- This topic has 26 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Re: What is
stratfordgirl wrote:The Sale of Goods Act still applies to second hand goods so the machine must be sold in satisfactory condition, taking account the price paid. So, for example, if the motor brushes wore out, the door hinge broke or the bearings failed within 6 months, the buyer would probably be entitled to a free repair.
No so, the seller is fully entitled to set the terms and conditions of sale, what guarantee if any is implied and the period to which they are covered. So 6 minutes, weeks, months or years? ……The seller decides.
Re: What is “reconditioned” washing machine?
This is a minefield, i believe that there is no case in law to use as a rule of thumb though, and it depends on what an average person would consider being reasonable and will be judged on all the facts available, so each case would be viewed and ruled on differently.
Sent from my iPhone
http://www.kitchenkitsw.comRe: What is
The seller’s terms cannot take away the buyer’s statutory right for the goods to be of satisfactory quality and last for a reasonable length of time, taking into account the age of the item and price paid. Any term which implies otherwise would be considered unfair.
Re: What is “reconditioned” washing machine?
Statfordgirl
That is incorrect if the sellers terms are notified to the buyer BEFORE the date/time the transactional decision is made.
You would be correct however, if the seller came to rely on T&C’s AFTER the buyer committed to purchase if the buyer were unaware of something within the terms and conditions, which at the time of the purchase, would have affected their decision to purchase.
Within the law this is something called the TRANSACTIONAL DATE. This is used specifically in Consumer Protection Law to determine when a contract comes into place and therefore what is unfair and what is not regarding T&C’s.
However none of this is material to the OP’s original question. Please keep this thread on track, if anyone wishes to engage on the rights and wrongs of UK law then please start a suitable thread in the Legal forum.
Best Regards
Jackal
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk
http://www.lofra-uk.co.ukRe: What is
According to the OFT:
“It is important to remember that a guarantee does not replace or limit a customer’s rights. Customers are entitled to raise a problem with you regarding a product for up to six years from the date of purchase (five years from the discovery of a problem in Scotland) regardless of the terms of any guarantee. Customers are entitled to rely on the remedies available to them under law (outlined in this guide) rather than their rights under a guarantee, if they wish.”
Re: What is “reconditioned” washing machine?
My 2 years as lead council for a Trading Standards office was clearly a waste of time and I bow to your superior cut and paste skills. I will stick to the acts of parliament called Law.
So armed with your last definitive post on the subject, I am off to argue the six year rule with Duracell where I will cite you as the definitive source on the subject, which will obviously scare them into submission and as a thank you I will donate 50{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} of the refund to this site.
Jokers the lot if you.
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk
http://www.lofra-uk.co.ukRe: What is
The OFT are very “pro-consumer” I find and often don’t actually explain things all that well or at least, it often appears slanted in the consumer’s favour.
I think you’d have an awfully hard time trying to apply the six year rule to any second hand item as, in effect, that’s what a recon is and the customer is clearly made aware of that. Therefore it is logical to assume that it will not last as long as new item would nor could you “reasonably” expect it to be as durable.
You also couldn’t expect it to be free of any flaw.
What you could “reasonably” expect that it works as advertised.
Anyway, the six year rule isn’t likely to even come into the equation where a recon is concerned IMO. It’s hard enough to prove that under normal circumstances let alone on a rework/recon/re-whatever.
K.
Re: What is
Oh and Jackal was right as usual. 😉
I expect he’s frustrated that you appear to be trying to pick holes in what is actual law, not what the OFT whack up for punters.
K.
Re: What is
K
I am not frustrated at all but I dislike people coming on spouting rubbish they have cut and pasted from a source which is not definitive.
The law is what matters NOT what the OFT suggest, desire to be the case or think. The OFT do not make the law in this land we call the UK, the Government does through acts of Parliament.
If the OFT were the all signing all dancing all authoritative body they think they are, tell me why did they so spectacularly screw up the banking charge fiasco some months ago?
I will tell you why, they think they have power they don’t actually have and are not the body that actually has to prove in a Court of Law that the Law has actually been broken.
I refer you back to the SoG Act 1979 which together with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which are the sole authorities on this subject. The SoG Act 1979 has so many holes in it we, whose day job is to deal with such matters, refer to it as the Colander Law.
Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Section II, Part 14, Sub Section 2A states, and I quote from Hansards
“(2A) For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances”
So if we take into account the description that the goods are NOT new and are in fact Reconditioned, that the price is significantly lower than the brand new equivalent and importantly the other relevant circumstance notified BEFORE the transactional decision is made, i.ee that it only has a 1 month warranty is notified to the Buyer BEFORE the contract is made, then the seller has COMPLIED with the SoG Act in full and there is Jack Manure the OFT, Trading Standards or anyone else can do about it.
Now for case law: Chester Trading Standards v HS (2012). HS successfully argued that having made the Buyer aware in writing prior to the transactional decision being made of the specific limitation of their guarantee on the product they were in compliance with the Sale of Goods Act 1979, more over by providing written details of the sale contract and their warranty prior to the purchase any offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulation 2008 became invalid.
What cannot happen of course is the sale take place THEN the T&C’s come into force. The Buyer must be aware of them first. Equally, if the buyer says the purchase is intended for a specific purpose PRIOR to the sale and the sale then continues, the Seller cannot then get out of any warranty offered at the time of the purchase. So if I go into Argos and say to the sales person I am in need of a fridge for my restaurant and they sell it me without removing the warranty, then it is guaranteed just like one used for a domestic purpose because they knew the purpose it was to be used for. They cannot come back and say we don’t guarantee items used for commercial use etc.
Jackal
Re: What is
Excellent.
Which leads me to two other actual pukka legal ones here…
legal-matters/commercial-domestic-use-t73894.html
And here…
legal-matters/soga-truths-myths-lies-t73895.html
K.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.