disappointed with scan RMA

[CaptainCrash]

Theoretically in this situation Scan are quite within their rights to wash their hands of the whole matter, whilst this may not be the best solution in terms of customer relations they are entitled to do so.

No, they are not - if an item fails prematurely, the supplier has a statutory duty to rectify the situation. Exactly what this would involve depends on a number of factors, including the expected useful lifetime of the goods, the time since purchase and the benefits the purchaser has already received.

As you say though, Scan may well be acting in good faith and it's probably not helpful at this point to start banging on about their legal obligations.

[Rebel]

Sorry but we will have to agree to differ, under the circumstances the OP outlined I firmly believe I am correct, and since if the item has already lasted over 6 months then the onus is on the consumer to prove the fault was inherent at the time of the sale, See BERR for details on the act.

IF the consumer can PROVE the item was faulty at the time of supply OR there is an inherent fault with the item which can be shown to be a design fault or a component which has prematurely failed taking into account the use, the cost, and the length of time before such a fault manifested itself the consumer MAY have a claim under the sale of goods act against the retailer, in practice this hardly ever happens although if it was researched and a significant number of cases showed the same fault with the same product the consumer would be in a far stronger position.

All the legal training I have received is over 30 years ago (although it was all consumer law) and whilst I may be slightly out of date as I have not been to court in this type of case for a number of years I believe the principles still hold good.

[CaptainCrash]

Sorry but we will have to agree to differ, under the circumstances the OP outlined I firmly believe I am correct, and since if the item has already lasted over 6 months then the onus is on the consumer to prove the fault was inherent at the time of the sale, See BERR for details on the act.

This really isn't the issue - yes, after six months the onus is on the consumer to prove nonconformity to contract, but you seem to be projecting this into declaring that they have no rights at all. If (in this particular case) he were to go to court armed with the relevant data regarding the normal expected operating life of an LCD backlight, easily obtained from the manufacturer or an independent expert witness, I highly doubt the retailer would be in a position to challenge it.

Obviously, given the elapsed time and already received benefit, the purchaser would be unlikely to receive the full original price of the item (or replacement goods to that value), but your claim that "Scan are quite within their rights to wash their hands of the whole matter" is just plain wrong.

[Saracen]

No, they are not - if an item fails prematurely, the supplier has a statutory duty to rectify the situation. Exactly what this would involve depends on a number of factors, including the expected useful lifetime of the goods, the time since purchase and the benefits the purchaser has already received.

As you say though, Scan may well be acting in good faith and it's probably not helpful at this point to start banging on about their legal obligations.

Actually, you're wrong. If an item fails prematurely, whether the supplier is liable or not will depend on WHY it failed, and what the consumer can prove.

Rebel is right, because the paragraph you quoted of his wasn't qa bald statement but a conditional one, based on whether there was an inherent fault or not. If, repeat IF there was no inherent fault, the supplier is not liable.

So what do I mean by "inherent fault"? For the consumer to be able to claim against the supplier, he will either have to rely on any guarantee to the supplier offers, or the implied conditions in the contract derived from the SoGA, which requires that the "fault" existed at the time the goods were sold.

So if the backlight failed, the question will be why it did. If it failed because the monitor had been knocked while being ,moved, no such inherent fault existed. If it failed because of a mains fluctuation or a lightning strike sent a surge, no inherent fault existed.

But if, as may well be the case with the OP, it just died, then it may well be that there was either a design flaw in the monitor, or a component problem. Suppose case design was such that the monitor overheated, and statistics showed that that overheating caused the backlight to fail. Then, the inherent fault would be the design flaw, and the SoGA would apply. Or suppose a faulty batch of components caused failure, or that a manufacturing defect resulted in a batch of components of lower quality than the design spec called for had been used? Again, that's an inherent defect if it resulted in the failure.

In fact, what you and Rebel are both saying is pretty similar, but you seem to have missed that he said IF it wasn't an inherent fault, or that as since months have passed the OP wouldn't prove (to the satisfaction of the court) that it was an inherent fault, THEN it would be down to manufacturer warranty, as no liability would exist for the seller.

