i've been buying parts for a new pc build and wondering how long i have to return any items that happen to be faulty? before i have to go via a warranty for repair / replacement. i think most retailers will accept returns within a month of the sale date?
May vary with different retailers, so mentioning the specific retailers could be useful. Definitely 30 days for Amazon, I know that for sure.
I think the Distance Selling Regulations and Sales of Goods Act will pretty much cover a DOA within a month though.
Sales of Goods Act:
"Where the goods are returned due to being faulty the consumer is entitled, under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended), to return the goods within a reasonable time after purchase and claim a full refund plus any other losses that have been incurred as a direct result of faulty goods being supplied, such as the costs of postage. Where faulty goods are returned the refurbishment charge, and/or delivery charges cannot be deducted from the consumers' refund."
I think it's fairly difficult to argue 28 days is not a reasonable amount of time.
wasn't sure about amazon so thanks for pointing that out as most of the parts iv'e bought so far are from amazon.
as a seller myself i would allow one month return period for faulty items. though i do recall one buyer insisting on a full refund after 6 months. i think after 6 months most retailers would tell you to go via warranty.
Amazon have a great reputation for returns so no need to worry there I shouldn't think. Yeah, I think generally a 28 day or so return period is probably the norm, any more and it seems more likely you will have to claim on the warranty.
Distance Selling Regs won't, in normal circumstances, cover you for a month. If the retailer knows what they're doing and has provided the information they are obliged to provide, you get 7 working days starting the day after delivery.Originally Posted by MmmmGalaxy
As for the 28 days, only a court can determine what is "reasonable", and it depends on a variety of factors, not least, the circumstances of the purchase. You are entitled to reject goods, provided you act in a "reasonable" time, but there are several ways of accepting goods, and thereby losing that right, within that period. After that, you may no longer get a full refund. A deduction might be made for any use you have had, though for a very brief period, any deduction would be so small as to be petty. If you take the number of days you've had the product, as a proportion of a reasonable expected life, you'd get a good start at a basic calculation.
28, or 30, days is probably not a bad ball park figure, but ultimately, there is no hard and fast rule. It's for a court to decide. And you may be stuck with a repair/replacement rather than a refund if you lose that initial right.
There are a number of threads on here with very detailed discussion on all this, so I won't do it all again in this one.
But northernpcgeek, be careful to differentiate clearly between the retailer's liability under the Sale of Goods Act, etc, and a warranty claim. They are NOT the same thing. Retailers may be liable, in terms of the rights stated above for the SoGA, and they can be liable for up to 6 YEARS. But the fault has to be one inherent in the goods at the time of sale. That is, not accident damage, misuse, abuse, etc.
For the first 6 months, the law assumes that fault was inherent, and you have those SoGA rights, unless the retailer can prove the fault was not inherent. After 6 months, you have to prove the fault is inherent, or the retailer can assume it was not, and you have no claim.
If by "seller", you mean retailer (as opposed to, for instance, a private seller selling their own stuff on eBay) then the buyer with faulty goods has a Sale of Goods Act claim for 6 years. Telling them to go via warranty is a good way to get someone to complain to Trading Standards about you. You may or may not be liable under the SoGA, but the rights DO extend for 6 years, and as a retailer, there is no way to legally duck out of that. Suggesting the warranty claim as a route might be the optimal route for a consumer, depending on what's happened, but a retailer suggesting they have no liability after 6 months is at the very least acting in a potentially illegal way.
i don't think a retailer is liable to replace / repair products that have developed a fault after 12 months. some products may not be expected to last more than 12 months.. the figure of 6 years may be the timescale for a claim being made ie a claim must be made within 6 years of purchase? i agree that after 6 months though it is down to the customer to prove that the fault existed when the item was purchased..not easy and likely expensive option for the buyer.
There is NO doubt at all. If the fault is inherent, the retailer is liable for up to 6 years. But the fault has to be "inherent". And proving that is not necessarily easy.
Think of it this way. Suppose you sell a TV to a customer, and a fault develops that turns out to be the result of a design flaw. Or a sub-standard component. You, the retailer, are liable for that to the customer, and it's then for you to sort out liability with the manufacturer.
But the fault has to be "inherent". That is, something that existed at the time the set was sold, regardless of whether the fault waited until after 6 months, or indeed, after a year, to manifest in a failure.
So, after 12 months, an inherent fault manifests and the product fails. What are you liable for? Repair or replacement, providing that neither is disproportionately expensive, or if neither are possible, a refund taking account of the use the consumer has had of the product. So, in short, if you cannot repair or replace the product without disproportionate cost, or in a timely fashion with causing undue inconvenience to the consumer, then you may refund, with a deduction to reflect usage.
If a "reasonable" life for a product was 5 years (60 months) and the product fails after, say, 20 months, then it would be reasonable and fair to argue that the consumer could have expected 60 months, and got 20 months. So you could deduct 20/60ths, or 1/3rd, from the purchase price. If they paid £300, you could deduct £100 and refund £200.
But please be very clear about this. Subject to the nature of the fault (it being inherent), and the nature of the product (and the expected life), the retailer absolutely is liable for up to 6 years.
If the nature of the fault is such that it came about because of misuse or abuse by the consumer, the retailer isn't liable. If it came about because of failure to comply with manufacturers (reasonable and legal) instructions, the retailer may not be liable (because it would be misuse). If the fault came about because of accidental damage, the retailer isn't liable.
But as long as the fault was "inherent at time of purchase", the retailer categorically is liable for up to 6 years, courtesy of the very basic tenets of the Sale of Goods Act.
There are some very good, and quite detailed, quides to retailer's obligations, and rights, under the Sale of Goods Act, and other consumer legislation like the DSR, available from the DTI, or BIS, or whatever they call themselves today.
For instance, have a browse around the Office of Fair Trading SoGA hub, or download the guide for traders, in PDF form, at this site
Whatever liability you, the retailer, has does depend on the nature of the goods, and on the nature of the fault. After all, the consumer can expect a longer life from a car than from a banana, and the law has to express consumer rights in a format generic enough to cover everything from buying cut flowers to buying a house or car. But it is absolutely cut and dried, without any doubt whatsoever, that the retailer is liable way beyond 12 months, in the right circumstances.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote