First time to be sued ! 8-(

[flutterbye]

Hi

I wonder if anyone can help me here? I'm really getting very stressed about this and can't stop thinking about it.

My tiny company that I run part time sold an item for about £70 to someone. Nearly two months later, the person sent me an email saying it had broken on its second use. It was quite forceful and demanded an immediate refund.

Within just a few hours of emailing me before I could respond she'd already contacted Paypal to claim from them. They, it would seem didn't want to know, - they asked me to try to resolve the issue which I would do so anyway but they didn't want to be kept in the loop.

I responded initially to this customer trying to establish what had happened and that if it was faulty we would replace it at our expense.

On day 2, those initial questions were answered but with the person stating that they had rejected the goods and wanted a full refund otherwise they would sue.

One day 3 when I asked a couple of follow up questions, the response was a copy of a formal letter to be posted registered delivery which was very formal and quoted different sections of the sales of goods act. She sounded like a solicitor. She gave a timescale of 8 days from receipt of the letter otherwise legal action would commence.

Over the years I've sold a few hundred of these and never had anyone threaten court and so quickly too! Its really been quite stressful and I don't think I could bring myself to stand in a courtroom.

That said, if I'm clearly in the wrong legally, I would happily settle in full right now - the amount isn't worth it but I don't want to be bullied if I'm in the right.

 

[Ste Hughes]

Do you have a returns policy?

After 30 days any warranty issue should be taken up with the manufacturer of the item not the retailer. You should have this outlined in your terms and conditions.

It sounds like your customer is being very unreasonable and they are just trying to cause trouble.

 

[deniser]

The customer has no right to reject the goods once they have been used.

You have the right to offer a replacement, repair or refund, they can't choose.

Call Trading Standards, get them to confirm, then write back to customer with the call ref number and tell them what you agree to offer.

 

[Deleted member 226268]

I have some time ago been in a similar situation to you.

Don't allow yourself to become wound up about this.

If it is a genuine fault, then that is the manufacturer's responsibility,
not yours.
Ask the buyer to send the item back, and tell them that you will have a look at it to see if it is worth you replacing it.

She sounded like a solicitor.
This is bullshit, a solicitor would not do this.
They are trying to frighten you into giving them an instant cash refund, and probably also hoping to keep the "faulty" goods.

If they don't send the item back, and they continue threatening legal action, send an email back to them, saying OK - take me to court.

You will never hear from them again.
It will cost them more than the £ 70 is worth in time and effort to pursue the claim, and they don't actually have any genuine claim against you.
.

 

[deniser]

It's not the manufacturer's responsibility as far as the customer is concerned. It is generally the retailer's responsibility for the first six months after purchase so the customer is fully justified in making a complaint.

But:
1. you can ask the customer to return the goods so you have a chance to inspect them and
2. the customer does not have an automatic right of refund
3. the retailer can choose whether to refund, repair or replace once the goods have been used.

What the retailer should do is pass the matter on to its own supplier so when the broken item comes back, ask the supplier to refund, replace or repair it. But the customer is not expected to deal directly with the manufacturer in the first six months.

If the customer refuses to return the goods for inspection when requested then they have no case.

 

[kulture]

The contract is between the retailer and the customer. It has nothing to do with the manufacturer and any advice that says otherwise is wrong. The retailer has to offer to repair, or replace or refund. The refund can be reduced by a reasonable amount based on the use the customer has had. The retailer does not have to refund if they choose to replace or repair. It is the retailer's decision.

The customer's right to cancel the contract and demand a refund has long expired. The retailer may suggest that the customer uses the manufacturer's warranty and the customer may choose to do so, BUT the customer may also choose not to do so and insist the retailer does all the work.

If a fault appears in the first 6 months then the burden of proof that it is not a manufacturing fault falls on the retailer. Outside 6 months then it switches to the customer.

So in this case, you need to demand the return of the item so you can inspect it to best determine what to do. Say you cannot do anything before the item is returned. If it is a large or heavy item, then you would be expected to arrange for it to be picked up.

