Just over a year ago, I bought a selection of light bulbs, or whatever
they're called nowadays, from CPC, so that I have a stock to hand. I
used one the other day, or rather I tried to, but it was obvious that
it had been incorrectly assembled by Philips. One of the internal
connections was not soldered in place, leaving a clear gap, and the
whole internal works were at a strange angle.
Hopefully, I told CPC about this, but they refused to replace it on
the (correct) grounds that it is over the 12 month warranty period, and
also that that particular lamp is no longer made. There are
replacements, though.

Although they are correct about the 12 months, and we are only talking
about a quid's worth of merchandise, I would have thought that they
could have sent me a replacement as good will. I suggested that they
included it in a back-order that will be filled soon, to save postage,
but they declined.

Is there not some regulation that over-rides the 12 month warranty,
such as 'suitability for use'? As I said, it's not the money, but the
idea that they clearly don't care to err on the side of customer
satisfaction. Maybe I don't buy nearly enough from them to worry them,
I'm just a private consumer rather than a business, even though I do
have a business account with them.

I have, until now, been perfectly satisfied with their service.

--
Davey.

On Sun, 22 May 2016 16:46:49 +0100, Davey wrote:

Just over a year ago, I bought a selection of light bulbs, or whatever
they're called nowadays, from CPC, so that I have a stock to hand. I
used one the other day, or rather I tried to, but it was obvious that it
had been incorrectly assembled by Philips. One of the internal
connections was not soldered in place, leaving a clear gap, and the
whole internal works were at a strange angle.
Hopefully, I told CPC about this, but they refused to replace it on the
(correct) grounds that it is over the 12 month warranty period, and also
that that particular lamp is no longer made. There are replacements,
though.

Although they are correct about the 12 months, and we are only talking
about a quid's worth of merchandise, I would have thought that they
could have sent me a replacement as good will. I suggested that they
included it in a back-order that will be filled soon, to save postage,
but they declined.

Is there not some regulation that over-rides the 12 month warranty, such
as 'suitability for use'? As I said, it's not the money, but the idea
that they clearly don't care to err on the side of customer
satisfaction. Maybe I don't buy nearly enough from them to worry them,
I'm just a private consumer rather than a business, even though I do
have a business account with them.

I have, until now, been perfectly satisfied with their service.

IIRC, legally you're in the right to demand a replacement. The law makes
an exception to the usual limitation period if the goods are of
unsatisfactory quality from the get-go, as appears to be the case from
your post. If it's clear the bulbs would never have worked from the
outset as can be proved by simple inspection (it seems) then you should
be able to claim a replacement or refund whether you're a private or
business customer.
PS: I've never had any probs with Farnell/CPC either.

On Sun, 22 May 2016 16:18:18 -0000 (UTC)
Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2016 16:46:49 +0100, Davey wrote:

Just over a year ago, I bought a selection of light bulbs, or
whatever they're called nowadays, from CPC, so that I have a stock
to hand. I used one the other day, or rather I tried to, but it was
obvious that it had been incorrectly assembled by Philips. One of
the internal connections was not soldered in place, leaving a clear
gap, and the whole internal works were at a strange angle.
Hopefully, I told CPC about this, but they refused to replace it on
the (correct) grounds that it is over the 12 month warranty period,
and also that that particular lamp is no longer made. There are
replacements, though.

Although they are correct about the 12 months, and we are only
talking about a quid's worth of merchandise, I would have thought
that they could have sent me a replacement as good will. I
suggested that they included it in a back-order that will be filled
soon, to save postage, but they declined.

Is there not some regulation that over-rides the 12 month warranty,
such as 'suitability for use'? As I said, it's not the money, but
the idea that they clearly don't care to err on the side of customer
satisfaction. Maybe I don't buy nearly enough from them to worry
them, I'm just a private consumer rather than a business, even
though I do have a business account with them.

I have, until now, been perfectly satisfied with their service.

IIRC, legally you're in the right to demand a replacement. The law
makes an exception to the usual limitation period if the goods are of
unsatisfactory quality from the get-go, as appears to be the case
from your post. If it's clear the bulbs would never have worked from
the outset as can be proved by simple inspection (it seems) then you
should be able to claim a replacement or refund whether you're a
private or business customer.
PS: I've never had any probs with Farnell/CPC either.

It is, so far, the only one of the batch that has been faulty. I have
the same feeling about their obligation to replace it, but I must look
for a clear reference before I go back to them.

Thanks for the corroboration.

--
Davey.

