Incorrect Electric fire bought

Grumpy_chap

Okell said:

I'm not 100% certain earlier answers are correct - but I'm not a lawyer.

However, s10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says:


"10 Goods to be fit for particular purpose

(1)  Subsection (3) applies to a contract to supply goods if before the contract is made the consumer makes known to the trader (expressly or by implication) any particular purpose for which the consumer is contracting for the goods...

... (3) The contract is to be treated as including a term that the goods are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which goods of that kind are usually supplied"  [My bold for emphasis]

There could be something here.  

Playing devil's advocate:

 - Why does the fire need to suit the wall (given the wall had not actually been built at the time of purchase)?

 - Why is it not the other way round, that the wall needed to be build to suit the fire (which was on order to standard design but not yet received)?


In the actual work, did anyone think to obtain the full installation instructions for the fire before building the wall?
Would it have been reasonable to have done so given the sequencing of the work being done?

Undervalued

Grumpy_chap said:

Okell said:

I'm not 100% certain earlier answers are correct - but I'm not a lawyer.

However, s10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says:


"10 Goods to be fit for particular purpose

(1)  Subsection (3) applies to a contract to supply goods if before the contract is made the consumer makes known to the trader (expressly or by implication) any particular purpose for which the consumer is contracting for the goods...

... (3) The contract is to be treated as including a term that the goods are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which goods of that kind are usually supplied"  [My bold for emphasis]

There could be something here.  

Playing devil's advocate:

 - Why does the fire need to suit the wall (given the wall had not actually been built at the time of purchase)?

 - Why is it not the other way round, that the wall needed to be build to suit the fire (which was on order to standard design but not yet received)?


In the actual work, did anyone think to obtain the full installation instructions for the fire before building the wall?
Would it have been reasonable to have done so given the sequencing of the work being done?

Exactly.

In addition to the physical dimensions there may also have been specifications for how much air space was needed around it etc.

I wouldn't have thought it was good practice to build a space specifically for an item that hasn't actually arrived. I think earlier in this thread the OP said something to the effect that the measurements "were open to interpretation".

So I also agree with another poster who feels that the builder shares some responsibility for this mess up.

What is the plan now (assuming a refund is forthcoming)? Source a different fire that will fit (if possible) or modify the newly built wall?

Okell

Clearly the OP and/or his builder have planned this project badly - as evidenced by the fact that the builder seems to have given the OP one(?) days notice that he was going to turn up to start work, and no fire had yet been purchased.

And yes, the OP should have left fire selection to the builder, with the OP's approval of whatever was selected.

However, that's all irrelevant as s10 doesn't give an exemption for bad planning, bad choices or the incompetence of others.  Assuming the OP is telling us the truth - and I have no reason to doubt him otherwise it would be pointless answering any question on this board - and that he clearly explained what he wanted and what he wanted it for, then that's what the trader was contractually obliged to provide.

And, of course, that cuts both ways.  If the OP had asked for something unsuitable and the trader provided what the OP asked for, the OP would have no comeback.

What the solution is with regard to getting a fire fitted is the OP's problem and is one of the drawbacks of not planning the job properly from the outset.

I suspect the OP's immediate issue is the manufacturer's claim that the fire has been damaged.  I'd like to know if the trader had notified the OP of any damage when he returned it to them and before they passed it back to the manufacturer.

Alderbank

Okell said:

I suspect the OP's immediate issue is the manufacturer's claim that the fire has been damaged.  I'd like to know if the trader had notified the OP of any damage when he returned it to them and before they passed it back to the manufacturer.

I think the trader has the idea that this is a change of mind return and has some vague idea that they can deduct from the refund if the product has been handled more than necessary.

It is not change of mind.
The OP is not cancelling the contract as per a different piece of consumer law, the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, in which the condition of the returned goods is relevant, which might be what the trader is thinking of.

The goods do not conform to contract.
The OP is exercising his short term right to reject under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The condition of the faulty goods is immaterial. The OP is entitled to a full refund without any deductions or fees (s20, Right to Reject). Indeed, since there are costs for remedial building work involved, he should threaten to claim for those as well (s19) It may be open to a consumer to claim damages...

Okell

My two previous posts are based on the (possibly unrealistic) assumption that the OP was able to communicate clearly and accurately to the seller what they wanted and what it was for.

As we all know from this board it is sometimes difficult to tell what a poster is going on about.

I read a long 1000 post thread on a well-known forum on Sunday where half of the contributors - including myself - couldn't make head nor tail of any of the OP's 40+posts and the other half (apparently) had no difficulty understanding at all.  Although whether they understood correctly might be another matter...

Undervalued

Alderbank said:

Okell said:

I suspect the OP's immediate issue is the manufacturer's claim that the fire has been damaged.  I'd like to know if the trader had notified the OP of any damage when he returned it to them and before they passed it back to the manufacturer.

I think the trader has the idea that this is a change of mind return and has some vague idea that they can deduct from the refund if the product has been handled more than necessary.

It is not change of mind.
The OP is not cancelling the contract as per a different piece of consumer law, the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, in which the condition of the returned goods is relevant, which might be what the trader is thinking of.

The goods do not conform to contract.
The OP is exercising his short term right to reject under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The condition of the faulty goods is immaterial. The OP is entitled to a full refund without any deductions or fees (s20, Right to Reject). Indeed, since there are costs for remedial building work involved, he should threaten to claim for those as well (s19) It may be open to a consumer to claim damages...

Surely, even if the goods do not conform to contract, that doesn't give the OP the right to damage them beyond what was reasonably necessary to establish that?

Ayr_Rage

Okell said:

My two previous posts are based on the (possibly unrealistic) assumption that the OP was able to communicate clearly and accurately to the seller what they wanted and what it was for.

As we all know from this board it is sometimes difficult to tell what a poster is going on about.

I read a long 1000 post thread on a well-known forum on Sunday where half of the contributors - including myself - couldn't make head nor tail of any of the OP's 40+posts and the other half (apparently) had no difficulty understanding at all.  Although whether they understood correctly might be another matter...

I'm still of the opinion that the OP bought the wrong sized fire in haste without fully appraising the seller of their requirements and not having consulted with their builder as to the exact dimensions that could be accommodated.

Their comment 

 "I explained that the builder was coming in the next day to start building and therefore I would need a fire to be put in."

suggests to me and seems also to have been interpreted by the seller that the build had not started.

Aylesbury_Duck

Ayr_Rage said:

Okell said:

My two previous posts are based on the (possibly unrealistic) assumption that the OP was able to communicate clearly and accurately to the seller what they wanted and what it was for.

As we all know from this board it is sometimes difficult to tell what a poster is going on about.

I read a long 1000 post thread on a well-known forum on Sunday where half of the contributors - including myself - couldn't make head nor tail of any of the OP's 40+posts and the other half (apparently) had no difficulty understanding at all.  Although whether they understood correctly might be another matter...

I'm still of the opinion that the OP bought the wrong sized fire in haste without fully appraising the seller of their requirements and not having consulted with their builder as to the exact dimensions that could be accommodated.

Their comment 

 "I explained that the builder was coming in the next day to start building and therefore I would need a fire to be put in."

suggests to me and seems also to have been interpreted by the seller that the build had not started.

That's the crux of it for me.  I think your assumption about how the seller interpreted that statement was correct, which is presumably why the seller offered to send the dimensions to the builder.  Why send dimensions if you thought work was completed?

Without knowing exactly what was said at the seller's premises, I'm on the fence.  As Alderbank points out, perhaps the seller was happy to take back the fire and refund OP, but the damage the manufacturer reports seems to be the blocker here, and all the debate about dimensions, etc. is moot.

Alderbank

Undervalued said:

Alderbank said:

Okell said:

I suspect the OP's immediate issue is the manufacturer's claim that the fire has been damaged.  I'd like to know if the trader had notified the OP of any damage when he returned it to them and before they passed it back to the manufacturer.

I think the trader has the idea that this is a change of mind return and has some vague idea that they can deduct from the refund if the product has been handled more than necessary.

It is not change of mind.
The OP is not cancelling the contract as per a different piece of consumer law, the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, in which the condition of the returned goods is relevant, which might be what the trader is thinking of.

The goods do not conform to contract.
The OP is exercising his short term right to reject under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The condition of the faulty goods is immaterial. The OP is entitled to a full refund without any deductions or fees (s20, Right to Reject). Indeed, since there are costs for remedial building work involved, he should threaten to claim for those as well (s19) It may be open to a consumer to claim damages...

Surely, even if the goods do not conform to contract, that doesn't give the OP the right to damage them beyond what was reasonably necessary to establish that?

We have other laws about criminal damage, negligence, etc. but the Consumer Rights Act does not give the trader any powers to be judge and jury over the condition of non-compliant goods which the trader supplied. The trader must refund exactly what the consumer paid.That is a risk of doing business.

The Act does point out however that it does not prevent additional legal remedies from being applied.

Okell

How the conversation should have gone:

OP:  "I'm having a media wall built and I want to buy a fire to install into it.  The builder's coming to start work tomorrow so I need to buy a fire"

Salesman:  "I'm sorry sir, I don't quite understand.  You're having a media wall installed and the builder is starting tomorrow, but you haven't bought or even selected a fire yet?"

OP:  "That's right.  Can you recommend anything?"

Salesman:  "Well ideally the fire ought to be installed as an integral part of the wall so that the wall is built around it.  Fitting a fire after the wall has been built could be problematic.  Only some fires can be installed after the wall has been built.  Others have to be incorporated into the build"  [Edited: Sentences in italics added to original post}

OP:  "Oh I didn't ralise that.  I'd better speak to the builder"



How the conversation seems to have gone:

OP:  "I'm having a media wall built and I want to buy a fire to install into it.  The builder's coming to start work tomorrow so I need to buy a fire"

Salesman:  "How about this one?"

OP:  "I like it.  Should it fit ok?"

Salesman:  "I'll give you the dimensions of it so your builder can leave a hole in the wall to fit it into"

OP:  "OK.  I'll buy it"