 

[SamStones]

As others have said, don't panic about this. Due to the likes of 'whic'h and money saving expert there's loads of 'DIY lawyers' out there who think that downloading a form letter from a website and forwarding it onto you means an instant refund. It doesn't.

Stick to your guns, ask for the item to be returned and advise them to take it from there.

Deniser's advice about making a call to trading standards is a good one of you are unsure, get the call reference number and pass it onto the customer then you have 'proof' on your side and it gives a bit of weight to what you're saying.

We get probably one of these cases a fortnight. Invariably their uncle, brother, mother or cat is a lawyer and says we should do this or that etc. If they threaten trading standards on the first email I actually completely ignore that part of the email, as a first contact it's not worth discussing. I just deal with the facts of the problem and ignore the threats. If they start threatening trading standards in later emails I simply ask them to feel free to check with trading standards and then come back to us. Of course we never hear back from them on that particular subject- the item usually just turns up back at our warehouse.
If they indicate they have already spoken to trading standards and have been advised X, I ask them for their call reference number so I can speak to trading standards to clarify it. I don't think I've once been given a call reference number.

Please don't take this to mean that we're being mean or rude to customers or acting in an illegal manor, we just have to deal with the facts inside the requirents of the law. What makes the difference is knowing what your rights are either way. Time, experience and research will be what teaches you this.

 

[JohnKH1971]

Reading some of the above response, I have to say that I am - to put it mildly - shocked and bemused at the degree of ignorance.

If you are selling goods then I would suggest that you really ought to familiarise yourself with the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

Where on earth does 'Ste Hughes' get the idea that, after 30 days a consumer's contract with the retailer and their statutory rights somehow shift from from the retailer (with whom the consumer contracted with) to the manufacturer?

- I WOULD BE EXTREMELY INTERESTED IN THE SOURCE OF THAT NUGGET.

And as for 'Deniser' - NO RIGHT TO REJECT ONCE THE GOODS HAVE BEEN USED?

WHAT.ON.EARTH??

- AGAIN - PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE PROVIDE THE SOURCE OF THAT PIECE OF MISINFORMATION!

I would encourage you all to get to grips with the SGA 1979: and I would suggest a close reading of Section 48A.

Section 48A of the Act applies if the buyer is dealing as a consumer and the goods in question do not conform (e.g. satisfactory quality - s.14) AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY.

Now - I'm sure those from the deniser camp will suddenly scream 'AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY, Chump!'

Go - ahead... scream it at me...

Scream it at me, because I will point you to Section 48A(3) - 'at the time of delivery' actually means ANY TIME WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DELIVERY!

Moreover, there is a statutory assumption that any goods going faulty within the first 6 months were faulty at delivery.

Per Section 48A(4) of the Act - the retailer has the burden of proving that the goods were NOT faulty at the time of delivery... so as I say, for the first 6 months - the consumer just has to say to the retailer 'YOU PROVE THAT IT WASN'T FAULTY'.

There is, of course, another practical exception - and that it where the nature of the goods or the nature of the defect renders it a nonsense - for example, purchasing a perishable item that only has a shelf life of 3 days or something similar.

By Section 48A(2) of the Act - the consumer can either require the seller to repair or reduce the price - or replace - or can ask for a refund.

That should lead you into consideration of Section 48B of the Act: any repair has to be in a reasonable time and must not cause 'significant inconvenience' for the consumer (the nature of the goods will be relevant there) - and the cost of repair/replacement (including postage, materials and labour) falls to the seller.

If a refund has been requested after a period of time - then you should turn to Section 48C of the Act. Per Section 48C(3) of the Act, the seller can reduce the amount of money returned to the consumer by a sum to take into account the use that the consumer had of the product over the period of time that they had the goods.

