Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Sales of goods act 1980 and inherent/developed faults

  • 07-04-2019 07:14AM
    #1
    Wquirke1234
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 126 ✭✭


    Hi

    I am having a dispute with a major retailer from where I bought an electrical item which stopped working after just over a year.

    I have quoted my consumer rights under the sales of goods and services act 1980 but they keep saying after 6 months the onus is on the consumer to prove by paying for an independent expert report that it was an inherent and not a developed fault.

    My question is where has this 6 month cut off I've seen quoted by not just the retailer but some articles online come from???? I cannot see it referenced in the sales of goods and services act 1980???

    Thanks


Comments

  • #2
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,541 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Wquirke1234 wrote: »
    Hi

    I am having a dispute with a major retailer from where I bought an electrical item which stopped working after just over a year.

    I have quoted my consumer rights under the sales of goods and services act 1980 but they keep saying after 6 months the onus is on the consumer to prove by paying for an independent expert report that it was an inherent and not a developed fault.

    My question is where has this 6 month cut off I've seen quoted by not just the retailer but some articles online come from???? I cannot see it referenced in the sales of goods and services act 1980???

    Thanks

    EU legislation. What is the item, how much was it and what is the fault? Who is the retailer?

    They are blowing smoke up your ass saying you must prove the fault was inherent. Goods must be of merchantable quality and fit for purpose, if they break after just over a year that doesn't mean you must prove the fault was inherent. Depending on the quality of the item their expected life would probably exceed this and you are entitled to repair/refund/replacement

    If they stonewall you then write to them with a 10 day deadline for a resolution of your issues or you will make a small claims court application.


  • #3
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,917 ✭✭✭GM228


    Wquirke1234 wrote: »
    My question is where has this 6 month cut off I've seen quoted by not just the retailer but some articles online come from???? I cannot see it referenced in the sales of goods and services act 1980???

    Thanks

    It's a six month presumption afforded by S8(1) of the European Communities (Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees) Regulations 2003.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2003/si/11/made/en/print

    The EU are currently working on changing it to a 24 month presumption but that's a long way off. Depending on the nature of the fault you can show there was a lack of conformity from date of delivery even outside the six month timeframe as all goods are afforded a two year guarantee at EU level, or at least they are supposed to be. See this thread:-

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057956739


  • #4
    Wquirke1234
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 126 ✭✭Wquirke1234


    Thanks for the replies. Am i right to state that our sog act does not reference the 6 month cut off. It's the ec directive 1999 that does. Moreover our sog act supersedes any terms from the eu law?


  • #5
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Wquirke1234 wrote: »
    Thanks for the replies. Am i right to state that our sog act does not reference the 6 month cut off. It's the ec directive 1999 that does. Moreover our sog act supersedes any terms from the eu law?

    Was the directive adopted into Irish law?


  • #6
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,917 ✭✭✭GM228


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Was the directive adopted into Irish law?

    Yes, via the European Communities (Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees) Regulations 2003 which I linked to in my post.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,679 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Simply use the small claims procedure. The goods must be durable as it is reasonable to expect.

    The regs which state:

    (1) Subject to paragraph (2), any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within 6 months from the date of delivery of the goods shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery of the goods.

    Does not create, IMHO, an onus on the buyer to show how the defect arose after 6 months when exercising their rights under the Sales of Goods Acts.


  • #8
    Wquirke1234
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 126 ✭✭Wquirke1234


    As a result of the hearing, where the defendant didn't turn up, the judge adjourned the hearing requiring me to produce a independent third party report detailing the fault of the product. Product is just over 12 months old


  • #9
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,679 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Thanks for the update, did he give a reason? I assume the cost of the report can not be reclaimed?


  • #10
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,401 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    Simply use the small claims procedure. The goods must be durable as it is reasonable to expect.

    The regs which state:

    (1) Subject to paragraph (2), any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within 6 months from the date of delivery of the goods shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery of the goods.

    Does not create, IMHO, an onus on the buyer to show how the defect arose after 6 months when exercising their rights under the Sales of Goods Acts.
    It's a general principle that the onus of proof is on the claimant for each element of the claim. The regs create a presumption that (effectively) negates the onus of proof on this particular point, provided the fault manifests within 6 months. But in this case the fault didn't manifest within 6 months, so the claimaint doesn't benefit from this presumption, and so the onus of proof remains with him to prove that the lack of conformity existed at the time of deliver of the goods.


  • #11
    rock22
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭rock22


    Wquirke1234 wrote: »
    As a result of the hearing, where the defendant didn't turn up, the judge adjourned the hearing requiring me to produce a independent third party report detailing the fault of the product. Product is just over 12 months old

    If this is the ruling of the judge it effectively negates consumer protection for Irish consumers.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Wquirke1234
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 126 ✭✭Wquirke1234


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    Thanks for the update, did he give a reason? I assume the cost of the report can not be reclaimed?

    He didn't give a reason. He just said he needed to see what the fault was before he could make a ruling. I have it in writing from retailer when I first had the issue that they would refund the cost of report. Assuming i hadn't caused the fault myself


  • #13
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,917 ✭✭✭GM228


    rock22 wrote: »
    If this is the ruling of the judge it effectively negates consumer protection for Irish consumers.

    At the SCP there is no "ruling", and no "judge".

    There can be what is known as a "Small Claims Judgement", but that is not the same as a judgement from a court of law.


  • #14
    Wquirke1234
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 126 ✭✭Wquirke1234


    GM228 wrote: »
    At the SCP there is no "ruling", and no "judge".

    There can be what is known as a "Small Claims Judgement", but that is not the same as a judgement from a court of law.

    So a judgement of any kind in the Scc cannot be used as precedent or quoted in other cases.??


  • #15
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,917 ✭✭✭GM228


    Wquirke1234 wrote: »
    So a judgement of any kind in the Scc cannot be used as precedent or quoted in other cases.??

    No, they are Quasi Judicial decisions, not decisions of a court of law.

    Only written judgements from the Higher courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) form precedent.

    By the ways it's SCP (Small Claims Procedure - not court), SCC could mean the Special Criminal Court - you don't want to find yourself there :)


  • #16
    Wquirke1234
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 126 ✭✭Wquirke1234


    GM228 wrote: »
    No, they are Quasi Judicial decisions, not decisions of a court of law.

    Only written judgements from the Higher courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) form precedent.

    By the ways it's SCP (Small Claims Procedure - not court), SCC could mean the Special Criminal Court - you don't want to find yourself there :)

    Lol.... Thanks... Don't wanna end up there


  • #17
    rock22
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭rock22


    GM228 wrote: »
    At the SCP there is no "ruling", and no "judge".

    There can be what is known as a "Small Claims Judgement", but that is not the same as a judgement from a court of law.

    I am no lawyer so appreciate the correction.
    However the judgement , made where the "defendant" ignored the court, is placing the onus on the plaintiff to show fault rather than the defendant to show the fault lay with the plaintiff.
    It effective makes the SCP inaccessible for small claims as the cost of expert opinion could be multiples of any award made

    Or am I reading too much into this?


  • #18
    Wquirke1234
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 126 ✭✭Wquirke1234


    After a second appearance in the SCC, the judge ordered the defendant who didn't turn up to pay 150 in expenses and for myself to contact the manufacturer directly for product repair. Which I've done. The retailer had previously threatened to pursue me for costs if the claim wasn't dropped

    Thanks for everyone's help


  • #19
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,679 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Well done and thanks for the update.


Advertisement
Advertisement