lifetime warranty though. They are waiting patiently for the OP to comply with the warranty T&Cs. Only when the OP manages to find the required documents and Target say 'We aren't paying' would they be in breach.

If the seller breached the Sale of Goods Act in 2008 then they are still in breach today. The Act is not time limited, the breach doesn't just go away.
Separately, in England&Wales the Limitations Act means the OP can't at this stage bring an action in court to enforce the debt but they do have the moral satisfaction of knowing that they might have been right.

The breach started in 2008 if as you suggested with merchantable quality, the limitation act means the OP has no redress after 16 years, so although the breach is on-going it really means nothing as it can not be enforced.

Okell

Wolf78 said:

GDB2222 said:

Wolf78 said:

Thank you for all the advice, I will have to let this one go as I basically have no leg to stand on. I will be very wary of such 'lifetime warranty' offers on any other purchases in the future. Regards to you all.

I think you have a very good case. The warranty seems clear enough. You have provided proof of purchase, through eBay. I would send a letter before action, then sue them using MCOL. 

That then puts the ball firmly in their court, and they have to decide whether to turn up in court to defend the case or just send you some new darts. 

 The famous contract law case that covers this is issue is 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Co

Thank you for your advice, I have used this, and it appears to have added some leverage to my case, and they are seemingly wanting to communicate with me, but they are requesting this via a telephone call to explain the issues with my offering of proof of purchase, I am reluctant for that to happen unless I can record it as I believe they will offer this or that and or dismiss my case quite quickly and because it is not a recorded medium such as email I have no evidence to argue what will have been said. What do you think? I am so grateful for all the help and advice received so far.

If you have a phone that will record I believe there is nothing to prevent you from recording a telephone conversation that you are a party to.  It only becomes a problem if you record conversations etc when you are not present or not a party to.

Alternatively you can discuss it on the 'phone, make a contemporaneous note of the converstaion, and then email it to them as confirmation of what you've discussed