As I said - some of the response here demonstrate a worrying lack of awareness of the law governing your trade! Unless I am misinformed and STE HUGHES and DENISER et al can put me right

 

[deniser]

@JohnKH1971 I don't have access to the legislation right at this moment but will read when I lay my hands on it but here, from the Which website which is exactly the same as the official advice issued by Trading Standards - note:
1. the short time period during which the consumer has the right to "reject" the goods and
2. what the retailer has to do when goods are faulty

"Returning faulty goods
If you buy a product that turns out to be faulty, you can choose to reject it which means you can give it back and get a refund.

But, the law only gives you a reasonable time to do this – what's reasonable depends on the product and how obvious the fault is.

However, even with major purchases or complex items, it’s safest to work on the basis you usually have no more than three to four weeks from when you receive it to reject it.

Getting faulty goods replaced or repaired
You have the right to get faulty goods replaced or repaired if it's too late to reject them. You can ask the retailer to do either, but they can normally choose to do whatever would be cheapest.

Under the Sale of Goods Act, the retailer must either repair or replace faulty goods 'within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience'.

If the seller doesn't do this, you're entitled to claim either:

• a reduction on the purchase price, or
• your money back, minus an amount for the usage you've had of the goods (called recision)

If the retailer refuses to repair the goods, and they won't replace them either, you may have the right to arrange for someone else to repair your item, and then claim compensation from the retailer for the cost of doing this."

In the Op's case, the consumer has "accepted" the goods as they were not faulty on purchase and were successfully used at least once. Furthermore it is two months since the sale took place. The goods became faulty subsequently so are not fit for purpose and the retailer has to replace, repair or refund. The consumer does not have an automatic right to refund.

 

[JohnKH1971]

Thank you Deniser - hmmm... I see. None of what you have taken from the various sources conflicts with what I've written, save that they can request (impossible to repair/disproportionate cost) rescission - terrminate the contract and get reimbursed. I

In the main, however, it seems that we are down to a question of semantics - important as the semantics are (I agree), the net result of section 48A,48B and 48C is the same as 'rejection' in the ordinary sense of the word. It is, to all intents and purposes, section with a refund less a portion for the use the purchaser has had. Outright rejection would carry a full refund.

I maintain that the buyer does, however, have an automatic right to refund less a degree of usage unless the seller can prove they were not faulty. The cost of the good suggests repair costs would probably be disproportionate - and, of course, there is the inconvenience aspect.

In my humble opinion: best bet is to suck it up and refund.

 

[JohnKH1971]

I should also add, the fact that the goods worked on day 1 does not mean that they were not faulty.

To begin with, it could be an inherent defect.

Moreover, I would suggest that a lack of durability rendering the goods defective is - to all intents and purposes - a day 1 fault, unless you can show that they were suitably durable at day 1.

 

[kelvin1950]

Thank you Deniser - hmmm... I see. None of what you have taken from the various sources conflicts with what I've written, save that they can request

None of it conflicts with what Deniser said originally either........before you started shouting the odds and accusing people of not having a clue as to what they were talking about.

IMO, you really ought to read the posts more carefully before getting your soapbox out.

 

[kulture]

John, you are wrong. The consumer looses the right to reject the goods and thus get a full refund after they are deemed to have accepted it. So after two months and some use, it is normally deemed to be accepted and it is down to the retailer to repair, replace or if the retailer cannot do this promptly, refund. There is no longer an automatic right to refund. So I completely disagree with your statement that "best bet is to suck it up and refund." For any retail business, whilst it MAY be good customer service to refund, it might also be a good business decision to stick to the law and repair or replace. Always depending on circumstances.

 

[kulture]

Everyone should note that the retailer's responsibility can be up to SIX YEARS, and not just six months. Although generally after six months it is harder for the consumer to claim it is a manufacturing fault.

 

[JohnKH1971]

Everyone should note that the retailer's responsibility can be up to SIX YEARS, and not just six months. Although generally after six months it is harder for the consumer to claim it is a manufacturing fault.

Just to clarify - by writing about and referring to the first six months - I am talking about the burden of proof: the fact that there is an automatic assumption that the goods were faulty.

SO let me just get that out of the way first.

As for being 'wrong'; I think you've failed to grasp what I am saying about the law.