On Sun, 22 May 2016 18:24:38 +0100, Davey wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2016 16:18:18 -0000 (UTC)
Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2016 16:46:49 +0100, Davey wrote:

Just over a year ago, I bought a selection of light bulbs, or
whatever they're called nowadays, from CPC, so that I have a stock to
hand. I used one the other day, or rather I tried to, but it was
obvious that it had been incorrectly assembled by Philips. One of the
internal connections was not soldered in place, leaving a clear gap,
and the whole internal works were at a strange angle. Hopefully, I
told CPC about this, but they refused to replace it on the (correct)
grounds that it is over the 12 month warranty period, and also that
that particular lamp is no longer made. There are replacements,
though.

Although they are correct about the 12 months, and we are only
talking about a quid's worth of merchandise, I would have thought
that they could have sent me a replacement as good will. I suggested
that they included it in a back-order that will be filled soon, to
save postage, but they declined.

Is there not some regulation that over-rides the 12 month warranty,
such as 'suitability for use'? As I said, it's not the money, but the
idea that they clearly don't care to err on the side of customer
satisfaction. Maybe I don't buy nearly enough from them to worry
them, I'm just a private consumer rather than a business, even though
I do have a business account with them.

I have, until now, been perfectly satisfied with their service.

IIRC, legally you're in the right to demand a replacement. The law
makes an exception to the usual limitation period if the goods are of
unsatisfactory quality from the get-go, as appears to be the case from
your post. If it's clear the bulbs would never have worked from the
outset as can be proved by simple inspection (it seems) then you should
be able to claim a replacement or refund whether you're a private or
business customer.
PS: I've never had any probs with Farnell/CPC either.

It is, so far, the only one of the batch that has been faulty. I have
the same feeling about their obligation to replace it, but I must look
for a clear reference before I go back to them.

Thanks for the corroboration.

X-posted this to a more appropriate group; should be able to assist...

"Davey" wrote in message
...
Just over a year ago, I bought a selection of light bulbs, or whatever
they're called nowadays, from CPC, so that I have a stock to hand. I
used one the other day, or rather I tried to, but it was obvious that
it had been incorrectly assembled by Philips. One of the internal
connections was not soldered in place, leaving a clear gap, and the
whole internal works were at a strange angle.
Hopefully, I told CPC about this, but they refused to replace it on
the (correct) grounds that it is over the 12 month warranty period, and
also that that particular lamp is no longer made. There are
replacements, though.

Although they are correct about the 12 months, and we are only talking
about a quid's worth of merchandise, I would have thought that they
could have sent me a replacement as good will. I suggested that they
included it in a back-order that will be filled soon, to save postage,
but they declined.

Is there not some regulation that over-rides the 12 month warranty,
such as 'suitability for use'?

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never
was and there is no time limit on that one.

As I said, it's not the money, but the idea that they clearly
don't care to err on the side of customer satisfaction.

And what the law requires.

Maybe I don't buy nearly enough from them to worry them,
I'm just a private consumer rather than a business, even
though I do have a business account with them.

I have, until now, been perfectly satisfied with their service.

On Sun, 22 May 2016 18:24:38 +0100, Davey
wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2016 16:18:18 -0000 (UTC)
Cursitor Doom wrote:


IIRC, legally you're in the right to demand a replacement. The law
makes an exception to the usual limitation period if the goods are of
unsatisfactory quality from the get-go, as appears to be the case
from your post.

It doesn't

If it's clear the bulbs would never have worked from
the outset as can be proved by simple inspection (it seems) then you
should be able to claim a replacement or refund whether you're a
private or business customer.
PS: I've never had any probs with Farnell/CPC either.

It is, so far, the only one of the batch that has been faulty. I have
the same feeling about their obligation to replace it, but I must look
for a clear reference before I go back to them.

Are you a business of private customer?

On Sun, 22 May 2016 21:27:11 +0100
Peter Parry wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2016 18:24:38 +0100, Davey
wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2016 16:18:18 -0000 (UTC)
Cursitor Doom wrote:


IIRC, legally you're in the right to demand a replacement. The law
makes an exception to the usual limitation period if the goods are
of unsatisfactory quality from the get-go, as appears to be the
case from your post.

It doesn't

If it's clear the bulbs would never have worked from
the outset as can be proved by simple inspection (it seems) then
you should be able to claim a replacement or refund whether you're
a private or business customer.
PS: I've never had any probs with Farnell/CPC either.

It is, so far, the only one of the batch that has been faulty. I have
the same feeling about their obligation to replace it, but I must
look for a clear reference before I go back to them.

Are you a business of private customer?


Per my original post:
"I'm just a private consumer rather than a business, even though I do
have a business account with them."

--
Davey.

On Sun, 22 May 2016 18:27:04 -0000 (UTC)
Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2016 18:24:38 +0100, Davey wrote:

snip


IIRC, legally you're in the right to demand a replacement. The law
makes an exception to the usual limitation period if the goods are
of unsatisfactory quality from the get-go, as appears to be the
case from your post. If it's clear the bulbs would never have
worked from the outset as can be proved by simple inspection (it
seems) then you should be able to claim a replacement or refund
whether you're a private or business customer.
PS: I've never had any probs with Farnell/CPC either.

It is, so far, the only one of the batch that has been faulty. I
have the same feeling about their obligation to replace it, but I
must look for a clear reference before I go back to them.

Thanks for the corroboration.

X-posted this to a more appropriate group; should be able to assist...

Thanks. I already subscribe to uk.legal.moderated, but not the uk.legal
one, until now.

--
Davey.

On Mon, 23 May 2016 06:22:44 +1000
"Jim Simon" wrote:

Is there not some regulation that over-rides the 12 month warranty,
such as 'suitability for use'?

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never
was and there is no time limit on that one.

As I said, it's not the money, but the idea that they clearly
don't care to err on the side of customer satisfaction.

And what the law requires.

That matches what I thought, but I need to be able to quote something
to them. Tomorrow...

--
Davey.

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 May 2016 06:22:44 +1000
"Jim Simon" wrote:

Is there not some regulation that over-rides the 12 month warranty,
such as 'suitability for use'?

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never
was and there is no time limit on that one.

As I said, it's not the money, but the idea that they clearly
don't care to err on the side of customer satisfaction.

And what the law requires.

That matches what I thought, but I need to be able to quote something
to them. Tomorrow...

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-righ...mer-rights-act
http://findlaw.co.uk/law/consumer/sa...goods-act.html

On Sun, 22 May 2016 23:52:49 +0100, Davey wrote:


Thanks. I already subscribe to uk.legal.moderated, but not the uk.legal
one, until now.

The original.... and best!

On Sun, 22 May 2016 23:51:33 +0100, Davey
wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2016 21:27:11 +0100
Peter Parry wrote:

Are you a business of private customer?


Per my original post:
"I'm just a private consumer rather than a business, even though I do
have a business account with them."

If you ordered on a business account it was a business to business
transaction and the suppliers terms and conditions replace the implied
terms of the Sale of Goods Act.

On Mon, 23 May 2016 06:22:44 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:


"Davey" wrote in message
...


Is there not some regulation that over-rides the 12 month warranty,
such as 'suitability for use'?

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never
was and there is no time limit on that one.

There are several time limits. One is the 6 years of the Limitations
Act. More significantly the goods are deemed to have been accepted by
the purchaser when a "reasonable time" has passed - usually days or a
few weeks (Now fixed at 30 days by the Consumer Rights Act ) and the
consumer has had an opportunity to examine them (even if they fail to
do so).

If the purchaser had examined the goods on receipt they would have had
a right to reject them. As it was they didn't and lost that right.

Maybe I don't buy nearly enough from them to worry them,
I'm just a private consumer rather than a business, even
though I do have a business account with them.

If the goods were bought on a business account then the Sale of Goods
Act consumer protection additions would not apply.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 May 2016 06:22:44 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:


"Davey" wrote in message
...


Is there not some regulation that over-rides the 12 month warranty,
such as 'suitability for use'?

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never
was and there is no time limit on that one.

There are several time limits. One is the 6 years of the Limitations
Act. More significantly the goods are deemed to have been accepted by
the purchaser when a "reasonable time" has passed - usually days or a
few weeks (Now fixed at 30 days by the Consumer Rights Act ) and the
consumer has had an opportunity to examine them (even if they fail to
do so).

That isnt the case with fit for purpose.

If the purchaser had examined the goods on receipt they would have had
a right to reject them. As it was they didn't and lost that right.

No they did not.

Maybe I don't buy nearly enough from them to worry them,
I'm just a private consumer rather than a business, even
though I do have a business account with them.

If the goods were bought on a business account then the Sale of Goods
Act consumer protection additions would not apply.

The purchaser still has fit for purpose rights.

On 23/05/2016 00:06, Jim Simon wrote:


"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 May 2016 06:22:44 +1000
"Jim Simon" wrote:

Is there not some regulation that over-rides the 12 month warranty,
such as 'suitability for use'?

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never
was and there is no time limit on that one.

As I said, it's not the money, but the idea that they clearly
don't care to err on the side of customer satisfaction.

And what the law requires.

That matches what I thought, but I need to be able to quote something
to them. Tomorrow...

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-righ...mer-rights-act
http://findlaw.co.uk/law/consumer/sa...goods-act.html

Its not clear from your OP whether you were ordering in a personal
capacity using a business account, or if you ordered from a personal
account but also have a separate business account.

If the order was placed from a business account (regardless of who the
customer was) then you will be bound by the terms of business and the
normal consumer protections will not apply. Hence you will need to read
their terms carefully. You may find that they require that any products
delivered non working are notified to them within a certain time limit.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 23 May 2016 19:33:21 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 23 May 2016 06:22:44 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:

r
"Davey" wrote in message
...

Is there not some regulation that over-rides the 12 month warranty,
such as 'suitability for use'?

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never
was and there is no time limit on that one.

There are several time limits. One is the 6 years of the Limitations
Act. More significantly the goods are deemed to have been accepted by
the purchaser when a "reasonable time" has passed - usually days or a
few weeks (Now fixed at 30 days by the Consumer Rights Act ) and the
consumer has had an opportunity to examine them (even if they fail to
do so).

That isnt the case with fit for purpose.

Where in the legislation do you claim to find this exemption?

When goods are supplied under contract the purchaser is entitled to a
reasonable period of time to examine them to ensure they comply with
the contract (Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) S34). What is a "reasonable
period" isn't defined in the SOGA but case law established it was
generally no more than 4 weeks and often less. If the purchaser does
not examine the goods for a lengthy period they are deemed to have
accepted the goods, faults and all. (SOGA S35(4) "The buyer is also
deemed to have accepted the goods when after the lapse of a reasonable
time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has
rejected them."

Once the goods are accepted the right to reject them is irrevocably
lost. The buyer has lost the right to reject the goods (but not
necessarily other remedies).

The buyer in this case, after over 12 months, has clearly lost any
right to reject the goods. That leaves them potentially with the
right to repair or replacement. However, 12 months is a more than
reasonable life for an incandescent bulb so the supplier is entitled
to reject such a claim.

Maybe I don't buy nearly enough from them to worry them,
I'm just a private consumer rather than a business, even
though I do have a business account with them.

If the goods were bought on a business account then the Sale of Goods
Act consumer protection additions would not apply.

The purchaser still has fit for purpose rights.

If it is a business to business transaction the suppliers T's&C's
override the provision of the SOGA. The CPC T's&C's (which are
remarkably customer friendly) at S16 say " the Company hereby
excludes to the fullest extent permissible at law all conditions,
warranties and stipulations, express (other than those set out in
these Conditions or given in accordance with Condition 14) or implied,
statutory, customary or otherwise which but for such exclusion, would
or might subsist in favour of the Customer."

S15 says " This obligation[to repair or replace the goods] will not
apply:

if the Customer has failed to notify the Company of any defect in
accordance with Condition 8 where the defect should have been
reasonably apparent on reasonable inspection; or if the Customer fails
to notify the Company of the defect within 12 months "

The purchaser had an opportunity to examine the goods and chose not to
do so. They have no right to a refund and no right to a replacement if
it was a business to business contract (and trying to claim a purchase
on a business account of light bulbs were not seems improbable). A
consumer is defined as a natural person, who is acting outside the
scope of an economic activity (trade, business...). Purchasing light
bulbs on a trade account would not appear to match this definition.

Even if it was considered to be a consumer transaction the right to
replacement is questionable as 12 months is a more than reasonable
life for an incandescent bulb.

On Mon, 23 May 2016 11:19:28 +0100
John Rumm wrote:

Its not clear from your OP whether you were ordering in a personal
capacity using a business account, or if you ordered from a personal
account but also have a separate business account.

If the order was placed from a business account (regardless of who
the customer was) then you will be bound by the terms of business and
the normal consumer protections will not apply. Hence you will need
to read their terms carefully. You may find that they require that
any products delivered non working are notified to them within a
certain time limit.


CPC suggested a few years ago that is it worth opening a business
account in order to make ordering an easier process, so that is what I
have. I don't recall any offer to open a personal account.

However, I have this morning sent them a reply, including the pictures,
and quoting the Sale of Goods Act. I told them that this had broken an
otherwise perfect record with them, and I had lost my trust in them as a
company which values Customer Service. I will see what they say. There
are other suppliers out there, just not as convenient, but I will
probably stay with them anyway. It is, after all, only a £2 bulb.

I understand the requirements for notifying faults within a certain
time, but it is also unreasonable to expect a customer who orders a
batch of light bulbs to open each box and inspect each one on the very
unlikely possibility that there is a visible physical defect, or even
to actually put every one into a socket and light it. They should, to
coin a phrase, "just work" when removed from the box the first time. A
reputable company should have no problem replacing one, especially as I
have provided a means to avoid postage costs.

More when I get a response.

--
Davey.

On Mon, 23 May 2016 06:22:44 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never
was and there is no time limit on that one.

Where do you find that piece of law?

