ChatterBank0 min ago
Consumers Rights & Manufacturer's Guarantee
14 Answers
I understand that if goods prove faulty one's contract is with the retailer, although I don't keep up with EU additions nor last year's changes.
But it occurs to me that there has to be a point at which the retailer claims they are no longer responsible and the manufacturer's guarantee becomes the thing one relies on.
When does this happen ?
TIA
But it occurs to me that there has to be a point at which the retailer claims they are no longer responsible and the manufacturer's guarantee becomes the thing one relies on.
When does this happen ?
TIA
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
A retailer is obliged to repair or replace an item which becomes defective due to an 'inherent fault'. (i.e. something which was actually wrong with the item at the point at which it was sold, such as the use of poor quality components or poor workmanship)
21:23 Thu 29th Sep 2016
This site is useful and may answer your question.
http://
http://
A retailer is obliged to repair or replace an item which becomes defective due to an 'inherent fault'. (i.e. something which was actually wrong with the item at the point at which it was sold, such as the use of poor quality components or poor workmanship).
Up until SIX MONTHS from the date of purchase there's an automatic assumption that any problem which develops must have come about due to such an inherent fault (unless, of course, there's clear evidence to the contrary, such as the tyre tracks of the vehicle which ran over it!).
Therefore, within that 6 month period the purchaser isn't required to prove that there was something wrong with the item when he bought it; the law simply assumes it, enabling him to demand a repair or replacement.
After the six month period is up the retailer CONTINUES to remain responsible for repairing or replacing the item if a problem occurs due to the presence of an 'inherent fault' but it's then up to the purchaser to show (possibly through obtaining an independent report) that there was indeed something wrong with the item when he bought it.
So, at that stage (given the likely cost of obtaining an independent report) a customer might prefer to seek redress from the manufacturer under the terms of any guarantee offered by that manufacturer.
A customer might also want to call upon such a guarantee if the retailer has gone bust (even if that occurred very shortly after the purchase was made).
It should be noted though that, while the law clearly defines a customer's statutory rights with the retailer, any guarantee offered by the manufacturer can be as limited or as generous as that manufacturer chooses. The manufacturer doesn't have to provide any guarantee at all. If he chooses to do so he's fully entitled to state "A refund, repair or replacement of any defective product will only be considered if the purchaser delivers the item in person to our factory in China, at 3am on the second Sunday after a full moon, while stark naked, walking on his hands and singing the Croatian national anthem backwards".
Up until SIX MONTHS from the date of purchase there's an automatic assumption that any problem which develops must have come about due to such an inherent fault (unless, of course, there's clear evidence to the contrary, such as the tyre tracks of the vehicle which ran over it!).
Therefore, within that 6 month period the purchaser isn't required to prove that there was something wrong with the item when he bought it; the law simply assumes it, enabling him to demand a repair or replacement.
After the six month period is up the retailer CONTINUES to remain responsible for repairing or replacing the item if a problem occurs due to the presence of an 'inherent fault' but it's then up to the purchaser to show (possibly through obtaining an independent report) that there was indeed something wrong with the item when he bought it.
So, at that stage (given the likely cost of obtaining an independent report) a customer might prefer to seek redress from the manufacturer under the terms of any guarantee offered by that manufacturer.
A customer might also want to call upon such a guarantee if the retailer has gone bust (even if that occurred very shortly after the purchase was made).
It should be noted though that, while the law clearly defines a customer's statutory rights with the retailer, any guarantee offered by the manufacturer can be as limited or as generous as that manufacturer chooses. The manufacturer doesn't have to provide any guarantee at all. If he chooses to do so he's fully entitled to state "A refund, repair or replacement of any defective product will only be considered if the purchaser delivers the item in person to our factory in China, at 3am on the second Sunday after a full moon, while stark naked, walking on his hands and singing the Croatian national anthem backwards".
Cheers, turns out the gift was bought and used in January and the first branch was insisting they only covered 60 days. But it turns out that, as I'm now told after posting the question, take it to a different branch of the same chain and they were prepared to refund. So all's well that ends well. But it did make me wonder; and I was just finding pages saying that the contract was with the retailer, which wasn't helping.