Rescission, rejection - the net effect is the same: the buyer sends the goods back.

As I said - semantics (although again, as I said, the semantics are important).

On the facts of this case - or the facts that have been given - I maintain that the best bet - the commercially sensible things to do - is to suck it up and refund the buyer.

You are ignoring some crucial aspects of the law and the instances here: firstly - the goods are valued at £70 to the consumer.

The cost to the retailer is going to be (probably) considerably less than that. Will repair be a sensible option? - based on the fact that the cost of repair has to be a 'proportionate' option.

So the seller could - theoretically replace the goods... Commercially sensible? DO you really want to give a dissatisfied customer who is clearly out for a refund the opportunity of just finding more fault with a replacement - ultimately/potentially resulting in more of a cost to you - financially and emotionally?

And perhaps the most important point that you are all ignoring - repair/replacement are options providing it will not cause 'significant inconvenience' - EVEN IF REPAIR/REPLACEMENT CAN BE DELIVERED IN A REASONABLE TIME.

Now the OP doesn't tell us the nature of the goods - the purpose for what they were purchased for.... but there is enough in the law to tell me that a determined dissatisfied customer can rescind (and as a commercial resolution - a seller would be sensible to accept the route) - effectively reject - and get a refund (less reasonable use).

Remember also - as a commercial settlement - it involves no acceptance of liability and it serves to protect the reputation of your business.

You really do need to get a grip on what the SGA 1979 provides for consumers!

 

[JohnKH1971]

None of it conflicts with what Deniser said originally either........before you started shouting the odds and accusing people of not having a clue as to what they were talking about.

IMO, you really ought to read the posts more carefully before getting your soapbox out.

You're right, it doesn't - and I accepted that: but it does boil down to semantics and the net effect of rescission - which sees the consumer returning the goods and getting (some of) their money back.

Read more carefully or maybe explain more fully what the law says - either way, I'll take the slap on the wrist.

EDIT:

In actual fact - Deniser IS wrong in SOME of what she says: the SELLER does not get to choose - it is the BUYER who is entitled to '...require the seller to repair or replace'.

See s.48A(2) SGA 1979 and also s.48B SGA 1979: it is the BUYER'S RIGHT - not the seller's to determine which it is to be.

 

[deniser]

Nobody is saying that the OP shouldn't give the customer a refund.

The OP just wants to know where she stands legally so that she can make a commercial decision based on the proper facts.

 

[JohnKH1971]

Nobody is saying that the OP shouldn't give the customer a refund.

The OP just wants to know where she stands legally so that she can make a commercial decision based on the proper facts.

As in another two threads on these UKBF - I give up...

 

[deniser]

In actual fact - Deniser IS wrong in SOME of what she says: the SELLER does not get to choose - it is the BUYER who is entitled to '...require the seller to repair or replace'.
.

BUT the retailer can choose to do whichever of repair and replace is the cheapest. It may not be possible to repair the thing cost effectively or it may be so unique that he can't replace it even if he wanted to. So the customer can't insist on either. The legislation goes on to deal with this scenario by giving the customer a default refund right (less an allowance for prior usage). The retailer can at any point offer a refund before the customer is entitled to demand one for failing to repair or replace in a convenient and timely fashion. So effectively it becomes the retailer's choice.....

 

[JohnKH1971]

BUT the retailer can choose to do whichever of repair and replace is the cheapest. It may not be possible to repair the thing cost effectively or it may be so unique that he can't replace it even if he wanted to. So the customer can't insist on either. The legislation goes on to deal with this scenario by giving the customer a default refund right (less an allowance for prior usage). The retailer can at any point offer a refund before the customer is entitled to demand one for failing to repair or replace in a convenient and timely fashion. So effectively it becomes the retailer's choice.....

If you say so.