On 23/05/16 13:22, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2016 06:22:44 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never
was and there is no time limit on that one.

Where do you find that piece of law?

probably an EU regulation that's slipped in as part of the other 35,000
EU regulations no one knows anything about...


--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On Mon, 23 May 2016 14:10:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/05/16 13:22, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2016 06:22:44 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never
was and there is no time limit on that one.

Where do you find that piece of law?

probably an EU regulation that's slipped in as part of the other 35,000
EU regulations no one knows anything about...

More likely the Dog and Ferret on a Saturday night.

CPC has seen the light, are and sending me half a dozen replacements.

Many thanks to all for helpful contributions.

--
Davey.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 May 2016 19:33:21 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 May 2016 06:22:44 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:

r
"Davey" wrote in message
...

Is there not some regulation that over-rides the 12 month warranty,
such as 'suitability for use'?

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never
was and there is no time limit on that one.

There are several time limits. One is the 6 years of the Limitations
Act. More significantly the goods are deemed to have been accepted by
the purchaser when a "reasonable time" has passed - usually days or a
few weeks (Now fixed at 30 days by the Consumer Rights Act ) and the
consumer has had an opportunity to examine them (even if they fail to
do so).

That isnt the case with fit for purpose.

Where in the legislation do you claim to find this exemption?

When goods are supplied under contract the purchaser is entitled to a
reasonable period of time to examine them to ensure they comply with
the contract (Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) S34). What is a "reasonable
period" isn't defined in the SOGA but case law established it was
generally no more than 4 weeks and often less. If the purchaser does
not examine the goods for a lengthy period they are deemed to have
accepted the goods, faults and all. (SOGA S35(4) "The buyer is also
deemed to have accepted the goods when after the lapse of a reasonable
time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has
rejected them."

Once the goods are accepted the right to reject them is irrevocably
lost. The buyer has lost the right to reject the goods (but not
necessarily other remedies).

The buyer in this case, after over 12 months, has clearly lost any
right to reject the goods. That leaves them potentially with the
right to repair or replacement. However, 12 months is a more than
reasonable life for an incandescent bulb so the supplier is entitled
to reject such a claim.

Maybe I don't buy nearly enough from them to worry them,
I'm just a private consumer rather than a business, even
though I do have a business account with them.

If the goods were bought on a business account then the Sale of Goods
Act consumer protection additions would not apply.

The purchaser still has fit for purpose rights.

If it is a business to business transaction the suppliers T's&C's
override the provision of the SOGA. The CPC T's&C's (which are
remarkably customer friendly) at S16 say " the Company hereby
excludes to the fullest extent permissible at law all conditions,
warranties and stipulations, express (other than those set out in
these Conditions or given in accordance with Condition 14) or implied,
statutory, customary or otherwise which but for such exclusion, would
or might subsist in favour of the Customer."

S15 says " This obligation[to repair or replace the goods] will not
apply:

if the Customer has failed to notify the Company of any defect in
accordance with Condition 8 where the defect should have been
reasonably apparent on reasonable inspection; or if the Customer fails
to notify the Company of the defect within 12 months "

The purchaser had an opportunity to examine the goods and chose not to
do so. They have no right to a refund and no right to a replacement if
it was a business to business contract (and trying to claim a purchase
on a business account of light bulbs were not seems improbable). A
consumer is defined as a natural person, who is acting outside the
scope of an economic activity (trade, business...). Purchasing light
bulbs on a trade account would not appear to match this definition.

Even if it was considered to be a consumer transaction the right to
replacement is questionable as 12 months is a more than reasonable
life for an incandescent bulb.

This is a case of FIT FOR PURPOSE, not what is a reasonable life for
an incandescent bulb. The bulb could never be used because of the
way it was made means that it was never fit for purpose. So the 6
year rule applies.

On Mon, 23 May 2016 11:35:00 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2016 19:33:21 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 May 2016 06:22:44 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:

r
"Davey" wrote in message
...

Is there not some regulation that over-rides the 12 month warranty,
such as 'suitability for use'?

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never was and there is
no time limit on that one.

There are several time limits. One is the 6 years of the Limitations
Act. More significantly the goods are deemed to have been accepted by
the purchaser when a "reasonable time" has passed - usually days or a
few weeks (Now fixed at 30 days by the Consumer Rights Act ) and the
consumer has had an opportunity to examine them (even if they fail to
do so).

That isnt the case with fit for purpose.

Where in the legislation do you claim to find this exemption?

When goods are supplied under contract the purchaser is entitled to a
reasonable period of time to examine them to ensure they comply with the
contract (Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) S34). What is a "reasonable period"
isn't defined in the SOGA but case law established it was generally no
more than 4 weeks and often less. If the purchaser does not examine the
goods for a lengthy period they are deemed to have accepted the goods,
faults and all. (SOGA S35(4) "The buyer is also deemed to have accepted
the goods when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods
without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them."

