Sale of Goods Act & Return to Base Warranty

[SamStones]

Hello,

Following on from the most helpful comments I received on a post I made yesterday in the General Business forum section, I was hoping one of your legal bods can help me get my head around this:

We offer a 12 month Return to Base Warranty on all our products. If the item doesn't work on delivery we cover all costs of getting a replacement sent out. If the item works on delivery then 3 months later breaks down we ask that the buyer send it back to us for repair / replacement (they pay for postage back to us, and we pay for the repair / replacement and the postage of the repaired item going back to them).

What I'm struggling to get my head around is according to the sale of goods act 1979 as per:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54

Paragraph 48A & B:

(2)If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—
(a)repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;
(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

As the item has broken after 3 months, it is within the 6 months where the item can be classed as not having "conformed to contract at the time of delivery" based on the "durability" of the product not having lasted that long....

So who should be paying for the return of the product? and is a Return to Base Warranty not possible / only possible after the 6 month mark etc?

hope this makes sense?

TIA

Sam

 

[kulture]

I think you should pay the postage costs. The buyer should not be out of pocket.

 

[internetspaceships]

That's not always true Kulture.

We offer an RTB warranty and it clearly states on our T and C that return postage to us is borne by the client. All our clients ship back to us at their own expense, and we repair/replace/ship back at our own cost.

 

[SamStones]

That's not always true Kulture.

We offer an RTB warranty and it clearly states on our T and C that return postage to us is borne by the client. All our clients ship back to us at their own expense, and we repair/replace/ship back at our own cost.

This is exactly what we do, but someone has challenged this approach giving the reasons I mentioned above. I was interested to know if what we do is legal?

 

[internetspaceships]

I think there are different rules for B2B and B2C.

 

[kulture]

That's not always true Kulture.

We offer an RTB warranty and it clearly states on our T and C that return postage to us is borne by the client. All our clients ship back to us at their own expense, and we repair/replace/ship back at our own cost.

The sales of goods act is clear. The seller should pay for the postage costs if the goods are deemed faulty or not as described. Now if your clients generously pay this return postage, then that is fine. Their choice.

 

[internetspaceships]

We deal B2B. Aside from any "rules" it's commonly accepted practise (certainly within our industry) that people pay their own return costs.

We have never been questioned on it so I'm not sure that "generosity" comes in to play.

 

[Geoff T]

I think we're all missing something here... if we're talking about a "replacement" that went wrong, then it is possible that a new warranty came into force... assuming the replacement item was "new" for legal purposes...

For the sake of the postage, I'd pay it IMO...

 

[internetspaceships]

Whats the "new" warranty that comes into force mate?

 

[Geoff T]

I think we're all missing something here... if we're talking about a "replacement" that went wrong, then it is possible that a new warranty came into force... assuming the replacement item was "new" for legal purposes...

For the sake of the postage, I'd pay it IMO...

Whats the "new" warranty that comes into force mate?

ok mate - follow me on this (indulge me please)...

item 1 is a new "widget" bought from new... it goes wrong 11 month into a 12mth warranty...

item 1 is returned and replaced under the warranty agreement at your cost - fair enough - and a replacement is sent...

would it not be reasonable to assume that the replacement is also new (as in "off the shelf, from the manufacturer", and therefore covered by the same usage warranty?

Do you see what I'm getting at?...

 

[internetspaceships]

Yeah but no but yeah but no but......

The replacement is only covered for the remaining term of the original warranty

 

[SamStones]

I think we're all missing something here... if we're talking about a "replacement" that went wrong, then it is possible that a new warranty came into force... assuming the replacement item was "new" for legal purposes...

For the sake of the postage, I'd pay it IMO...

No, we're not talking about a replacement that went wrong... we're talking about a brand new item that worked on the day of delivery but developed a fault 3 months down the line.

 

[Geoff T]

Yeah but no but yeah but no but......

The replacement is only covered for the remaining term of the original warranty

but it's a new replacement isn't it?

though I see your point...