H*lfords and due credit

[Peter B]

I've just been given a replacement Camelback bladder by my local branch after the original 4 month
old one developed a small crack. So they should replace faulty goods you may say but in fairness
they could have argued I'd mistreated the bladder (I'm sure I haven't) but didn't and offerd the
replacement with courtesy and no fuss.

Credit where it's due methinks.

Pete

[Richard Bates]

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:37:40 +0000 (UTC), in <bqt7lk$i2j$1@hercules.btinternet.com>, "Peter B"
<peter28@btinternet.com> wrote:

>I've just been given a replacement Camelback bladder by my local branch after the original 4 month
>old one developed a small crack. So they should replace faulty goods you may say but in fairness
>they could have argued I'd mistreated the bladder (I'm sure I haven't) but didn't and offerd the
>replacement with courtesy and no fuss.
>
>Credit where it's due methinks.

I take issue with the fact that *they* *should* have replaced it. But excellent service of them to
do so anyway. The Sale of Goods Act passes responsibility away from the shop and onto the warranty
provider after a "reasonable length of time". Case law suggests that 1 calendar month is reasonable.

--
Sig got lost during a reinstall

[Pete Biggs]

Richard Bates wrote:
> The Sale of Goods Act passes responsibility away from the shop and onto the warranty provider
> after a "reasonable length of time". Case law suggests that 1 calendar month is reasonable.

Is that 1 month for all types of goods?

~PB

[Chris French]

In message <10c4tvon399ae21ote0rq5bse3us3nfr67@4ax.com>, Richard Bates
<mail.sent.here.gets.deleted@cuddle.clara.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:37:40 +0000 (UTC), in <bqt7lk$i2j$1@hercules.btinternet.com>, "Peter B"
><peter28@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>I've just been given a replacement Camelback bladder by my local branch after the original 4 month
>>old one developed a small crack. So they should replace faulty goods you may say but in fairness
>>they could have argued I'd mistreated the bladder (I'm sure I haven't) but didn't and offerd the
>>replacement with courtesy and no fuss.
>>
>>Credit where it's due methinks.
>
>I take issue with the fact that *they* *should* have replaced it.

Yes they should (well ok they could have offered to repair it I suppose)

> But excellent service of them to do so anyway. The Sale of Goods Act passes responsibility away
> from the shop and onto the warranty provider after a "reasonable length of time". Case law
> suggests that 1 calendar month is reasonable.
>
Really, that's a new one on me, it's certainly is not in any info I have read from trading
standards. I'd be glad of any pointers you can give to where it says this.

From their website:

<http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/calitem.cgi?file=ADV0054-1111 .txt>

'However, it is important to remember that both warranties and guarantees are in addition to your
statutory rights under either the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) or the Supply of Goods and
Services Act 1982 (as amended). If you have problems with goods or services, it is best to go back
to the company from which you bought them, as the law considers them to be responsible for any
problems under their contract with you'

Guarantees and warranties can be a useful extra (esp. if running for a number of years) and it can
sometimes be easier to sort something out under guarantee. But they do not remove the responsibility
from the vendor to resolve any problems.

There is a limitation on the time that a buyer can expect a *full refund* on a product that is
faulty, and this could well be of say a month, or even less, but that does not affect the
responsibility of the vendor to repair or replace a faulty product.
--
Chris French, Leeds

[Chris French]

In message <bqtenn$1mmkia$1@ID-144931.news.uni-berlin.de>, Pete Biggs
<pbiggmellon{remove_fruit}s2000@onetel.net.uk> writes
>Richard Bates wrote:
>> The Sale of Goods Act passes responsibility away from the shop and onto the warranty provider
>> after a "reasonable length of time". Case law suggests that 1 calendar month is reasonable.
>
>Is that 1 month for all types of goods?

AIUI Richard is wrong and it doesn't apply to any goods :-)
--
Chris French, Leeds

[Chris French]

In message <lph4tv0jbm7brkpvj9o9i2n04sounsaamp@4ax.com>, Richard Bates
<mail.sent.here.gets.deleted@cuddle.clara.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:38:29 -0000, in <bqtenn$1mmkia$1@ID-144931.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Pete Biggs"
><pbiggmellon{remove_fruit}s2000@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>>Richard Bates wrote:
>>> The Sale of Goods Act passes responsibility away from the shop and onto the warranty provider
>>> after a "reasonable length of time". Case law suggests that 1 calendar month is reasonable.
>>
>>Is that 1 month for all types of goods?
>
>I don't know - there are bound to be exceptions, but from my ancient NVQ in retail (which I did
>whilst working in a "bike shop") there were no goods in our store which were excluded.
>
Ahh , so you worked in one of those dodgy places that claim 'sorry mate, nothing to do with us -
it's over 30 days'...... :-)))
--
Chris French, Leeds

[Richard Bates]

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:38:29 -0000, in <bqtenn$1mmkia$1@ID-144931.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Pete Biggs"
<pbiggmellon{remove_fruit}s2000@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

>Richard Bates wrote:
>> The Sale of Goods Act passes responsibility away from the shop and onto the warranty provider
>> after a "reasonable length of time". Case law suggests that 1 calendar month is reasonable.
>
>Is that 1 month for all types of goods?

I don't know - there are bound to be exceptions, but from my ancient NVQ in retail (which I did
whilst working in a "bike shop") there were no goods in our store which were excluded.

--
Sig got lost during a reinstall

[Richard Goodman]

"Richard Bates" <mail.sent.here.gets.deleted@cuddle.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> I take issue with the fact that *they* *should* have replaced it. But excellent service of them to
> do so anyway. The Sale of Goods Act passes responsibility away from the shop and onto the warranty
> provider after a "reasonable length of time". Case law suggests that 1 calendar month is
> reasonable.
>

It wasn't as simple as that, but actually it's quite an interesting point as there's been a fairly
recent change in the law (31st March 03). You have to argue that the problem existed at the time of
sale - eg a manufacturing defect causing premature failure - but, provided you report the problem
within _six months_, the onus is on the trader to prove otherwise, or you can be entitled to a
refund, repair, replacement, or reduction in price paid.

For details - it's worth a look as it's a significant change to consumer rights - see http://www.ad- (http://www.ad-/)
viceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/consumer_affairs/consumer_problems_options_for_the_customer.htm#R-
epairorreplacementofgoods

Rich

[Richard Goodman]

"Richard Goodman" <rich@NOSPAM.rsk.homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fd26ce1$1@news1.homechoice.co.uk...
>
> It wasn't as simple as that, but actually it's quite an interesting point
as
> there's been a fairly recent change in the law (31st March 03). You have
to
> argue that the problem existed at the time of sale - eg a manufacturing defect causing premature
> failure - but, provided you report the problem within _six months_..

Oh, I should add that although the onus is on the trader to disprove your case within the first six
months, that's not the limit for asking the retailer to put things right - it's just that after that
the onus shifts to you to prove your statutory rights were breached at the time of sale (ie goods
not of 'satisfactory' quality or 'fit for purpose' etc). You can have up to six years to do that.

Rich