Once the goods are accepted the right to reject them is irrevocably
lost. The buyer has lost the right to reject the goods (but not
necessarily other remedies).

The buyer in this case, after over 12 months, has clearly lost any
right to reject the goods. That leaves them potentially with the right
to repair or replacement. However, 12 months is a more than reasonable
life for an incandescent bulb so the supplier is entitled to reject such
a claim.

Maybe I don't buy nearly enough from them to worry them,
I'm just a private consumer rather than a business, even though I do
have a business account with them.

If the goods were bought on a business account then the Sale of Goods
Act consumer protection additions would not apply.

The purchaser still has fit for purpose rights.

If it is a business to business transaction the suppliers T's&C's
override the provision of the SOGA. The CPC T's&C's (which are
remarkably customer friendly) at S16 say " the Company hereby excludes
to the fullest extent permissible at law all conditions, warranties and
stipulations, express (other than those set out in these Conditions or
given in accordance with Condition 14) or implied,
statutory, customary or otherwise which but for such exclusion, would or
might subsist in favour of the Customer."

S15 says " This obligation[to repair or replace the goods] will not
apply:

if the Customer has failed to notify the Company of any defect in
accordance with Condition 8 where the defect should have been reasonably
apparent on reasonable inspection; or if the Customer fails to notify
the Company of the defect within 12 months "

The purchaser had an opportunity to examine the goods and chose not to
do so. They have no right to a refund and no right to a replacement if
it was a business to business contract (and trying to claim a purchase
on a business account of light bulbs were not seems improbable). A
consumer is defined as a natural person, who is acting outside the scope
of an economic activity (trade, business...). Purchasing light bulbs on
a trade account would not appear to match this definition.

Even if it was considered to be a consumer transaction the right to
replacement is questionable as 12 months is a more than reasonable life
for an incandescent bulb.

Not if it was demonstrably faulty from inception. If it could never have
worked, as seems the case here, then even if all your consumer protection
statutes don't protect him then he can still avail himself of the
protections afforded by Common Law and seek relief through that.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 May 2016 14:10:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/05/16 13:22, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2016 06:22:44 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never
was and there is no time limit on that one.

Where do you find that piece of law?

probably an EU regulation that's slipped in as part of the other 35,000
EU regulations no one knows anything about...

More likely the Dog and Ferret on a Saturday night.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...lex:31999L0044

On Tue, 24 May 2016 03:33:16 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
.. .

The purchaser had an opportunity to examine the goods and chose not to
do so. They have no right to a refund and no right to a replacement if
it was a business to business contract (and trying to claim a purchase
on a business account of light bulbs were not seems improbable). A
consumer is defined as a natural person, who is acting outside the
scope of an economic activity (trade, business...). Purchasing light
bulbs on a trade account would not appear to match this definition.

Even if it was considered to be a consumer transaction the right to
replacement is questionable as 12 months is a more than reasonable
life for an incandescent bulb.

This is a case of FIT FOR PURPOSE, not what is a reasonable life for
an incandescent bulb. The bulb could never be used because of the
way it was made means that it was never fit for purpose. So the 6
year rule applies.

Where in the SOGA does it say that fitness for purpose is treated any
differently from any other implied term?

It is the duty of the purchaser to examine the goods upon receipt and
confirm either actively or passively (by saying nothing) that they
were fit for purpose. If the purchaser fails examine the goods then
after a short time they are deemed to have accepted them (30 days
under the new legislation).

Having lost the right to reject there are still other remedies but the
right to reject the goods is not one of them.

On Mon, 23 May 2016 18:10:11 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2016 11:35:00 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

Even if it was considered to be a consumer transaction the right to
replacement is questionable as 12 months is a more than reasonable life
for an incandescent bulb.

Not if it was demonstrably faulty from inception. If it could never have
worked, as seems the case here, then even if all your consumer protection
statutes don't protect him then he can still avail himself of the
protections afforded by Common Law and seek relief through that.

As I said he may have other remedies - but rejection is not one of
them.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 May 2016 03:33:16 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
. ..

The purchaser had an opportunity to examine the goods and chose not to
do so. They have no right to a refund and no right to a replacement if
it was a business to business contract (and trying to claim a purchase
on a business account of light bulbs were not seems improbable). A
consumer is defined as a natural person, who is acting outside the
scope of an economic activity (trade, business...). Purchasing light
bulbs on a trade account would not appear to match this definition.

Even if it was considered to be a consumer transaction the right to
replacement is questionable as 12 months is a more than reasonable
life for an incandescent bulb.

This is a case of FIT FOR PURPOSE, not what is a reasonable life for
an incandescent bulb. The bulb could never be used because of the
way it was made means that it was never fit for purpose. So the 6
year rule applies.

Where in the SOGA does it say that fitness for purpose is treated any
differently from any other implied term?

It is the duty of the purchaser to examine the goods upon receipt and
confirm either actively or passively (by saying nothing) that they
were fit for purpose.

The law says nothing like that.

If the purchaser fails examine the goods then
after a short time they are deemed to have accepted them (30 days
under the new legislation).

Having lost the right to reject there are still other remedies but the
right to reject the goods is not one of them.

You're the only one talking about the right to reject.

On Tue, 24 May 2016 05:25:56 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:



"Peter Parry" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 23 May 2016 14:10:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/05/16 13:22, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2016 06:22:44 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never
was and there is no time limit on that one.

Where do you find that piece of law?

probably an EU regulation that's slipped in as part of the other 35,000
EU regulations no one knows anything about...

More likely the Dog and Ferret on a Saturday night.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...lex:31999L0044

Firstly that isn't UK legislation. EU Directives do not make
national law until transposed into national legislation. Directive
1999/44/EC was incorporated into UK law by SI 2002 No 3045 The Sale
and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.

Nowhere within either the Directive or SI 2002 No 304 does it say that
there is no time limit on rejecting goods as being not fit for
purpose. Indeed the Directive does not allow for goods to be rejected
at all without going through a hierarchy of remedies. Rejection was a
remedy unique to the UK and subject to a specific time limit.
Similarly the directive required the liability period to be 2 years
whereas the UK already had a limit of 6 years (and kept that as well
as the right to rejection).

On Mon, 23 May 2016 21:56:57 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never was and there
is no time limit on that one.

Where do you find that piece of law?

probably an EU regulation that's slipped in as part of the other
35,000 EU regulations no one knows anything about...

More likely the Dog and Ferret on a Saturday night.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...lex:31999L0044

Firstly that isn't UK legislation. EU Directives do not make national
law until transposed into national legislation. Directive 1999/44/EC
was incorporated into UK law by SI 2002 No 3045 The Sale and Supply of
Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.

Nowhere within either the Directive or SI 2002 No 304 does it say that
there is no time limit on rejecting goods as being not fit for purpose.
Indeed the Directive does not allow for goods to be rejected at all
without going through a hierarchy of remedies. Rejection was a remedy
unique to the UK and subject to a specific time limit. Similarly the
directive required the liability period to be 2 years whereas the UK
already had a limit of 6 years (and kept that as well as the right to
rejection).

SSGCR2002's been replaced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, anyway.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes

And that is 100% UK legislation... You can thank the LibDems in the
coalition for it.

On Tue, 24 May 2016 06:54:00 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:



"Peter Parry" wrote in message

It is the duty of the purchaser to examine the goods upon receipt and
confirm either actively or passively (by saying nothing) that they
were fit for purpose.

The law says nothing like that.

Of course it does.

SOGA S27 "It is the duty of the seller to deliver the goods, and of
the buyer to accept and pay for them, in accordance with the terms of
the contract of sale. "

Before accepting them the supplier "is bound on request to afford the
buyer a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods for the purpose
of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract"
(S34)

S35 defines when the goods are accepted, one term of which is "The
buyer is also deemed to have accepted the goods when after the lapse
of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the
seller that he has rejected them."

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 May 2016 05:25:56 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:



"Peter Parry" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 May 2016 14:10:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/05/16 13:22, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2016 06:22:44 +1000, "Jim Simon"
wrote:

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never
was and there is no time limit on that one.

Where do you find that piece of law?

probably an EU regulation that's slipped in as part of the other 35,000
EU regulations no one knows anything about...

More likely the Dog and Ferret on a Saturday night.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...lex:31999L0044

Firstly that isn't UK legislation. EU Directives do not make
national law until transposed into national legislation. Directive
1999/44/EC was incorporated into UK law by SI 2002 No 3045 The Sale
and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.

Nowhere within either the Directive or SI 2002 No 304 does it say that
there is no time limit on rejecting goods as being not fit for purpose.

Doesn't say there is any time limit either.

Indeed the Directive does not allow for goods to be rejected
at all without going through a hierarchy of remedies. Rejection was a
remedy unique to the UK and subject to a specific time limit.
Similarly the directive required the liability period to be 2 years
whereas the UK already had a limit of 6 years (and kept that as well
as the right to rejection).

You're the only one going on about the right to rejection.

What is being discussed is fit for purpose.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 May 2016 21:56:57 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never was and there
is no time limit on that one.