 

[kulture]

I am sorry John. Just because you write long aggressive posts and don't bother to properly read our posts, does not make you correct. The law is clear on the matter of refunds. All the consumer web sites also are clear on the interpretation on the law. They all agree. The case law built up over time is likewise clear. It is not a matter of semantics, it is a matter of LAW and how it has been interpreted in court cases. So it really does not matter how you read the sections and paragraphs. They have all been tested and interpreted time and time again in court and considerable case law has been built up.

A consumer only as a reasonable time to inspect and reject the goods. Unless there are unusual circumstances 2 months and having at least one successful use of the goods is too long to reject the goods. Therefore the mandatory refund of all monies is past. The only recourse is to go to the retailer and say that the product is faulty and expect the retailer to resolve it. The retailer has the choice of repair, refund or replace. The retailer cannot take too long.

 

[paulears]

Is the product really faulty? The law gives the retailer the right to verify this. Was the product when sold, of merchantable quality?

The lengths of time that goods need to be fault free depends on what they are. The old notion of a years guarantee was never an absolute, it was just what courts had determined was a reasonable time - and the word 'reasonable' crops up again and again. A complex piece of mechanical equipment used 24/7, but priced at the budget end rarely resulted in successful claims in court because it was not reasonable to expect this level of reliability. On the other hand, a consumer who bought the most expensive version, sold for it's build quality and reliability has been granted a much higher standard of expectation by courts.

The Acts used to determine what is what are not, and never have been absolutes - and a retailer who follows them rarely has grief in court - where the decision is based on balance of probability.

For £70, if this is really worrying the OP, I'd have just refunded it and moved on. If on the other hand, I disbelieved the customer, and had the patience and finance for a decent fight, then I'd insist they return the goods for inspection, at their cost. If the goods are faulty, through no fault of theirs, I'd refund the £70 and the rerun cost and walk away. If I inspected them and discovered they broke them, then I'd offer them the option to get the goods back, if they pay return postage - unprepared, or get them back repaired at cost.

These options would be able to shown to the judge if they take it to court.

If the goods really are no good, then is it that unreasonable they've rejected them.

The Law says they can have their money back under certain conditions - no point gaffing around with all this macro-description. If they're not faulty, you don't have to. If they were sold to do a certain job - then that too has to be taken into account.

Reasonable.

This is what you're fighting over. Your version vs theirs with a judge as the final arbiter!

Me - I'd give them the money and avoid the stress!

 

[deniser]

Me - I'd give them the money and avoid the stress!

Me too.

But (unless the cost of sending it back is high and unless the fault could be proven with photographs), I would ask for the item back in any case and then return it to my supplier, not just because I also want my money back from the supplier but would want them to see that it is defective and comment on why it has broken for my own benefit (not the customer's) so that I could consider whether or not it is a product I actually want to be selling more of in the future.

You would be amazed at the amount of things that have been returned by customers as supposedly faulty when they weren't faulty at all - either the customer was trying it on thinking no-one would check and when challenged have even pretended to be someone else (!) - or they have not read the assembly instructions properly - or in some cases they just can't see (not wearing glasses) and have thought that a crease was a tear.

We often also (wearing a different hat) get tenants complaining that washing machines and the like don't work when they have either unplugged them or the fuse has tripped or there is some other very simple explanation for it not working. I can imagine the same applies to small electrical goods sold over the internet - that there is an explanation sometimes and that things aren't broken.

So the law makes it quite clear that the retailer is entitled to inspect the goods before making any kind of offer. That's why I almost always ask for it back.

 

[kulture]

Whilst I agree it is reasonable to ask for the goods back to inspect them, in the first 6 months after purchase it is assumed that any fault is an original manufacturing fault. It makes it harder to say it was their misuse.

 

[deniser]

Whilst I agree it is reasonable to ask for the goods back to inspect them, in the first 6 months after purchase it is assumed that any fault is an original manufacturing fault. It makes it harder to say it was their misuse.

Yes, totally agree. I wouldn't even try to argue it with the customer where the goods are faulty but would want to argue it with my supplier/the manufacturer/see for myself why the product is faulty.

I also like to give a report from supplier back to customer; customers do appreciate it if it looks as though you are taking an interest and follow up on their complaint. I make it my mission to turn every angry customer into a grateful one.

 

[paulears]

Whilst I agree it is reasonable to ask for the goods back to inspect them, in the first 6 months after purchase it is assumed that any fault is an original manufacturing fault. It makes it harder to say it was their misuse.

I'm not sure I agree with that? Most manufacturing issues are visible almost straight away. After a month, then I'd assume something else may have happens and definitely wish to inspect the item. What exactly is a manufacturing defect anyway? All the ones I've had have been almost instant problems - no go, or overheating, or cracks that appear when they're used due to faulty moulding. After a couple of weeks, most of these will have emerged. Long term issues, would tend to be age and use related, and could be years - but hopefully, these are rare. The sorts of products I sell are electrical - and microphones after 6 months, I'd be very reluctant to replace or refund because they get damaged in use - not bad use, just accidentally dropped, or left out in the rain - or maybe even damaged and the user tries to repair them, and breaks them further. With lighting, especially LED, the occasional LED will die. Usually if they die within a few days it's a poor solder joint, but after a couple of months it is just a failure - and means a new LED. This for me is a killer, because new ones invariably cost pennies, but are nearly always slightly different colours - which can be noticeable. Again, after 12 weeks or so, many faults are down to accidental physical abuse, and looking at the dings and dents, some have been not exactly looked after.

Some of my lighting sells for £25. Some for nearly a grand - I deal with faults responsibly, and that means I need to see the kit. I've had a few customers send me video on their phones and this can often help me decide what to do.

I just keep an eye on what an outsider would consider reasonable, and try to do the best thing, with this in mind. Where customers buy perhaps 10 of an item, I also use one of those invisible markers on it somewhere, to stop fraudulent claims - as in sending back older ones complaining they're new and therefore still under warranty. I had two back from a customer, and one was actually one of a batch I sold them 18 months previously, the other really just a few weeks old.

 

[kulture]

Whilst I agree with you in practice, unfortunately the law does not. Any fault found in the first 6 months is assumed to be an original fault, i.e. faulty when delivered. A retailer has to PROVE it is not an original fault and is down to misuse. After 6 months the burden of proof shifts from the retailer to the customer, and thus the customer has to PROVE it is an original fault and not misuse.

Unfortunately the law trumps the real world and what both you and I know to be likely.

 

[flutterbye]

Well it looks like this is going to court so I will let those who have been kind enough to comment know what happens !

In the meantime, if my company loses, it would pay immediately. However, does that mean a "CCJ" is then entered against my company and therefore mean I'd have advserse credit for the next six years? Certainly the claim form from the court states "Registration of Judgments: If this claim results in a judgement against you, details will be entered into the public register.........<snip> .......credit reference aganciers etc etc "
Will this also affect my personal credit / ability to get a mortgage or other credit personally even though it is a dispute with a limited company of which I'm the sole director?

As far as I can see this escalates the issue into a potentially huge deal for the defendant (me) at very little risk for the person that brought the claim.

 

[SamStones]

Did you phone trading standards to get their view on it? This is good information to calm your nerves.

When you say it "looks like it's going to court" have you received the court paperwork yet?

If you do get a CCJ entered and you pay within 28 days I believe you can apply to have this removed from your record:
http://www.experian.co.uk/consumer/questions/askjames269.html

As far as I know, it shouldn't affect you personally.

Good luck

 

[flutterbye]

Yes, I have just received the paper work. Thanks for the link so it should be ok in my case then (assuming I lose and pay in full). I do find it odd though that the resolution of a civil dispute is somehow related to ones credit record. I guess if you don't pay in full immediately, it somehow makes some sense even though you haven't explicitly borrowed any money as such.

Not been to trading standards - I guess I should have called them. THe main issue being time but agree it would maybe still would be worthwhile to do so.

Btw, the product is something that can't be resold because it will be soiled with food so I don't really want it back.

