Warranty and CPC

[Davey]

Just over a year ago, I bought a selection of light bulbs, or whatever they're called nowadays, from CPC, so that I have a stock to hand. I used one the other day, or rather I tried to, but it was obvious that it had been incorrectly assembled by Philips. One of the internal connections was not soldered in place, leaving a clear gap, and the whole internal works were at a strange angle. Hopefully, I told CPC about this, but they refused to replace it on the (correct) grounds that it is over the 12 month warranty period, and also that that particular lamp is no longer made. There are replacements, though.

Although they are correct about the 12 months, and we are only talking about a quid's worth of merchandise, I would have thought that they could have sent me a replacement as good will. I suggested that they included it in a back-order that will be filled soon, to save postage, but they declined.

Is there not some regulation that over-rides the 12 month warranty, such as 'suitability for use'? As I said, it's not the money, but the idea that they clearly don't care to err on the side of customer satisfaction. Maybe I don't buy nearly enough from them to worry them, I'm just a private consumer rather than a business, even though I do have a business account with them.

I have, until now, been perfectly satisfied with their service.

[Cursitor Doom]

IIRC, legally you're in the right to demand a replacement. The law makes an exception to the usual limitation period if the goods are of unsatisfactory quality from the get-go, as appears to be the case from your post. If it's clear the bulbs would never have worked from the outset as can be proved by simple inspection (it seems) then you should be able to claim a replacement or refund whether you're a private or business customer. PS: I've never had any probs with Farnell/CPC either.

[Davey]

It is, so far, the only one of the batch that has been faulty. I have the same feeling about their obligation to replace it, but I must look for a clear reference before I go back to them.

Thanks for the corroboration.

[Cursitor Doom]

X-posted this to a more appropriate group; should be able to assist...

[Jim Simon]

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never was and there is no time limit on that one.

And what the law requires.

[Peter Parry]

It doesn't

Are you a business of private customer?

[Davey]

Per my original post: "I'm just a private consumer rather than a business, even though I do have a business account with them."

[Davey]

Thanks. I already subscribe to uk.legal.moderated, but not the uk.legal one, until now.

[Davey]

That matches what I thought, but I need to be able to quote something to them. Tomorrow...

[Jim Simon]

[Cursitor Doom]

The original.... and best!

[Peter Parry]

If you ordered on a business account it was a business to business transaction and the suppliers terms and conditions replace the implied terms of the Sale of Goods Act.

[Peter Parry]

There are several time limits. One is the 6 years of the Limitations Act. More significantly the goods are deemed to have been accepted by the purchaser when a "reasonable time" has passed - usually days or a few weeks (Now fixed at 30 days by the Consumer Rights Act ) and the consumer has had an opportunity to examine them (even if they fail to do so).

If the purchaser had examined the goods on receipt they would have had a right to reject them. As it was they didn't and lost that right.

If the goods were bought on a business account then the Sale of Goods Act consumer protection additions would not apply.

[Jim Simon]

That isnt the case with fit for purpose.

The purchaser still has fit for purpose rights.

[John Rumm]

Its not clear from your OP whether you were ordering in a personal capacity using a business account, or if you ordered from a personal account but also have a separate business account.

If the order was placed from a business account (regardless of who the customer was) then you will be bound by the terms of business and the normal consumer protections will not apply. Hence you will need to read their terms carefully. You may find that they require that any products delivered non working are notified to them within a certain time limit.

[Peter Parry]

Where in the legislation do you claim to find this exemption?

When goods are supplied under contract the purchaser is entitled to a reasonable period of time to examine them to ensure they comply with the contract (Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) S34). What is a "reasonable period" isn't defined in the SOGA but case law established it was generally no more than 4 weeks and often less. If the purchaser does not examine the goods for a lengthy period they are deemed to have accepted the goods, faults and all. (SOGA S35(4) "The buyer is also deemed to have accepted the goods when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them."

Once the goods are accepted the right to reject them is irrevocably lost. The buyer has lost the right to reject the goods (but not necessarily other remedies).

The buyer in this case, after over 12 months, has clearly lost any right to reject the goods. That leaves them potentially with the right to repair or replacement. However, 12 months is a more than reasonable life for an incandescent bulb so the supplier is entitled to reject such a claim.

If it is a business to business transaction the suppliers T's&C's override the provision of the SOGA. The CPC T's&C's (which are remarkably customer friendly) at S16 say " the Company hereby excludes to the fullest extent permissible at law all conditions, warranties and stipulations, express (other than those set out in these Conditions or given in accordance with Condition 14) or implied, statutory, customary or otherwise which but for such exclusion, would or might subsist in favour of the Customer."

S15 says " This obligation[to repair or replace the goods] will not apply:

if the Customer has failed to notify the Company of any defect in accordance with Condition 8 where the defect should have been reasonably apparent on reasonable inspection; or if the Customer fails to notify the Company of the defect within 12 months "

The purchaser had an opportunity to examine the goods and chose not to do so. They have no right to a refund and no right to a replacement if it was a business to business contract (and trying to claim a purchase on a business account of light bulbs were not seems improbable). A consumer is defined as a natural person, who is acting outside the scope of an economic activity (trade, business...). Purchasing light bulbs on a trade account would not appear to match this definition.

Even if it was considered to be a consumer transaction the right to replacement is questionable as 12 months is a more than reasonable life for an incandescent bulb.

[Davey]

CPC suggested a few years ago that is it worth opening a business account in order to make ordering an easier process, so that is what I have. I don't recall any offer to open a personal account.

However, I have this morning sent them a reply, including the pictures, and quoting the Sale of Goods Act. I told them that this had broken an otherwise perfect record with them, and I had lost my trust in them as a company which values Customer Service. I will see what they say. There are other suppliers out there, just not as convenient, but I will probably stay with them anyway. It is, after all, only a

[Peter Parry]

Where do you find that piece of law?

[The Natural Philosopher]

probably an EU regulation that's slipped in as part of the other 35,000 EU regulations no one knows anything about...

[Peter Parry]

More likely the Dog and Ferret on a Saturday night.