Consumer Law

Inviere

Hi folks,

Following on from a thread I've already made, here, I was wondering if someone could clarify whether the "your contract is with the retailer, and the retailer is ultimately responsible for warranty claims, and not necessarily the manufacturer" notion is expressly stated in legislation (when buying goods from a retailer, not a manufacturer).

We've all seen the consumer advice websites, which all state roughly similar:

If you have a problem with an item that you have bought it is always the seller who should put things right. As a general rule, the seller can either repair or replace the item. Alternatively, they can refund the costs of the item or service to the consumer.

If you are not satisfied with the quality of goods or services you can:

• Return the goods to the supplier who sold it to you (you should not return the goods to the manufacturer)
  
• Act as soon as you can – a delay can indicate that you have accepted faulty goods or services
• Do not attempt to repair the item yourself or give it to anyone else to repair it
• Make sure that you have a proof of purchase (a receipt, cheque stub, credit card statement or invoice)

Where is this stated though in the Sale of Goods & Supply of Services Act of 1980? I've had a look through the various parts of the act, but can't see anything specific to retailers having a legal obligation to fulfill warranties, as opposed to manufacturers. Any help is appreciated

theteal

The "warranty" has nothing to do with your contract of sale and the retailers obligations under the sale of goods act. Your consumer rights and a manufacturers warranty are completely separate things.

Tom__jnr2

Inviere wrote: »

Hi folks,

Following on from a thread I've already made, here, I was wondering if someone could clarify whether the "your contract is with the retailer, and the retailer is ultimately responsible for warranty claims, and not necessarily the manufacturer" notion is expressly stated in legislation (when buying goods from a retailer, not a manufacturer).

We've all seen the consumer advice websites, which all state roughly similar:



Where is this stated though in the Sale of Goods & Supply of Services Act of 1980? I've had a look through the various parts of the act, but can't see anything specific to retailers having a legal obligation to fulfill warranties, as opposed to manufacturers. Any help is appreciated

Was told the same in Lidl. They gave 3 months and after that contact manufacturer. Could anyone find more specific info?

Inviere

theteal wrote: »

The "warranty" has nothing to do with your contract of sale and the retailers obligations under the sale of goods act. Your consumer rights and a manufacturers warranty are completely separate things.

That might explain why I couldn't find it How are retailer (not manufacturer) warranty obligations described under law in that case?

theteal

Inviere wrote: »

That might explain why I couldn't find it How are retailer (not manufacturer) warranty obligations described under law in that case?

Remedy for breach of contract

GM228

Any goods bought must have "conformity" unless you are made aware of a lack of such (at the time of purchase - this is important), that is to say, they:-

(a) comply with the description given by the seller and possess the qualities of the goods which the seller has held out to the consumer as a sample or model,

(b) are fit for any particular purpose for which the consumer requires them and which he or she made known to the seller at the time of conclusion of the contract and which the seller has accepted,

(c) are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same type are normally used, and

(d) show the quality and performance which are normal in goods of the same type and which the consumer can reasonably expect, given the nature of the goods and taking into account any public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods made about them by the seller the producer or his representative, particularly in advertising or on labelling.


There is a statutory presumption that any fault etc which occurs within the first 6 months was present at time of purchase which a seller must disprove rather than the buyer having to prove (unless it would not be a reasonable inference that the lack of conformity existed at the time of purchase), this in reality means that any guarantee (for want of a better phrase) is at least 6 months long. After 6 months a seller may still be liable if you can show there was no lack of conformity at time of purchase or there is no longer warranty or the conditions of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980.

Under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 goods must be:-

(a) of merchantable quality – goods should be of reasonable quality taking into account what they are meant to do, their durability and their price

(b) be fit for their purpose – they must do what they are reasonably expected to do

This in reality places no time limits to a claim in relation to faulty goods (even outside the warranty timeframe), you could for example have an item with a 12 month warranty but after 24 months it breaks down, if an item of this type ordinarily is expected to last say 36 months + then you may have redress (the only time limit to bringing a claim for faulty goods is 6 years under the Statute of Limitations Act 1957), the problem is most consumers are unaware of this and most sellers are either unaware or deny this, also this is not a guarantee of a successful outcome.

Inviere wrote: »

Where is this stated though in the Sale of Goods & Supply of Services Act of 1980? I've had a look through the various parts of the act, but can't see anything specific to retailers having a legal obligation to fulfill warranties, as opposed to manufacturers. Any help is appreciated

With regards to a manufacturers warranty, the seller is liable for the manufacturers warranty unless they expressly state otherwise at the time of purchase:-

Liability of seller under guarantee.

17.— (1) Where the seller of goods delivers a guarantee to the buyer, irrespective of when or how it is delivered, the seller shall be liable to the buyer for the observance of the terms of the guarantee as if he were the guarantor, unless he expressly indicates the contrary to the buyer at the time of delivery.