Buenchico, would this apply to guarantees and warranties?
https:/
https:/
Hc4361:
The law has, to the best of my knowledge, always regarded a manufacturer's guarantee/warranty as a 'gift', which is entirely separate from the contract involved in the purchase of the item. (Indeed, as such a contract is with the retailer and not with the manufacturer anyway, it's hard to see how it could be part of any such contract).
If a manufacturer refused to honour the terms of a guarantee/warranty it's unlikely that a court would rule that they must actually do so, since no 'consideration' (i.e. payment) passed between the purchaser and the manufacturer, meaning that there was never any contract between them.
However the purchaser might then be able to go back to the retailer and say "You sold me this item on the basis that it came with a valid guarantee. I wouldn't have purchased it otherwise. You effectively promised me that I'd be able to get it repaired/replaced for the duration of the guarantee, so that promise forms part of the contract which exists between us. So it's now up to YOU to see that such a promise is honoured". It could make for an interesting test case in the courts!
The law has, to the best of my knowledge, always regarded a manufacturer's guarantee/warranty as a 'gift', which is entirely separate from the contract involved in the purchase of the item. (Indeed, as such a contract is with the retailer and not with the manufacturer anyway, it's hard to see how it could be part of any such contract).
If a manufacturer refused to honour the terms of a guarantee/warranty it's unlikely that a court would rule that they must actually do so, since no 'consideration' (i.e. payment) passed between the purchaser and the manufacturer, meaning that there was never any contract between them.
However the purchaser might then be able to go back to the retailer and say "You sold me this item on the basis that it came with a valid guarantee. I wouldn't have purchased it otherwise. You effectively promised me that I'd be able to get it repaired/replaced for the duration of the guarantee, so that promise forms part of the contract which exists between us. So it's now up to YOU to see that such a promise is honoured". It could make for an interesting test case in the courts!
It certainly would. The question of gifts that form part of a contract has been debated in the court before where it concluded: (the gifts) were offered in a commercial context which raised a presumption that they did intend to be bound. Esso Petroleum v Customs & Excise [1976]
By that decision I would argue that a warranty or guarantee forms part of the contract and so the terms should be fair. Still, nothing in law is straightforward.
By that decision I would argue that a warranty or guarantee forms part of the contract and so the terms should be fair. Still, nothing in law is straightforward.
>>> I would argue that a warranty or guarantee forms forms part of the contract
It's a basic principle of contract law is that no contract can exist without 'consideration'. Therefore, when a customer buys from a retailer (rather than directly from the manufacturer) there can be no contract between the customer and the manufacturer, as no consideration has passed between them.
So it would be interesting to see whether a court would rule that a retailer should be bound by the terms of a 'gift' offered by a third party (i.e. the manufacturer).
I suspect that such a ruling wouldn't be given unless the retailer had clearly relied upon the existence of such a guarantee (e.g. by 'hyping it up' in his sales pitch) in order to obtain the sale.
It would clearly go against the principles of 'natural justice' if the court was to rule that the retailer was bound by the terms of a manufacturer's guarantee, stuffed inside the product packaging, which neither he nor his customer even knew about at the time of the sale.
It's a basic principle of contract law is that no contract can exist without 'consideration'. Therefore, when a customer buys from a retailer (rather than directly from the manufacturer) there can be no contract between the customer and the manufacturer, as no consideration has passed between them.
So it would be interesting to see whether a court would rule that a retailer should be bound by the terms of a 'gift' offered by a third party (i.e. the manufacturer).
I suspect that such a ruling wouldn't be given unless the retailer had clearly relied upon the existence of such a guarantee (e.g. by 'hyping it up' in his sales pitch) in order to obtain the sale.
It would clearly go against the principles of 'natural justice' if the court was to rule that the retailer was bound by the terms of a manufacturer's guarantee, stuffed inside the product packaging, which neither he nor his customer even knew about at the time of the sale.
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Brexiteers Destroyed Britains Future,...
News2 mins ago
Day Trippers Will Have To Pay €5 To...
News5 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.