"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:24:26 +0100, "Frisket"
wrote:
You still have the right to a refund - repair or replacement is an option
for the consumer.
You need to read the very tortuous wording of the amendment to see
that in most cases under the new amendments this isn't the case.
Note condition 48C(2) and its reference to 48B(3)
"48C Reduction of purchase price or rescission of contract
(1) If section 48A above applies, the buyer may-
(a) require the seller to reduce the purchase price
of the goods in question to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or
(b) rescind the contract with regard to those goods,
if the condition in subsection (2) below is satisfied.
(2) The condition is that-
(a) by virtue of section 48B(3) above the buyer may
require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; or
(b) the buyer has required the seller to repair or
replace the goods, but the seller is in breach of the requirement of
section 48B(2)(a) above to do so within a reasonable time and without
significant inconvenience to the buyer.
(3) For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the
contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take
account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered
to him."
"48B(3) The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the
case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is-
(a) impossible, or
(b) disproportionate in comparison to the other of those
remedies, or
(c) disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in
the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph
(b), of section 48C(1) below."
In other words you cannot demand a refund (or partial refund) under
the new amendments if the supplier is offering repair or replacement.
You can of course still seek the old remedy (and the one which still
applies in business to business transactions) of seeking
"compensation". In this case, as with rejection, the onus is upon
the purchaser to demonstrate the fault was pre-existing - the 6 month
rule does not apply.
The onus of proof the goods were faulty is not with the
consumer - the seller must prove the goods weren't faulty.
Only for the first 6 months and only if you are relying upon the new
amendments. If you are rejecting the goods or seeking compensation
the situation remains as it always has been.
The amendments
were brought in for the benefit of the consumer not the sellers which is
why
you can now ask for repair / replacement / partial refund for up to 6
years
from date of purchase.
This has always been the case. The new amendments changed nothing in
this respect and the SOG act doesn't mention 6 years. The 6 years
commonly quoted out of context refers to the Statute of Limitations
which, for a long time, has said you cannot bring a case under the
SOG after 6 years has elapsed. There is no right to a "6 year
warranty" and no requirement for 6yrs of durability.
Bet that has a few arses twitching at the outlets ...
as its been in place since about 1950 I can't think why.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/guide/saleslong.pdf explains it
all.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
If I've misunderstood I apologise, my source was the consumer advice website
(I'll look up the URL later if req'd) but the implication from the OP was
that it was a new system that was faulty on installation.
Richard