Inviere

GM228 wrote: »

With regards to a manufacturers warranty, the seller is liable for the manufacturers warranty unless they expressly state otherwise at the time of purchase:-

Interesting! This suggests then that in my case (Smyths), being told that after 1 month I have to deal with the manufacturer for warranty, is indeed legally sound? Where then are the consumer advice bites getting their info from, re insisting that it is the retailer that must honor warranties, as opposed to the manufacturer (unless of course the seller chooses to pursue warranty from the manufacturer instead)?

theteal

Inviere wrote: »

Interesting! This suggests then that in my case (Smyths), being told that after 1 month I have to deal with the manufacturer for warranty, is indeed legally sound? Where then are the consumer advice bites getting their info from, re insisting that it is the retailer that must honor warranties, as opposed to the manufacturer (unless of course the seller chooses to pursue warranty from the manufacturer instead)?

Stop focusing on this warranty. What your talking about is the manufacturers warranty which has absolutely nothing to do with the contract of sale between you and the retailer. The retailer tries to fall back on this warranty to make their life but that has nothing to do with your consumer rights.

If your item is faulty, you go back to your point of sale. They have to remedy the situation. The purchaser has never consulted the manufacturer in the formation of this contract, so why should they be fobbed off to them when there is a breach in the contract?

Now is saying that, going to the manufacturer with an issue during this "warranty" period may be more convenient/quicker but what do you do when, for example, your €1500 TV stops working after 3 years of normal use? The manufacturers 1 year warranty is expired but your consumer rights most certainly have not.

GM228

Inviere wrote: »

Interesting! This suggests then that in my case (Smyths), being told that after 1 month I have to deal with the manufacturer for warranty, is indeed legally sound?

Well no, the ability to not honour a warranty does not give a cop out to other rights, for example items must be of merchantable quality and fit for purpose, something breaking after a month through no fault of your own is not something of merchantable quality or fit for purpose, it is then for the seller to offer redress, not the manufacturer and as I already stated there is a statutory presumption that any fault within the first 6 months was there at the time of purchase in which case the seller must offer redress (unless they can prove otherwise which isnt always easy for them to do), saying they will not honour a warranty themselves is fine (if expressly told at time of sale), but that does not thrump your statutory rights.

Inviere

theteal wrote: »

Stop focusing on this warranty. What your talking about is the manufacturers warranty which has absolutely nothing to do with the contract of sale between you and the retailer. The retailer tries to fall back on this warranty to make their life but that has nothing to do with your consumer rights.

If your item is faulty, you go back to your point of sale. They have to remedy the situation. The purchaser has never consulted the manufacturer in the formation of this contract, so why should they be fobbed off to them when there is a breach in the contract?

Now is saying that, going to the manufacturer with an issue during this "warranty" period may be more convenient/quicker but what do you do when, for example, your €1500 TV stops working after 3 years of normal use? The manufacturers 1 year warranty is expired but your consumer rights most certainly have not.

Indeed, thanks for that; it's all as I originally thought before getting confused & creating this thread! I sought to just find the above alluded to in legislation/statutory rights, and apart from the usual watchdog sites, I couldn't find anything expressly stating the seller was legally bound (in legislation). Though that said, legislative syntax can sometimes go over my head

GM228 wrote: »

...saying they will not honour a warranty themselves is fine (if expressly told at time of sale), but that does not thrump your statutory rights.

Thanks for that. For my own peace of mind I went to seek out the above, formalised in legislature, or something that could be produced/quoted to a retailer in a situation where they're insisting that after 1 month I'd need to seek out the manufacturer instead of them.

Inviere

GM228, I think I'm putting it together in my head now It's more to do with a contract of sale, as opposed to any warranty. The quote above, seems to cover it

Under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 goods must be:-

(a) of merchantable quality – goods should be of reasonable quality taking into account what they are meant to do, their durability and their price

(b) be fit for their purpose – they must do what they are reasonably expected to do

This in reality places no time limits to a claim in relation to faulty goods (even outside the warranty timeframe), you could for example have an item with a 12 month warranty but after 24 months it breaks down, if an item of this type ordinarily is expected to last say 36 months + then you may have redress (the only time limit to bringing a claim for faulty goods is 6 years under the Statute of Limitations Act 1957), the problem is most consumers are unaware of this and most sellers are either unaware or deny this, also this is not a guarantee of a successful outcome.

theteal

Inviere wrote: »

Thanks for that. For my own peace of mind I went to seek out the above, formalised in legislature, or something that could be produced/quoted to a retailer in a situation where they're insisting that after 1 month I'd need to seek out the manufacturer instead of them.

To be honest, in a lot of cases it doesn't matter what you quote to the retailer. In most of these multi-branch stores your just going to be met by an employee who won't know any better (managers included) who will just blindly stick to the policy that's been set from head office. Head office know the policy bends the law but it's sole purpose is to frustrate the consumer into submission.

In such a situation I would rest the soles of my feet and just send a registered letter to the HO stating what the issue is, how they're denying your consumer rights and what resolution you expect in line with those consumer rights. Give them 10 days to remedy the issue and be ready to start SCC proceedings if they don't.

Samuel T. Cogley

Just on this - the guarantee can be refereed back to the manufacturer under the section highlighted by GM228, however it needs to be expressly indicated - what that means will turn on it's own facts I'd imagine. That does not, however trump your rights under European Communities (Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees) Regulations 2003, which inter alia gives you the right to a remedy in a reasonable time frame. Again what that time frame is will depend on the situation but I'd argue it's pretty short where another identical product is sitting on the shelf of the retailer.