Warranty and CPC

[Davey]

CPC has seen the light, are and sending me half a dozen replacements.

Many thanks to all for helpful contributions.

[Jim Simon]

This is a case of FIT FOR PURPOSE, not what is a reasonable life for an incandescent bulb. The bulb could never be used because of the way it was made means that it was never fit for purpose. So the 6 year rule applies.

[Cursitor Doom]

Not if it was demonstrably faulty from inception. If it could never have worked, as seems the case here, then even if all your consumer protection statutes don't protect him then he can still avail himself of the protections afforded by Common Law and seek relief through that.

[Jim Simon]

[Peter Parry]

Where in the SOGA does it say that fitness for purpose is treated any differently from any other implied term?

It is the duty of the purchaser to examine the goods upon receipt and confirm either actively or passively (by saying nothing) that they were fit for purpose. If the purchaser fails examine the goods then after a short time they are deemed to have accepted them (30 days under the new legislation).

Having lost the right to reject there are still other remedies but the right to reject the goods is not one of them.

[Peter Parry]

As I said he may have other remedies - but rejection is not one of them.

[Jim Simon]

The law says nothing like that.

You're the only one talking about the right to reject.

[Peter Parry]

Firstly that isn't UK legislation. EU Directives do not make national law until transposed into national legislation. Directive

1999/44/EC was incorporated into UK law by SI 2002 No 3045 The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.

Nowhere within either the Directive or SI 2002 No 304 does it say that there is no time limit on rejecting goods as being not fit for purpose. Indeed the Directive does not allow for goods to be rejected at all without going through a hierarchy of remedies. Rejection was a remedy unique to the UK and subject to a specific time limit. Similarly the directive required the liability period to be 2 years whereas the UK already had a limit of 6 years (and kept that as well as the right to rejection).

[Adrian]

SSGCR2002's been replaced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, anyway.

And that is 100% UK legislation... You can thank the LibDems in the coalition for it.

[Peter Parry]

Of course it does.

SOGA S27 "It is the duty of the seller to deliver the goods, and of the buyer to accept and pay for them, in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale. "

Before accepting them the supplier "is bound on request to afford the buyer a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract" (S34)

S35 defines when the goods are accepted, one term of which is "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."

[Jim Simon]

Doesn't say there is any time limit either.

You're the only one going on about the right to rejection.

What is being discussed is fit for purpose.

[Jim Simon]

But that isn't necessarily applicable to the item being discussed because it may well have been purchased at a time when the SoG was applicable.

[John Rumm]

You may find that at the time they did not deal with end users directly anyway (depending on how long ago). Now they have web ordering and the "Element14" brand aimed at consumers.

This is one of the areas where shopping as a business differ from as a consumer. There is a more onerous duty on business customers to protect their own interests.

[John Rumm]

Rod Speed alert....

[Davey]

The very first words in my OP:

"Just over a year ago.."

[Peter Parry]

Not quite, it implemented the Directive on Consumer Rights (2011/83/EC).

We can? 2011/83/EC was brought in under full harmonisation rules ("Member States may not maintain or introduce, in their national law, provisions diverging from those laid down in this Directive, including more or less stringent provisions to ensure a different level of consumer protection." ) the government therefore had little to do.

[bert]

So the EU directive was an unnecessary waste of time and effort.