The following quote is the b it you quoted and the preceding paragraph ....

However this does not appear to be the situation here unless this is a known inherent fault with this particular monitor there may not be any legal rights involved. If this is the case the claim is against the warranty offered by the manufacturer which is in ADDITION to your statuary rights not against Scan.

Theoretically in this situation Scan are quite within their rights to wash their hands of the whole matter, whilst this may not be the best solution in terms of customer relations they are entitled to do so. In this instance Scan have not said they will not help, they have asked the original poster to wait until Tuesday when they will see what they can do to help.

The emphasis in bold and red is mine.

I make no judgement on whether the fault is inherent or not, or could be proven to be or not. Anything I say or that, or you do, or Rebel does, is a guess, and the only opinion that actually counts is that of the court should this ever have gone down that route.

Obviously, given the elapsed time and already received benefit, the purchaser would be unlikely to receive the full original price of the item (or replacement goods to that value), but your claim that "Scan are quite within their rights to wash their hands of the whole matter" is just plain wrong.

And there's the problem. Rebel didn't make that claim. He said IF an inherent fault can't be proven, that would be the situation.

[Saracen]

Thanks for the info guys, not sure what to make of it all as there is conflicting info

Scan have offered a part refund but I didn't want this, just want a working monitor of the same spec! I will call Scan on Tuesday and see what else can be done although I think it is better if they can try sort something out with LG as I didn't get very far with them. Hopefully they have a different response this time as I contacted them beginning of April I think.

I'm beginning to wish I bought the Dell in the first place

I might be too late with this, but I've been busy the last few days (and away).

I think what you need to keep clear in your head is that manufacturer warranty and consumer rights are different, and separate. What you might be entitled to under the manufacturer's warranty (or guarantee) will depend on what that warranty/guarantee offers. Some warranties, for instance, exclude certain components. If it does, then it does. But if the warranty covers your specific situation, then you can hold the manufacturer to it because, since an EU directive was implemented in UK law back in 2003, such warranties are binding, providing you knew of the warranty when you bought.

But that's completely separate from your consumer rights under the SoGA, which would be against Scan. There, you have the problem of proving "inherent fault" I mentioned in the last post. Statistics on failures from manufacturers might or might not be enough, and an independent engineering report might be necessary ..... but don't get that done without looking into process, because the court would require procedure to be followed for that to be taken into account.

But supposing you did take it to court, could prove inherent fault and won the case? What would Scan be obliged to offer? Well, after 18 months, you can choose between repair or replacement providing that your choice is both possible, and not disproportionately expensive. Clearly, if parts aren't available, a repair would not be possible, so that option is out. A replacement, however, is not going to be for a brand new monitor unless prices had fallen so far that the value of the replacement met the "not disproportionately expensive" criteria.

The next option is a refund, if neither of the above is appropriate. But here's the catch. The supplier is entitled to make a deduction for the use you've already had of the product, and usually, that'll be a pro-rata deduction. The calculation goes something like this ..... how long would you, or a normal person, have expected the product to last? Often, some independent viewpoint, like the Consumer Association, would be used to gauge that. Suppose, for argument's sake, that that expected life was assessed as 4 years. Then, you've had 18 months use, which is 18/48ths of the purchase price in use. That would give a base point for a usage deduction ..... and probably also for the value of the monitor you'd be offered as a replacement.

As the monitor was £445, a deduction of around £167 would seem reasonable, and a refund around the £278 would result. Depending on circumstances, there may be other factors going into that, like changes in market pricing for a given spec of monitor, and of course, any other costs you may have incurred as a result of the monitor failing.

Essentially, if it went to court, they'd be recompensing you for the damages you suffered as a result of the breach of contract when the monitor failed to last as well as it should. That compensation would usually be pitched at a level that should leave you no worse off, but no better off, than you would have been had the monitor not failed. That's why a brand new monitor of the same spec might be an optimistic expectation, and certainly why a refund of the full purchase price would be.

Next, courts expect both parties to have behaved reasonably in seeking to resolve things before going to court. If either party hasn't, it'll weight heavily against them. You said Scan had offered a partial refund. If you reject that out of hand because you want a full refund, don't expect a court to view that with favour, because it usually won't.

So .... unless you can expect to be able to hold the manufacturer to their warranty, and you'd need to read the specific warranty carefully to get a view on that, then given the above, a partial refund is all Scan would be expected to offer by a court, and from what you say, they have. It's for you to decide if the amount is reasonable or not. Bear in mind the four year lifetime I've used, and the figures I've quoted as a result are merely an example to illustrate the process, and I'm not claiming that's what that lifetime should or would be.

[CaptainCrash]

Actually, you're wrong. If an item fails prematurely, whether the supplier is liable or not will depend on WHY it failed, and what the consumer can prove.

Rebel is right, because the paragraph you quoted of his wasn't qa bald statement but a conditional one, based on whether there was an inherent fault or not. If, repeat IF there was no inherent fault, the supplier is not liable.

Well, I thought it would be obvious to most people that the retailer is not responsible for expected wear and tear resulting from fair use or accidental damage caused by the customer, but yes, I should certainly have phrased that more precisely.

Having re-read Rebel's original post, whilst I do take your point regarding the qualifiers, it still seems to me that it's easily interpreted as "Scan have no obligations to the OP in this particular case," whereas at best those obligations have yet to be determined (as you explained in your second post).

cf: "Theoretically in this situation Scan are quite within their rights to wash their hands of the whole matter"

with: "Theoretically in the situation I outlined above Scan would be quite within their rights to wash their hands of the whole matter"

It may seem like nitpicking at this point, but I wouldn't want the OP (or anyone else) to get the idea that, once six months and one day from the contract date have elapsed, their realistic chances of legal redress against a supplier will have effectively disappeared.

[Blitzen]

It may seem like nitpicking at this point, but I wouldn't want the OP (or anyone else) to get the idea that, once six months and one day from the contract date have elapsed, their realistic chances of legal redress against a supplier will have effectively disappeared.

No one said that.
In fact, my first post strengthened the point (which you dismissed).

The consumer must prove the fault was inherent if the item is over 6 months old. Thats what we have ALL been saying all along.

[CaptainCrash]

No one said that.
In fact, my first post strengthened the point (which you dismissed).

sigh... as I explained, it was what I inferred from Rebel's post. If I was the only one to do so, then all well and good, we're all clear now, although I'm struggling to see how you "strengthened the point" in either your first or second posts.

The consumer must prove the fault was inherent if the item is over 6 months old. Thats what we have ALL been saying all along.

Yes, you did say that, but you also made several other statements which were either incorrect or unjustified given the available information.

Anyway, I don't want to turn this thread into a willy-waving contest for barrack-room lawyers, or professional ones for that matter. Hopefully the OP will return soon and let us know how it's all panned out.

[Hicks12]

SOrry to jump in here but how would one prove that the item had a inherent fault?. If the gpu randomly died and there is no sign of damage, how would i go about this?

[jim]

To be honest, you would think that "proof" would require someone to look at it and decide what the fault is. Problem is, it would have to be somebody whose opinion would be believed in court, who would no doubt charge for it to be done. And of course it might turn out that the damage was caused by an electrical spike anyway.

I don't think it would ever be a road worth taking with something like a graphics card, because the costs would be huge in comparison to the value of the card. And the retailers are no doubt fully aware of the problems involved for a consumer to take them to court.

[Saracen]

SOrry to jump in here but how would one prove that the item had a inherent fault?. If the gpu randomly died and there is no sign of damage, how would i go about this?

The short answer, and I don't mean it to sound trite, is "convince the judge".

This sort of consumer claim will nearly always end up in the informal setting of a small claims court (or more properly, Small Claims track of the County Court). This is at the discretion of the judge, but unless the claim is for more than £5000 or is exceptionally complex, is likely to be decided in the small claims track. This is going to be you, the other party, the judge and a member of court staff or two, sitting round a desk. No wigs, no full court setting, no pomp and no ceremony. You don't have to be represented by a lawyer, and neither side are likely to be able to claim the costs of such representation if you do use it.

