Sale of Goods act - burden of proof?
Discussion
I've tried googling this, but can't find anything to answer my question exactly, so was hoping someone here would know the answer.
Say you've purchased an item which fails when it is just under 6 months old. You notify the supplier and return the item to them. They diagnose the failure, refuse to repair it under warranty so you decide to have it repaired elsewhere and claim back the costs of repair from the original supplier.
All this has taken 3 months from when you returned the item to them, so you are now 9 months on from the original purchase date.
According to the Sale of Goods act, if a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty), rather than the consumer proving that the goods were faulty.
Does the 6 months time limit refer to the date of failure, notifying the supplier of the failure or the date of repair/claim? So in the case above, would the burden of proof still be on the retailer to prove the goods were not faulty?
Say you've purchased an item which fails when it is just under 6 months old. You notify the supplier and return the item to them. They diagnose the failure, refuse to repair it under warranty so you decide to have it repaired elsewhere and claim back the costs of repair from the original supplier.
All this has taken 3 months from when you returned the item to them, so you are now 9 months on from the original purchase date.
According to the Sale of Goods act, if a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty), rather than the consumer proving that the goods were faulty.
Does the 6 months time limit refer to the date of failure, notifying the supplier of the failure or the date of repair/claim? So in the case above, would the burden of proof still be on the retailer to prove the goods were not faulty?
The Sale of Goods Act includes a provision for the durability of a product - i.e. it must be fit for purpose...
Google "Currys Taken to the cleaners" someone took them to court and won when their washing machine packed up after 18 months - the judge ruled that it was perfectly reasonable to expect the appliance to last longer than 18 months....
I bought a Triton power shower taht recently packed up after 18months - Triton want more that 50% of the purchase cost for a replacement part
I bought one elsewhere and wrote a strong letter to Homebase, quoting the Sale of Goods Act - needless to say they re-imbursed my out of pocket expenses.
see:
Your rights under the sale of goos act
Google "Currys Taken to the cleaners" someone took them to court and won when their washing machine packed up after 18 months - the judge ruled that it was perfectly reasonable to expect the appliance to last longer than 18 months....
I bought a Triton power shower taht recently packed up after 18months - Triton want more that 50% of the purchase cost for a replacement part
I bought one elsewhere and wrote a strong letter to Homebase, quoting the Sale of Goods Act - needless to say they re-imbursed my out of pocket expenses.see:
Your rights under the sale of goos act
which said:
If a store refuses to take responsibility for a faulty product, currently the only way to seek redress is through legal action, which involves proving the goods are faulty. And this is exactly what Which? reader Brenda Robertshaw did when electrical giant Currys refused to fix her £400 washing machine free of charge, when it broke down after only 18 months and ruined some clothes (see 'Currys taken to the cleaners', Which?, October 1999, p4). Brenda won the cost of repairs, compensation and expenses, totalling £190. The judge ruled that it was reasonable to expect a £400 washing machine to last longer than 18 months. Sadly, though, some stores don't seem to have learned from Currys' ruling.
eta links...Edited by jesusbuiltmycar on Wednesday 10th September 14:23
Being a consumer and a retailer I hope I can see it from both sides.
The only reason I can see why a retailer would refuse to repair or replace goods within a warrantee period is if it had failed due to something other than manufacturing faults - ie customer (mis)use. I think the onus is on the retailer to show (prove) this misuse but they would be within their rights to do so if they felt, and could substantiate this at a later date if required to, misuse was a factor. This is more clear cut for somethings than others - I'm not sure how you could misuse a shower but there could be issues with how it was installed etc.
Obviously a car with a dented door is not a manufacturing fault if it left the dealer intact, however new the car may be.
I would have thought most retailers would be prepared to sort something out if there is the slightest chance it was a fault not misuse. It's easier in the end and they can usually get recompense from thier suppliers too so it doesn't actually hit their profits.
Be aware that your guarantee is always with the retailer not the manufacturer - don't be fobbed off by shops that say " oh you must send it back to Dyson/Zanussi etc (picked for no particular reason), it isn't our problem but you are covered". It is their problem, they must sort it out even if this only means they send it to the mnaufacturer to be repaired/replaced and do the chasing to see when it is ready etc.
The only reason I can see why a retailer would refuse to repair or replace goods within a warrantee period is if it had failed due to something other than manufacturing faults - ie customer (mis)use. I think the onus is on the retailer to show (prove) this misuse but they would be within their rights to do so if they felt, and could substantiate this at a later date if required to, misuse was a factor. This is more clear cut for somethings than others - I'm not sure how you could misuse a shower but there could be issues with how it was installed etc.
Obviously a car with a dented door is not a manufacturing fault if it left the dealer intact, however new the car may be.
I would have thought most retailers would be prepared to sort something out if there is the slightest chance it was a fault not misuse. It's easier in the end and they can usually get recompense from thier suppliers too so it doesn't actually hit their profits.
Be aware that your guarantee is always with the retailer not the manufacturer - don't be fobbed off by shops that say " oh you must send it back to Dyson/Zanussi etc (picked for no particular reason), it isn't our problem but you are covered". It is their problem, they must sort it out even if this only means they send it to the mnaufacturer to be repaired/replaced and do the chasing to see when it is ready etc.
Edited by DKL on Wednesday 10th September 19:38
From Which? website:
"If your claim is about a problem that arises within six months of buying the product, it's up to the retailer to prove that the goods were fit for purpose - or 'as described' - when it sold them. It is also responsible for proving that the problem was caused by you (for example, because you had an accident with the item that damaged it). Beyond six months, it's up to you to prove that the problem was the retailer's.
So you may need to prove that the fault was not down to wear and tear or damage you caused, and that the product (or a component) should have lasted longer than it did. To do this you may need an expert's report, for example from an engineer or mechanic."
Seems to me that the six months rule concerns when the fault arises, although I guess this may be a bit tricky if you notify the retailer outside of the six months?
"If your claim is about a problem that arises within six months of buying the product, it's up to the retailer to prove that the goods were fit for purpose - or 'as described' - when it sold them. It is also responsible for proving that the problem was caused by you (for example, because you had an accident with the item that damaged it). Beyond six months, it's up to you to prove that the problem was the retailer's.
So you may need to prove that the fault was not down to wear and tear or damage you caused, and that the product (or a component) should have lasted longer than it did. To do this you may need an expert's report, for example from an engineer or mechanic."
Seems to me that the six months rule concerns when the fault arises, although I guess this may be a bit tricky if you notify the retailer outside of the six months?
Edited by Mrs Grumpy on Wednesday 10th September 21:32
jesusbuiltmycar said:
The Sale of Goods Act includes a provision for the durability of a product - i.e. it must be fit for purpose...
Google "Currys Taken to the cleaners" someone took them to court and won when their washing machine packed up after 18 months - the judge ruled that it was perfectly reasonable to expect the appliance to last longer than 18 months....
I bought a Triton power shower taht recently packed up after 18months - Triton want more that 50% of the purchase cost for a replacement part I bought one elsewhere and wrote a strong letter to Homebase, quoting the Sale of Goods Act - needless to say they re-imbursed my out of pocket expenses.
see:
Your rights under the sale of goos act
That appears to be a story about my gran... I must inform her that she is being refered to on Pistonheads.Google "Currys Taken to the cleaners" someone took them to court and won when their washing machine packed up after 18 months - the judge ruled that it was perfectly reasonable to expect the appliance to last longer than 18 months....
I bought a Triton power shower taht recently packed up after 18months - Triton want more that 50% of the purchase cost for a replacement part
I bought one elsewhere and wrote a strong letter to Homebase, quoting the Sale of Goods Act - needless to say they re-imbursed my out of pocket expenses.see:
Your rights under the sale of goos act
which said:
If a store refuses to take responsibility for a faulty product, currently the only way to seek redress is through legal action, which involves proving the goods are faulty. And this is exactly what Which? reader Brenda Robertshaw did when electrical giant Currys refused to fix her £400 washing machine free of charge, when it broke down after only 18 months and ruined some clothes (see 'Currys taken to the cleaners', Which?, October 1999, p4). Brenda won the cost of repairs, compensation and expenses, totalling £190. The judge ruled that it was reasonable to expect a £400 washing machine to last longer than 18 months. Sadly, though, some stores don't seem to have learned from Currys' ruling.
eta links...Edited by jesusbuiltmycar on Wednesday 10th September 14:23
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff