Goods/items that aren't fit for purpose - Legal question
Discussion
I was discussing this with the OH's Mum today as I remembered something about warranties and goods that are "fit for purpose" (or aren't). I remember reading something on PH or elsewhere that suggested that a manufacturer's 12 month warranty isn't always binding:
Example:
A £20 cheap "dust buster" that expired after 12 months will (may) have cheaper components that suggests a "12 month" lifetime.
A £500 Zanussi washing machine that has a major component (not a belt) failure after 18 months might be classed as not being fit for purpose and therefore the manufacturer would be liable.
I'm sure I saw something under the Trade Descriptions or Sale of Goods act that covers this - or am I way off the mark with my understanding of this?
(No 'tard jokes please!)
Example:
A £20 cheap "dust buster" that expired after 12 months will (may) have cheaper components that suggests a "12 month" lifetime.
A £500 Zanussi washing machine that has a major component (not a belt) failure after 18 months might be classed as not being fit for purpose and therefore the manufacturer would be liable.
I'm sure I saw something under the Trade Descriptions or Sale of Goods act that covers this - or am I way off the mark with my understanding of this?
(No 'tard jokes please!)
A little knowledge is sometimes a bad thing... 
Seriously though, delete those thoughts as they are mixed up. Fit for purpose is exactly that. A raincoat which isn't water resistant for example.
The relevant part of the sale of goods act is that an item must be 'durable'. Contrary to popular belief or what many retailers will tell you, this period is not 12 months. It is simply a reasonable amount of time.
Going back to an example, a £3 digital watch may be deemed durable if it lasts a year. If a Rolex packed up after 13 months, or even 30 months for that matter, you could well argue that it is not. In that situation, your contract is with the retailer, who must repair, replace or (at least partially) refund.
Seriously though, delete those thoughts as they are mixed up. Fit for purpose is exactly that. A raincoat which isn't water resistant for example.
The relevant part of the sale of goods act is that an item must be 'durable'. Contrary to popular belief or what many retailers will tell you, this period is not 12 months. It is simply a reasonable amount of time.
Going back to an example, a £3 digital watch may be deemed durable if it lasts a year. If a Rolex packed up after 13 months, or even 30 months for that matter, you could well argue that it is not. In that situation, your contract is with the retailer, who must repair, replace or (at least partially) refund.
JustinP1 said:
A little knowledge is sometimes a bad thing...
Seriously though, delete those thoughts as they are mixed up. Fit for purpose is exactly that. A raincoat which isn't water resistant for example.
The relevant part of the sale of goods act is that an item must be 'durable'. Contrary to popular belief or what many retailers will tell you, this period is not 12 months. It is simply a reasonable amount of time.
Going back to an example, a £3 digital watch may be deemed durable if it lasts a year. If a Rolex packed up after 13 months, or even 30 months for that matter, you could well argue that it is not. In that situation, your contract is with the retailer, who must repair, replace or (at least partially) refund.
Thanks - that makes some sense... I think Seriously though, delete those thoughts as they are mixed up. Fit for purpose is exactly that. A raincoat which isn't water resistant for example.
The relevant part of the sale of goods act is that an item must be 'durable'. Contrary to popular belief or what many retailers will tell you, this period is not 12 months. It is simply a reasonable amount of time.
Going back to an example, a £3 digital watch may be deemed durable if it lasts a year. If a Rolex packed up after 13 months, or even 30 months for that matter, you could well argue that it is not. In that situation, your contract is with the retailer, who must repair, replace or (at least partially) refund.
But what if the retailer won't even debate this?
james_tigerwoods said:
JustinP1 said:
A little knowledge is sometimes a bad thing...
Seriously though, delete those thoughts as they are mixed up. Fit for purpose is exactly that. A raincoat which isn't water resistant for example.
The relevant part of the sale of goods act is that an item must be 'durable'. Contrary to popular belief or what many retailers will tell you, this period is not 12 months. It is simply a reasonable amount of time.
Going back to an example, a £3 digital watch may be deemed durable if it lasts a year. If a Rolex packed up after 13 months, or even 30 months for that matter, you could well argue that it is not. In that situation, your contract is with the retailer, who must repair, replace or (at least partially) refund.
Thanks - that makes some sense... I think Seriously though, delete those thoughts as they are mixed up. Fit for purpose is exactly that. A raincoat which isn't water resistant for example.
The relevant part of the sale of goods act is that an item must be 'durable'. Contrary to popular belief or what many retailers will tell you, this period is not 12 months. It is simply a reasonable amount of time.
Going back to an example, a £3 digital watch may be deemed durable if it lasts a year. If a Rolex packed up after 13 months, or even 30 months for that matter, you could well argue that it is not. In that situation, your contract is with the retailer, who must repair, replace or (at least partially) refund.
But what if the retailer won't even debate this?
When this happened to me I threatened the retailer with a Money Claim (see https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/csmco2/index.jsp) and he coughed up. It was only £55, though.
IIRC the law was changed a while ago.
Previously the retailer had to offer a 1 year warranty (for non-perishables).
Now, the retailer has to give a 6 year warranty.
For the first six months of that warranty, if the retailer wishes to dispute a warranty claim, then the retailer must prove that the defect was not present at the time of sale.
From six months to six years, to claim under warranty, the onus is on the customer to prove that the defect WAS present at the time of sale.
The ususal caveat applies to this internet advice. I am just a bloke on the internet and in no way qualified to give this advice.
Previously the retailer had to offer a 1 year warranty (for non-perishables).
Now, the retailer has to give a 6 year warranty.
For the first six months of that warranty, if the retailer wishes to dispute a warranty claim, then the retailer must prove that the defect was not present at the time of sale.
From six months to six years, to claim under warranty, the onus is on the customer to prove that the defect WAS present at the time of sale.
The ususal caveat applies to this internet advice. I am just a bloke on the internet and in no way qualified to give this advice.
I have no idea where this six year warranty myth comes from or why 'just a bloke on the internet' wants to give it out and help perpetuate it when a quick google will show it as being nonsense.
I feel sorry for people who work in retail, all they get is people at the counter being angry saying "I know my statutory rights" when actually they haven't a clue.
The 'six year' thing is the amount of time you can make a claim for a faulty product, which is provided by the Sales of Goods Act. It states that goods must last a 'reasonable time', but obviously this is dependent on the type of goods, price, etc. It is not a guarantee or a warranty and there is specific provision within that Act for wear and tear, which all goods are subjected to.
Generally speaking you have to prove that the fault was present when you purchased it or that they were not of good quality/being misdescribed in the first place.
Edit: and the 12-month manufacturer-provided warranty is goodwill, not mandatory.
I feel sorry for people who work in retail, all they get is people at the counter being angry saying "I know my statutory rights" when actually they haven't a clue.
The 'six year' thing is the amount of time you can make a claim for a faulty product, which is provided by the Sales of Goods Act. It states that goods must last a 'reasonable time', but obviously this is dependent on the type of goods, price, etc. It is not a guarantee or a warranty and there is specific provision within that Act for wear and tear, which all goods are subjected to.
Generally speaking you have to prove that the fault was present when you purchased it or that they were not of good quality/being misdescribed in the first place.
Edit: and the 12-month manufacturer-provided warranty is goodwill, not mandatory.
Edited by LongLiveTazio on Wednesday 2nd September 15:28
mikeveal said:
IIRC the law was changed a while ago.
Previously the retailer had to offer a 1 year warranty (for non-perishables).
Now, the retailer has to give a 6 year warranty.
For the first six months of that warranty, if the retailer wishes to dispute a warranty claim, then the retailer must prove that the defect was not present at the time of sale.
From six months to six years, to claim under warranty, the onus is on the customer to prove that the defect WAS present at the time of sale.
The ususal caveat applies to this internet advice. I am just a bloke on the internet and in no way qualified to give this advice.
Half right!Previously the retailer had to offer a 1 year warranty (for non-perishables).
Now, the retailer has to give a 6 year warranty.
For the first six months of that warranty, if the retailer wishes to dispute a warranty claim, then the retailer must prove that the defect was not present at the time of sale.
From six months to six years, to claim under warranty, the onus is on the customer to prove that the defect WAS present at the time of sale.
The ususal caveat applies to this internet advice. I am just a bloke on the internet and in no way qualified to give this advice.
There is nothing in law that says that anyone has to give a six year warranty. The six years relates to the time limit to bring a claim under the Sale of Goods Act.
Where someone offers a warranty this is always in addition to your statutory rights.
JustinP1 said:
mikeveal said:
IIRC the law was changed a while ago.
Previously the retailer had to offer a 1 year warranty (for non-perishables).
Now, the retailer has to give a 6 year warranty.
For the first six months of that warranty, if the retailer wishes to dispute a warranty claim, then the retailer must prove that the defect was not present at the time of sale.
From six months to six years, to claim under warranty, the onus is on the customer to prove that the defect WAS present at the time of sale.
The ususal caveat applies to this internet advice. I am just a bloke on the internet and in no way qualified to give this advice.
Half right!Previously the retailer had to offer a 1 year warranty (for non-perishables).
Now, the retailer has to give a 6 year warranty.
For the first six months of that warranty, if the retailer wishes to dispute a warranty claim, then the retailer must prove that the defect was not present at the time of sale.
From six months to six years, to claim under warranty, the onus is on the customer to prove that the defect WAS present at the time of sale.
The ususal caveat applies to this internet advice. I am just a bloke on the internet and in no way qualified to give this advice.
There is nothing in law that says that anyone has to give a six year warranty. The six years relates to the time limit to bring a claim under the Sale of Goods Act.
Where someone offers a warranty this is always in addition to your statutory rights.
http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/move/64/...
Page 7 said:
The fact is that a two year guarantee applies for the sale of all consumer goods everywhere in the EU (Directive 1999/44/EC). In some countries, this may be more, and some manufacturers also choose to offer a longer warranty period.
Teppic said:
JustinP1 said:
mikeveal said:
IIRC the law was changed a while ago.
Previously the retailer had to offer a 1 year warranty (for non-perishables).
Now, the retailer has to give a 6 year warranty.
For the first six months of that warranty, if the retailer wishes to dispute a warranty claim, then the retailer must prove that the defect was not present at the time of sale.
From six months to six years, to claim under warranty, the onus is on the customer to prove that the defect WAS present at the time of sale.
The ususal caveat applies to this internet advice. I am just a bloke on the internet and in no way qualified to give this advice.
Half right!Previously the retailer had to offer a 1 year warranty (for non-perishables).
Now, the retailer has to give a 6 year warranty.
For the first six months of that warranty, if the retailer wishes to dispute a warranty claim, then the retailer must prove that the defect was not present at the time of sale.
From six months to six years, to claim under warranty, the onus is on the customer to prove that the defect WAS present at the time of sale.
The ususal caveat applies to this internet advice. I am just a bloke on the internet and in no way qualified to give this advice.
There is nothing in law that says that anyone has to give a six year warranty. The six years relates to the time limit to bring a claim under the Sale of Goods Act.
Where someone offers a warranty this is always in addition to your statutory rights.
http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/move/64/...
Page 7 said:
The fact is that a two year guarantee applies for the sale of all consumer goods everywhere in the EU (Directive 1999/44/EC). In some countries, this may be more, and some manufacturers also choose to offer a longer warranty period.
That pamphlet is actually a bit misleading. The actual directive is this:
"The seller is liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists when the goods are delivered to the consumer and which becomes apparent within a period of two years unless, at the moment of conclusion of the contract of sale, the consumer knew or could not reasonably be unaware of the lack of conformity."
There may be a two year period, but only for goods where the goods are inherently faulty at the time of sale. The consumer will still have to prove this.
In the UK our law is rather more stringent where in addition to that, the first six months the onus is on the seller to prove that the fault was not there at the point of sale.
This EU rule does NOT equate to a 2 year guarantee in the way you might presume which has caused a lot of misunderstanding.
In the UK, on the same basis a 6 year 'guarantee' is offered in law - but the consumer must prove the fault was inherent.
Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 2nd September 19:20
Goods/items that aren't fit for purpose.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again 'Spreadable Butter, spreads straight from the fridge'. If I had a want to contact trading standards and take them to court, I could have all the so-called 'Spreadable Butter' brands removed from the market place.
Perhaps I should contact the main manufacturers threatening to do so? they might pay me millions not to state the bleedin' obvious.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again 'Spreadable Butter, spreads straight from the fridge'. If I had a want to contact trading standards and take them to court, I could have all the so-called 'Spreadable Butter' brands removed from the market place.
Perhaps I should contact the main manufacturers threatening to do so? they might pay me millions not to state the bleedin' obvious.
Balmoral Green said:
Goods/items that aren't fit for purpose.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again 'Spreadable Butter, spreads straight from the fridge'. If I had a want to contact trading standards and take them to court, I could have all the so-called 'Spreadable Butter' brands removed from the market place.
Perhaps I should contact the main manufacturers threatening to do so? they might pay me millions not to state the bleedin' obvious.
Depends which fridge they mean!I've said it before, and I'll say it again 'Spreadable Butter, spreads straight from the fridge'. If I had a want to contact trading standards and take them to court, I could have all the so-called 'Spreadable Butter' brands removed from the market place.
Perhaps I should contact the main manufacturers threatening to do so? they might pay me millions not to state the bleedin' obvious.
The PBMA - Pretend Butter Marketing Authority have a standard fridge definition that is at 17-20 degrees C.
What do they define spreading as - the ability to chip bits off and sow the splinters on the bread.
Could spreadable apply only to hot toast?
Weasel-word advertisers have get-outs all over the place - but not as many try-ons as second-hand car dealers!
Russ
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff