[Closed] Can anyone offer advice on the Sale of Goods Act?

Longer than 28 days ownerhip you are not entitled to a refund, the seller has the right to repair or replace (at his discretion)within a reasonable timeframe, again usually deemed to be 28 days.If he cannot repair/replace within a reasonable timefframe you are then entitled to a refund.

Sorry if this isn't what you want to hear, but ti is the law.

TJ to the forum please

Your contract is with the shop, not Suunto - however playing ball with them might be worth your while. I just got a refund for a jacket from Berghaus by sending it back to the manufacturer at the shop's request.

Oh and btw as it is less than 1 yr old it is up to the seller to send to the manufacturer, as said above your contract is with the shop, theirs is with thwe supplier.

Thanks Hustler, the 28 days thing is where I'm confused, I was led to beleive there is no stated time frame.

there isn't a stated time, but this is an 'inferred' period if you speak to trading standards peeps

I have never heard of the 28 day thing nor ever heard it mentioned. Where do you get your info from hustler?

don't mix up warranty at manufacturers discretion and your statutory rights under the sale of goods act.

•

If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

Or go to consumers direct.

I would say you have an absolute right to your money back on this one. Playing ball with the shop might be easier that relying on your statutory rights however - at the end of the line you may have to use the small claims court

TJ isnt what you have quoted basically what i said, and btw YOU DO NOT HAVE AN AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO A REFUND it is a very popular misconception, and as I stated this is an inferred timeframe not an inlaw time which is why sellers can enforce the repair rather than replace option

You do have an right to a refund if there is a manufacturing fault. It is very clear in the law.

But if the goods are faulty, incorrectly described or not fit for purpose, then [b]you are entitled to your money back[/b] (provided you act quickly), and you certainly don't have to take a credit note

The seller cannot enforce repair. Repair / replace / refund is the buyers option - the law is clear.

There are various resaonableness tests but there are no definded time scales

Dunno where you get the 28 days from. Got any sources?

TJ read "REASONABLE TIMESCALE" this gives the seller discretion to interpret as they see fit, you are on a lodeser in this one M*dont argue it.

It is not the sellers discretion. Sorry - you are clearly wrong.

You have a contract. The contract is for the supply of goods in return for payment. The goods must be of

be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).

If the goods do not meet this standard the seller is in breach of contract and you are entitled to damages up to the value of the goods.

To go back to the OP - I would go back to the retailer quoting the relevant parts of the sale of goods act and the government guidance and see what answer the retailer gives you/ You then have to decide if that is reasonable to you or not, if it is not then the small claims court is your answer

If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)

from your own link, as said this gives the retailer discretion, do you not know when to give in................

And how does that give the retailer discretion? That is your mistake. What is reasonable ultimately would be defined by the courts in line with many leagal decisions over the years.

Hustler - sorry - you clearly have this wrong.

Don't you know how to give up when you are wrong?

It gives the retailer discretion to decide on "suitable timescale" they could deem suitable as 1 or 100 days thats called discretion and there customer service is affected in response to this

Another day on STW, another ill informed consumer rights thread.... 😉

TJ - out of interest - how do you have such a knowledge of consumer rights (some of which is correct, some less so)?

Hustler - please inform me where you get this major chance in the law from? Have you got anything to back your assertions?

Boz - from My Mrs who used to make her living doing this and from some reading of the law.

Where am I wrong? genuine interest. You know this stuff - please help.

Fair enough TJ, i was genuinely interested how you knew so much compared to the average STW user. In this thread you are pretty much spot on BTW 🙂

Thank you Boz.

Have to say, it seems the truth lies somewhere between the 2 positions,from TJ's link:

[b]Q2. Do I only have rights for 30 (or some other figure) days after purchase?[/b]
No. Depending on circumstances, you might be too late to have all your money back after this time, but the trader will still be liable for any breaches of contract, such as the goods being faulty. In fact, the trader could be liable to compensate you for up to six years.

[b]Q3. Are all goods supposed to last six (or five) years?[/b]
No, that is the limit for bringing a court case in England and Wales (five years from the time of discovery in Scotland's case). An item only needs to last as long as it is reasonable to expect it to, taking into account all the factors. An oil filter would usually not last longer than a year but that would not mean it was unsatisfactory.

[b]Q4. I know I can demand my money back within a "reasonable time" but how long is that?[/b]
The law does not specify a precise time as it will vary for most sales contracts as all the factors need to be taken into account to be fair to all sides. The pair of everyday shoes may only have a few days before the period expires but a pair of skis, purchased in a Summer Sale, may be allowed a longer period by a court.

[b]Q5. After the "reasonable time" has passed, what can I do?[/b]
You may seek damages, which would be the amount of money necessary to have the goods repaired or replaced. Frequently retailers will themselves offer repair or replacement. But, if you are a consumer (not making the purchase in the course of a business) you have the statutory right to seek a repair or replacement as an alternative to seeking damages.

[b]Q13. What does the "reversed burden of proof" mean for the consumer?[/b]
It means that for the first six months the consumer need not produce any evidence that a product was inherently faulty at the time of sale. If a consumer is seeking any other remedy the burden of proof remains with him/her.
In such a case, the retailer will either accept there was an inherent fault, and will offer a remedy, or he will dispute that it was inherently flawed. If the latter, when he inspects the product to analyse the cause, he may, for example, point out impact damage or stains that would be consistent with it having been mistreated in such a way as to bring about the fault.
[u]This reversal of the usual burden of proof only applies when the consumer is seeking a repair or replacement[/u][b][i](now, to me this seems specifically to exclude full refund ??)[/i][/b]. After the first six months the onus of proof is again on the consumer.

I'm with TJ on this! Stick with the fact that it's unreasonable for a watch to fail after a couple of months, as defined by the 1979 Sale of Goods Act.

All the shop have to do is to return it to their supplier/wholesaler and knock it off the dosh they pay them.

Make a nuisance of yourself if you need to. Insist on a refund and say that you're not leaving without it. It's a civil matter, so neither they nor the police will remove you.

Ask to speak to manager, sales director, senior customer liaison person etc.etc. Ask why they're messing you about and trying to cover up the sale of a clearly faulty item by just fobbing you off! Don't take no for an answer!!

If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back

The issue here is proving the fault was there at the time of sale. As I believe it, within 28 days the store has to prove it wasn't there, after 28 days you have to prove the fault was there.
I think this is where the confusion lies, as if a fault develops AFTER the time of sale, you are not entitled to a refund (but may be offered one)....

DrP

Dr P - that proviso is there but its 6 months not 28 days

OK, but the OP will still have to convince the store the fault was there when he bought the watch, which given the timings in the original post seems unlikely (bought in Sep, first fault 10 days ago....)

Ergo, full refund seeming unlikely...

DrP

Thankyou scardypants that pretty much supports everything i said

Thankyou scardypants that pretty much supports everything i said

So, how does the buyer convince the store that the item was faulty when it was bought?

The expected fault-free lifetime of a watch is considerably longer than a couple of months, probably between 2 and 5 years. They've sold you a duff one and should just admit it and refund you. Insist on this.

OH and btw Mr TJ my knowledge comes form having worked in retail as salesperson/manager and buisness owner for over 20 years, so am pretty sure of my facts here

Dr p - reversed burdon of proof applies for 6 months - so if the item is les than 6 months old it is up to the retailer to prove it was not faulty at the point of sale.

Hustler - shame like many retailers you have it wrong. Retailers routinly try to wriggle out of their obligations. The law is burdonsome on a retailer but that is waht the law is.

How you can reach thw conclusions you do from the data supplied is very odd.

My Mrs from who I got much of the data spent years fighting these sorts of cases and winning most of them

sorry old chap - you simply are wrong.

TJ reread point 1 of scardys post above you really are over arrogant AND WRONG!!

Yes - this is the guidence from the sirte I linked to

Q2. Do I only have rights for 30 (or some other figure) days after purchase?
[b]No.[/b] Depending on circumstances, you might be too late to have [b]all[/b] your money back after this time, but the [b]trader[/b] will still be liable for any breaches of contract, such as the goods[b] being faulty[/b]. In fact, the trader [b]could be liable to compensate you for up to six years.[/b]

How that means that you only have 28 days to claim a refund in and that the retailer has the discretion I do not know
That point directly contradicts what you claim.

TJ the imprtant word that you seem not to want to read is DISCRETION as I posted some retailers discretion will say its onlt 1 day, others might say 364, its down to the type of goods being sold and the interpretation of the law by the retailer. Until someone stands their ground and brings a test case to the courts the retailers can do what they want.
I am in no way saying this is a good thing and in my industry customer service has to go way beyond these minimums, but that word discretion means the reailer does not have to adhere to any set timescale.

Where does it say the retailer has discretion in the way you say they do?

There have been plenty of test cases

<bangs TJ's and Hustler's heads together> 😉

I read it like this:
(I am not a lawyer)

If you're within a reasonable (undefined, somewhat arbitrary) time, you can ask for a full refund (presumably on grounds of unsuitability for use due to inherent defect). I guess if you and the retailer disagree over "reasonable" it could be time for a small claims or other legal process.

If you're outside this undefined 😯 period you can still expect some redress either on grounds of reasonably anticipated durability OR inherent fault that took longer to manifest itself. If you're within 6mo of buying and you suggest an inherent fault, the retailer (possibly via manufacturer/distributor) surely has the opportunity to examine the goods for evidence of damage/misuse. That doesn't imply immediate redress to me. I would expect that a retailer might also argue that you've had some use of the product and that a full refund is excessive. You can expect to claim damages if necessary or can ask seller to repair/replace (seems they can choose which of these if one is "disproportionately costly", regardless of your preference).

There's more crap in there about remedy being "without significant inconvenience" to you and "within a reasonable time" but again these aren't defined

Thing is, that link is just a summary rather than any actual law - regardless, both TJ and hustler seem to be interpreting these from either end of a spectrum, hence the argument

would hustler like to tell us where he works so we can all avoid

Not that I like to agree with TJ [i]too[/i] often, but [b]hustler[/b], can you please show where it says it's the retailer who has the choice in terms of the discrationary period?

what you are entitled too and get from any retailer are not alawys the same thing.
"you might be too late to get all your money back...."
the retailer will exercise their discretion to decide on a reasonable time scale based on how hard you fight and whether they think if it goes to court the'll win.
up to the point a judge decides on a reasonable time scale for any particlular case its the retailers decision that will count.
from my experience, 1 fault at 3 months old, a judge would say the retailer/maunufacturer should be allowed to repair or replace as they see fit. howerver if they are unable to repair/replace you would get a refund.

As regards a replacement, I'd refuse and ask for a refund - wouldn't want to deal with any retailer that has messed me about like this and as a result, has lost my confidence. Imagine what would happen if the replacement packed up after four months!

Refund - you want it; insist on it!!

Thank you every one for your advice, much appreciated, I hope this will be resolved some time this week - god knows what they are doing with it at the moment.

If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)

taken from the sale of goods act directly the word reasonable is open to vinterpretation.............

I used to write for a consumer mag, and one of the constants was the utter ignorance or misrepresentation of the SGA by some retailers.

Don't get advice on your rights as a consumer from a retailer (or an interweb forum, for that matter) - go and get it from the BERR site, or Consumer Direct.

I took a look at the Consumer Direct website, thank you. If I'm honest returning the watch after 2.5 months of use after a fault with one of the main features is a reasonable amount of time. It comes with a 2 year warrany for goodness sake.

LeeW - too bloody right. A retailer acting like that is, frankly, taking the mick, assuming there aren't any other factors...

There're no other factors Bent_udder, I emailed them earlier this morning asking what the situation was, no reply. So I got all the information together of what happened and emailed direct to the website owner, outlining my position and theirs (Don't do refunds because they don't sell used equipment!) I included the relevant paragraph and web link to the Consumer Direct website. Again asking for a refund. 10 minutes later I got a reply stating they were going to get it back to me after they have assessed the problem!!

They're taking the mick.

Two points:-
1, Inherent defect if it breaks within the time frame you describe it must be faulty at time of sale so shop in breach of their contract with you so full refund to you .
2, Fitness for purpose, if it breaks in that time frame in circumstaces other than catastophic accident then it was nevr the posh watch they said so not fit for purpose shop in breach of sales of goods act you get full refund from shop . Shop uses contract law and sales of goods act to case manufacturer to recover their loss.
The Hustler takes a hustlers view of resonable time, the shop keeper dictates reasonable time with as much authority as a mugger choses how much to take from your wallet.
My qualification i got a first prize in a consumer law competition as a law student.

was the utter ignorance or misrepresentation of the SGA by some retailers.

My younger daughter is an administrator at BHS and the amount of shite that they are told is staggering!

In a nutshell, here's my interpretation:-

Any buying or selling is a form of contract.

On one side, we have the 'known and certain entity' of (say) £50. More than £49.99, less than £50.01. No variation and the fact that it's ten used or brand new fivers, it doesn't matter. Always worth exactly fifty quid.

On the other side, we have the supply of service or goods, not necessarily known or certain. Poor product or poor service means that it may not be worth the amount of your known and certain £50. If so, within the terms of the 1979 Act (which exists for this purpose), you have a right to cancel the contract, reject the item/service and either re-negotiate a price (usually for services supplied) or get your money back for goods supplied.

Ask them this - had they told you that there was a chance that the watch would pack up after less than 3 months and then asked you if you still wanted it for what you paid, do they think that you would have agreed?

They are messing you about, not because they'll lose the value of the item (see my first post - they'll just return to supplier), but because they'll lose their profit / mark-up on the item.

Keep on top of these twunts!

.....oh, and FWIW, I'm Practice Manager at two law firms in outer London.

They owe you a new watch.....

... or your money back - it's your choice!

OMG after all this tooing and froing am I reading right that you bought this off the net?

If so none of the above may apply as the website may not be UK registered.............

OMG after all this tooing and froing am I reading right that you bought this off the net?

If so none of the above may apply as the website may not be UK registered.............

If so, may be a whole new ball game.

If the Internet seller is UK based, you'd have the same rights as if you'd have bought it in a shop but if he's a private seller or based abroad, you'll have an uphill struggle.

If eBay, lodge a dispute with PayPal, assuming that is how you paid for it.

It's a UK company, based in Nantwich I think, paid by card.

Got a full refund this afternoon, Their 'fanatical service' shone through.

Thanks again for the advice. 😀

That's 'fanatical' as in 'suicidal' non? 😀

Great to hear there is a happy ending to all this.