Legal Advice re: incompatible software

[jim]

A colleague of mine purchased around £100 of software recently, and tasked me with installing it. To cut a long story short, they thought they were getting extra licenses of software we already have, but in reality were buying an oudated version of it. This outdated version crashes instantly under XP no matter what settings I use to install it.

She now wants a refund for it, and the company (unsurprisingly) have told her it's not happening.

As far as I can figure

DSR is irrelevant, because it's months since delivery, and it was a business transaction.
SOGA probably is irrelevant, because the website states a list of compatible operating systems - not including XP.

But I'm not certain on the last point, because I don't know exactly how SOGA applies with regard to incompatible software and the like.

I'm not that fussed myself... I know caveat emptor isn't applicable to shops, but seriously! Buying cheap software off a dodgy site without checking its version or compatibility information strikes me as asking for trouble. Nonetheless, I said I'd look into it. And of course, me being the IT guy, I guarantee it will wind up being my fault in the next week or so...

[Syllopsium]

I am not a lawyer, but this seems pretty simple to me : XP is not listed as compatible, therefore run it on something that is listed as compatible. If it doesn't work on that then perhaps there's some leeway about fitness for purpose (but I wouldn't hold your breath).

If you can't get it working under the earlier version (Designed for NT? 2K? Probably ok. Me/9x - I'd just give up) and they're forced to fix it, that may have a side effect of making it work under XP..

If you've tried all the compatibility options anything else is likely to be tricky. It's worth turning off DEP for that program if it's enabled for everything, and a debugger might show something if you're especially keen.

PK

[Saracen]

I'd say it's simple, and comes down to the "fit for purpose" provisions of the Sale of Goods Act.

We all know about faulty goods, inherent faults (or you lot should 'cos I've explained it often enough ) but there are also provisions that goods sold by a business must be "fit for the purpose", which begs the question ..... what purpose?

The answer to that is ... either :-

- implicit purposes
- explicit purposes

An "implicit" purpose is something that is inherent in the nature of the product. You expect a raincoat to keep off the rain, so when buying one, you don't have to ask "does the raincoat keep the rain off?" Any reasonable person would assume that it did from the nature of the product. Hence, it's "implicit" in the product.

Anything that isn't implicit, however, needs to be specified.

If I walk into Scan, and say I want a CPU at about £100-£150 and they sold me a Socket F Opteron 2212, I can hardly complain when it turns out it won't work in a S775 motherboard.

If, on the other hand, I went in and said "I want a CPU at about £100-£150 for an Intel s775 motherboard" and they sold me that Opteron, then it's a clear breach of the Sale of Goods Act, because my need for it to work with a specific motherboard type was explicit, and they breached it.

I would expect a decent supplier (like Scan) to ask, when confronted with "I want a CPU" to ask what it was for, but I'm not aware of any obligation on them to do so.

If your friend had a specific need, like interoperability with specific hardware, OS or software platform, then the obligation was on her to specify that. In my view, from what you've said, the shop are correct and there is no obligation to take product back or refund.

[jim]

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.

I was aware of the fit for purpose stipulation, but couldn't quite work out how to apply it in this case. Nonetheless, I would've been surprised if we'd had a leg to stand on.