Where do you find that piece of law?

probably an EU regulation that's slipped in as part of the other
35,000 EU regulations no one knows anything about...

More likely the Dog and Ferret on a Saturday night.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...lex:31999L0044

Firstly that isn't UK legislation. EU Directives do not make national
law until transposed into national legislation. Directive 1999/44/EC
was incorporated into UK law by SI 2002 No 3045 The Sale and Supply of
Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.

Nowhere within either the Directive or SI 2002 No 304 does it say that
there is no time limit on rejecting goods as being not fit for purpose.
Indeed the Directive does not allow for goods to be rejected at all
without going through a hierarchy of remedies. Rejection was a remedy
unique to the UK and subject to a specific time limit. Similarly the
directive required the liability period to be 2 years whereas the UK
already had a limit of 6 years (and kept that as well as the right to
rejection).

SSGCR2002's been replaced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, anyway.

But that isn't necessarily applicable to the item being discussed because
it may well have been purchased at a time when the SoG was applicable.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes

And that is 100% UK legislation... You can thank the LibDems in the
coalition for it.

On 23/05/2016 12:17, Davey wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2016 11:19:28 +0100
John Rumm wrote:

Its not clear from your OP whether you were ordering in a personal
capacity using a business account, or if you ordered from a personal
account but also have a separate business account.

If the order was placed from a business account (regardless of who
the customer was) then you will be bound by the terms of business and
the normal consumer protections will not apply. Hence you will need
to read their terms carefully. You may find that they require that
any products delivered non working are notified to them within a
certain time limit.


CPC suggested a few years ago that is it worth opening a business
account in order to make ordering an easier process, so that is what I
have. I don't recall any offer to open a personal account.

You may find that at the time they did not deal with end users directly
anyway (depending on how long ago). Now they have web ordering and the
"Element14" brand aimed at consumers.

However, I have this morning sent them a reply, including the pictures,
and quoting the Sale of Goods Act. I told them that this had broken an
otherwise perfect record with them, and I had lost my trust in them as a
company which values Customer Service. I will see what they say. There
are other suppliers out there, just not as convenient, but I will
probably stay with them anyway. It is, after all, only a £2 bulb.

I understand the requirements for notifying faults within a certain
time, but it is also unreasonable to expect a customer who orders a
batch of light bulbs to open each box and inspect each one on the very
unlikely possibility that there is a visible physical defect, or even

This is one of the areas where shopping as a business differ from as a
consumer. There is a more onerous duty on business customers to protect
their own interests.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 23/05/2016 22:04, Peter Parry wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2016 06:54:00 +1000, "Jim Simon"

Rod Speed alert....

"Peter Parry" wrote in message

Don't waste your time Peter!



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Tue, 24 May 2016 07:18:57 +1000
"Jim Simon" wrote:

SSGCR2002's been replaced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, anyway.

But that isn't necessarily applicable to the item being discussed
because it may well have been purchased at a time when the SoG was
applicable.

The very first words in my OP:

"Just over a year ago.."

--
Davey.

On Mon, 23 May 2016 21:02:40 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes

And that is 100% UK legislation...

Not quite, it implemented the Directive on Consumer Rights
(2011/83/EC).

ou can thank the LibDems in the coalition for it.

We can? 2011/83/EC was brought in under full harmonisation rules
("Member States may not maintain or introduce, in their national law,
provisions diverging from those laid down in this Directive, including
more or less stringent provisions to ensure a different level of
consumer protection." ) the government therefore had little to do.

In article , Adrian
writes
On Mon, 23 May 2016 21:56:57 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

Yep, often called fit for purpose. It clearly never was and there
is no time limit on that one.

Where do you find that piece of law?

probably an EU regulation that's slipped in as part of the other
35,000 EU regulations no one knows anything about...

More likely the Dog and Ferret on a Saturday night.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...lex:31999L0044

Firstly that isn't UK legislation. EU Directives do not make national
law until transposed into national legislation. Directive 1999/44/EC
was incorporated into UK law by SI 2002 No 3045 The Sale and Supply of
Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.

Nowhere within either the Directive or SI 2002 No 304 does it say that
there is no time limit on rejecting goods as being not fit for purpose.
Indeed the Directive does not allow for goods to be rejected at all
without going through a hierarchy of remedies. Rejection was a remedy
unique to the UK and subject to a specific time limit. Similarly the
directive required the liability period to be 2 years whereas the UK
already had a limit of 6 years (and kept that as well as the right to
rejection).

SSGCR2002's been replaced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, anyway.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes

And that is 100% UK legislation... You can thank the LibDems in the
coalition for it.
So the EU directive was an unnecessary waste of time and effort.
--
bert