As it's a civil case not criminal, the oft-quoted "beyond reasonable doubt" isn't the required standard. Instead, you have to prove your case "on balance of probability". In other words, convince the judge that, more likely than not, you're right.

How do you do that? Present any documentary evidence you have, and argue your side. The other side does the same thing. So the first thing might be to produce the purchase receipt to prove you actually have a contract with the seller.

Then the tricky bit ..... proving "inherent fault". Well, it might be obvious, such as when there's a clear manufacturing fault. But with electronics, it might come down to showing that the fault you suffered is a known fault with that product. There might be a manufacturer recall notice, or a large pile of similar claims.

In some cases, it might require an expert opinion. And this is why I warned against getting expert opinion too early. The whole point of the small claims track is to keep the process simple and fast, and costs down. The judge decides if an expert witness is necessary, and if one is required, regardless of who pays for him/her, they are there to advise the court, not you or the other party. So if one is required, you'll probably be told that, and the best bet will be to agree with the other party who it will be. The judge is unlikely to accept more than one, and is certainly not going to want it to descend into an opinion fight between experts, which could end up with several on each side, all essentially opinions for sale. That will not be allowed to happen. So the expert is an independent expert, advising the court. If you get an independent report without going through the procedure, it might help you satisfy yourself you're right, but you might well not be allowed to use the report.

So, coming back to my initial "trite" remark ..... you present your view of the situation, you present any documents etc supporting it, and perhaps, a report from an independent expert, and see what the judge thinks.

Remember where the burden of proof lies, though. For the first 6 months, the statutory presumption is that the fault was inherent, unless the supplier can prove to the judge that it was not. After that, it reverses, and the presumption is that the fault was not inherent, unless you can prove that it is. So, after 6 months, unless you can "prove" your case by convincing the judge that, on balance, you're more likely to be right than wrong, the supplier will win.

[Hicks12]

Thought it would be like that, stupid really isnt it?. Id of assumed it would be better to have it the first year as electrical has to be a minimum of 12 month warranty. So basically, go with a good company like logitech so they honour the warranty .

Thanks for the informative posts .

[Emu76]

I strongly suggest everyone has a good look at this:
consumerdirect.gov.uk/after_you_buy/know-your-rights/electrical (can't post a URL low post count.)
The URL might be pretty self-explanatory, but this is the UK government legislation on faulty electrical components. I could paste various bits of it here but I think the link is more useful.
Basic points are "All electrical goods and gas appliances need to be used and looked after in line with any instructions." - AKA overclocking is out of the question.
"Fair wear and tear is not a fault." - This is not defined, so "fair wear and tear" should be decided between the consumer and supplier.
I think the most important quote however is this:
"The trader must sort out your problem, not the manufacturer
Remember, if you are entitled to a refund, replacement, repair or compensation, it is the trader who must sort out your problem. The trader cannot tell you to go back to the manufacturer." - so it is no good for a supplier to tell you to go back to the manufacturer if it is faulty.
The site also says: "If you have used it more than a few times or have had a reasonable opportunity to check them, you are probably still entitled to a repair or replacement" - I think this is unclear as it doesn't specify a time period, although discretion should be used. Personally I wouldn't think a monitor should definately work after a year. Obviously I think it should still work after 18 months but the line is much more unclear and I don't think it is the traders obligation to replace anything electrical after a year. Make your own mind up say the government. EEk.

[Advanced]

The company is obliged by law to offer a 2 years warranty, under the trade description act, anything more is at there own will..

I am surprised you can even possibly have a problem with Scan as whenever I have bought anything with 'em before it has no top class no problem, and normally there after car support is one of the main reason I buy from them..

[Saracen]

It is true that no retailer should tell you you must go to the manufacturer, unless they consider that you don't have a claim under consumer law, and in that case, if you disagree, you can always argue that out with them and, if need be, use a court.

But, there's nothing at all to stop a retailer pointing out to you that going to the manufacturer might be your best option, and indeed, it might. If the coverage offered by the manufacturer's guarantee is better, for instance, than that offered by your statutory rights. For instance, some manufacturers offer pixel warranties on monitors that are considerably better than your statutory rights.