What I'm a bit afraid of is even though the purchaser has shown no willingness at all to accept a new replacement, if he eventually does accept, he might break it in the same way. (Like many microwaves which would certainly break if not catch fire, if set to run for an hour on full power with a load of metal inside) the product can also fail through the user configuring/setting it incorrectly. There are prominent warnings to this affect in the box.

Maybe I should also offer a cash alternative? Perhaps at the cost to me of supplying a new machine which would be about 40% of rrp plus postage ?

 

[deniser]

Before you go forwards with any kind of court action you need to be exactly sure where you stand and make sure you have fulfilled your obligations. Do you have written evidence that you offered a replacement and that the customer rejected that?

You really need to be sure of your ground so unless you have a solicitor, that phone call to trading standards and a read of the relevant legislation is essential otherwise you will not be in a position to defend yourself.

Personally, I think it is a bit crazy to get involved in claims for the sake of £70. I would refund the customer, get the microwave back and then get a refund from my supplier - I assume it is a reputable brand and reputable place you got it from?

 

[flutterbye]

The only evidence I have is of an email exchange. I use gmail and I couldn't modify incoming emails (although I suppose I could delete them) so I suppose I am hoping that the judge will believe me that I would not risk perjury and will allow that email based evidence.
Re, the £70 I agree that its a small amount of money and not worth my time or worry. However, it would really annoy me to just give money to someone just because they are aggressive.

 

[deniser]

It's not just because they are aggressive though. They do have a justifiable grievance if a microwave breaks down in 2 months. You don't know without inspecting it that they caused the damage. I think you have to see it from the customer's point of view as well.

 

[mhall]

Am I missing something here?- Have you actually been able to establish if the product was faulty yet?. Have you picked it up and tested it or are you just hoping that the court will make a decision based on your inactivity?

 

[flutterbye]

If the microwave broke because they set it to run at full power for an hour with no food inside against all warnings then maybe it isn't justifiable? In any case, I've offered a brand new replacement at our cost.

I have tried to get it back by asking to arrange when I can get a courrier to pick up. I was told "Only on Friday before 10.30" which is too specific for me to arrange. However, I'm actually giving the customer the benefit of the doubt by offering a free replacement so I don't understand why I should have to pay for a refund. I am not hoping the court will make a decision based on my inactivity.

 

[deniser]

If the microwave broke because they set it to run at full power for an hour with no food inside against all warnings then maybe it isn't justifiable? In any case, I've offered a brand new replacement at our cost.

.

Did the customer tell you they did this? Why did they do this?

 

[fisicx]

I doubt very much it will even get to court. Court time is expensive and they have more important things to do than sit in judgement over a microwave. It will probably go to arbitration where you both present your case. If you can demostrate you have tried to resolve the matter then you should be OK.

 

[mhall]

I'm not being funny but I just don't understand all this. I am all for not letting the customer rip a Retailer off but I would also make sure that I have ticked every box and got all the possible evidence I could so that I would enjoy my day in court.

 

[deniser]

I'm not being funny but I just don't understand all this. I am all for not letting the customer rip a Retailer off but I would also make sure that I have ticked every box and got all the possible evidence I could so that I would enjoy my day in court.

Exactly.

 

[Diane@JFS]

This seems to be a very hot topic. What we would advise is that the correct legal advice would depend on the individual circumstance and we would therefore require further information on the product in question and the fault it has suffered.

One of the main points to note however is that the consumer contracted with the seller not with the manufacturer, so unless there is a guarantee/warranty in place from the manufacturer, then the consumers right to redress will be against the seller. The consumer has a period of 6 years from the date the contract was formed in which to bring legal proceedings for breach of contract.

If the product is clearly faulty then under the Sale of Goods Act this would amount to a breach of contract. Accordingly if the contract is breached, then the consumer can ask for a refund as this puts them back into the position they would have been in had they not entered into the contract. The seller can offer other points of redress, but if the consumer demands a refund then this must be provided.

On providing a refund, the seller can then take an action against the manufacturer or whomever the seller purchased the product from, providing that the seller purchased the product within the 6 year period.

Joseph Frasier Solicitors