It's also sometimes the case that a manufacturer will be faster than going to the retailer, because if you take the goods back to the retailer, they will then send them to the manufacturer.

Retailers can't duck out of their statutory duties, and in some cases, will be committing criminal offences if they try. But they can certainly point out that the manufacturer might be offering a better option.


As for "reasonable opportunity" to inspect goods, a time period isn't specified for a very good reason. Product complexity varies hugely. How long will it take you to check if a kettle to see if it complies with the contract? You have a look at it, plug it in, and if it boils water, it probably complies. But how long would it take you to check a digital SLR, or a complex AV system, or a car?

The "reasonable period" isn't defined precisely because how long it is will depend on a variety of factors, not least of which is the product. But it's also talking about whether you've had opportunity, not whether you took it.

If you buy something, take it home and park it on a shelf for three months without getting it out of the package, you've almost certainly had plenty of opportunity to check, even if you didn't. But now suppose you were driving home, had a car accident or heart attack, and ended up in hospital for three months. Have you had "reasonable opportunity"? So, in that case, when you get home, you're then going to get a "reasonable opportunity" to inspect the goods to ensure they comply with contract.

There's a huge body of cases that suggests that "reasonable opportunity" to inspect goods to ensure contract compliance will likely be from a few days to, at most, about a month, depending on the goods, unless there's some other factor like that car accident or hospital visit. If the buyer and seller can agree on whether you've acted fast enough, then great. But if not, the government haven't said "make up your own minds". They've said "ask a judge". That's what small claims courts are for.

Obviously I think it should still work after 18 months but the line is much more unclear and I don't think it is the traders obligation to replace anything electrical after a year. Make your own mind up say the government. EEk.

There have been countless cases where courts have said exactly that complex electrical goods, like computers and TVS, would be expected to last longer than a year. But it's not an absolute as to how long something should last.

For instance, person A lives alone, and uses their washing machine twice a week. Person B is a mother with 5 kids, and uses hers three times a day. If the motor bearings wear out after, say, two years, what would have to be decided (by the court if necessary), is whether the length of time they lasted was "reasonable" in light of all the circumstances, or whether the goods had proved to be less durable than could reasonably be anticipated. If so, then that failure to last could well mean that they aren't of "satisfactory quality", and if they aren't, then they don't comply with contract, and if they don't, then the (business) seller can be liable for up to 6 YEARS (England and Wales).

A trader may very well have an obligation for much longer than a year, but as for "replace", well, maybe not. The consumer can choose whether they want goods repaired or replaced, but the seller can decline either if it either is not possible, or is disproportionately expensive. In that case, you can either get damages for breach of contract, or can get a refund, but that latter will usually be a partial refund. So a retailer is certainly not necessarily obliged to replace goods after a year, or even after less than that, but if they goods didn't comply with contract, they ARE under an obligation to resolve the situation, either with repair, replacement or refund (partial or full), even well after a year has passed.

[Saracen]

The company is obliged by law to offer a 2 years warranty, under the trade description act, anything more is at there own will..

I am surprised you can even possibly have a problem with Scan as whenever I have bought anything with 'em before it has no top class no problem, and normally there after car support is one of the main reason I buy from them.. :thumbs:

No, they aren't.

The two year thing is the result of an EU directive that's been widely misinterpreted. It means that all EU countries must implement legislation to harmonise minimum standards in consumer rights across the EU. It is NOT about minimum warranty/guarantee periods, or at least, not in relation to how those terms are interpreted in the UK. If you read the actual directive, it's much clearer in what it actually means than the way it's often portrayed.

This EU directive was implemented into UK law by Statutory Instrument, The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002. It was implemented by amending the 1979 Sale of Goods Act, which is the primary legislation giving rise to the rights I mentioned in my last post, about the requirement of goods to comply with contract.

But it didn't change the UK law in relation to two years at all, because it required a minimum two year period to enforce those rights, and that period had been six years in the UK, at least since the 1980 Limitations Act.

In short, :-

1) It's about the right to sue for breach of contract, not the guarantee period
2) It imposes a 2 year minimum on all EU states, but we already had 6 years so it didn't affect us (in that regard).