Argos Returns - Faulty Guitar Hero World Tour Band - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
Expired

Argos Returns - Faulty Guitar Hero World Tour Band

£0.00 @ Argos
Hi. My World Tour Band set is faulty - drums and strummer are non-responsive. I bought it from Argos in December and still have my receipt and all original packaging. Does anyone know if I … Read More
avogadro Avatar
banned7y, 11m agoPosted 7 years, 11 months ago
Hi.

My World Tour Band set is faulty - drums and strummer are non-responsive.

I bought it from Argos in December and still have my receipt and all original packaging.

Does anyone know if I can return it and receive a refund (gift voucher or money would do) as this is the 2nd faulty one I've had so I don't really want a replacement.

Thanks in advance for any help.
Other Links From Argos:
avogadro Avatar
banned7y, 11m agoPosted 7 years, 11 months ago
Options

All Comments

(56) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
I dunno, I thought you only got your money back after 28 days, think Argos are clamping down on refunds that they hand out now.

I bought a camera at xmas, it wasnt switching on, was 2 days over my 28 days and they wouldn't give me a replacement or refund, wanted the refund so that I could just go buy the same one again, insisted that it be sent back to kodak, anyways kodak told them to give me a new camera.

I doubt they'd give your money back to be honest.
1 Like #2
Yes of course - under the Sale of Goods act, you're entitled to a refund. Argos should definitely process this for you without any fuss.
#3
Xb0xGuru
Yes of course - under the Sale of Goods act, you're entitled to a refund. Argos should definitely process this for you without any fuss.


no, they will be entitled to an exchange clearly states games are not refundable

discretion is the key word and to have it for 6 months and then try and cash in on it .....meh
#4
AshleyRFC
I dunno, I thought you only got your money back after 28 days, think Argos are clamping down on refunds that they hand out now.

I bought a camera at xmas, it wasnt switching on, was 2 days over my 28 days and they wouldn't give me a replacement or refund, wanted the refund so that I could just go buy the same one again, insisted that it be sent back to kodak, anyways kodak told them to give me a new camera.

I doubt they'd give your money back to be honest.


You should have asked to speak to a manager - the 30 days money back guarantee is a retailer policy. It has nothing to do with statutory law. If goods are faulty and you're within the manufacturer's warranty period, you are entitled to a full refund. There are exclusions to this law however, where wear-and-tear must be taken into account (clothing etc).
#5
Xb0xGuru
You should have asked to speak to a manager - the 30 days money back guarantee is a retailer policy. It has nothing to do with statutory law. If goods are faulty and you're within the manufacturer's warranty period, you are entitled to a full refund. There are exclusions to this law however, where wear-and-tear must be taken into account (clothing etc).


games/software ARE EXEMPT
#6
casparwhite
no, they will be entitled to an exchange clearly states games are not refundable

discretion is the key word and to have it for 6 months and then try and cash in on it .....meh


Then you should read the small print VERY carefully..

'this does not affect your statutory rights'

What do you think this means?
#7
Xb0xGuru
You should have asked to speak to a manager - the 30 days money back guarantee is a retailer policy. It has nothing to do with statutory law. If goods are faulty and you're within the manufacturer's warranty period, you are entitled to a full refund. There are exclusions to this law however, where wear-and-tear must be taken into account (clothing etc).


I did, she told me the same thing, said that after the 28 days all items are sent back to the manufacturers to be fixed, I was raging, was ready for blowing my top at them.
#8
Xb0xGuru
Then you should read the small print VERY carefully..

'this does not affect your statutory rights'

What do you think this means?


i know what it means

games/software are exempt from the soga end of
#9
AshleyRFC
I did, she told me the same thing, said that after the 28 days all items are sent back to the manufacturers to be fixed, I was raging, was ready for blowing my top at them.


It's a shame as you were completely fobbed off. If you were certain of your rights, the next step is to get them to phone head office. They state quite clearly on their receipts that your statutory rights remain unaffected therefore they have to honour it.
#10
casparwhite
i know what it means

games/software are exempt from the soga end of


End of what? That's such an immature thing to do :whistling:

NOTHING is exempt from statutory law - don't be an idiot. Why do you think it's called statutory law?
#11
Xb0xGuru
It's a shame as you were completely fobbed off. If you were certain of your rights, the next step is to get them to phone head office. They state quite clearly on their receipts that your statutory rights remain unaffected therefore they have to honour it.


your statutory rights are a replacement or a repair

you dont have a clue what youy are talking about im afraid:whistling:
#12
Have you been in touch with the manufacturer? When one of my LCD monitors broke I rang LG to replace it rather than going through ebuyer as the retailers warranty had run out.
#13
casparwhite
your statutory rights are a replacement or a repair

you dont have a clue what youy are talking about im afraid:whistling:


Of course I don't.


http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/consumer_remedies.htm

On 13 May 2009, we published a summary of the 53 responses we received to the consultation. An overview and press release are also available.

Currently, UK consumers have a legal "right to reject" faulty goods. This means a right to a refund if they act within a reasonable time. By contrast, under the European Consumer Sales Directive, consumers’ first recourse is to repair or replacement.
banned#14
Thanks for the advice. Will head to Argos later and see what they say. :thumbsup:
#15
Xb0xGuru
Of course I don't.


you missed this bit

The majority of respondents also agree in principle with our proposal that there should be a normal period of 30 days in which to exercise the right to reject, with a limited amount of flexibility to extend or reduce this period.

having a game for 6 months then try and get a refund just isnt gonna happen:whistling:
#16
casparwhite
you missed this bit

The majority of respondents also agree in principle with our proposal that there should be a normal period of 30 days in which to exercise the right to reject, with a limited amount of flexibility to extend or reduce this period.

having a game for 6 months then try and get a refund just isnt gonna happen:whistling:


It will, because:

1. If you read the OP it's the 2nd time it's faulty. http://www.consumerrightsexpert.co.uk/FaultyGoods.html

If the goods aren't satisfactory, you can "reject" them and get your money back (but be aware that this right is also only for a "reasonable" time).

Instead of having your money refunded, you can accept a replacement or a repair, or even legally claim compensation (which in this case would just mean the cost of replacement or repair, effectively the same as a refund). If you allow the retailer to repair the item and it still doesn't work, you may still be able to get a refund.


2. Once again, forget about games being exempt from money back guarantees because it's store policy which means NOTHING. Once again, this is statutory law which overrides ANY store policies. (in this case, it's the hardware which is faulty and since the package is sold as one, they'd need to refund the full amount)
Let me know what part of 'Statutory' you don't understand and I'll do my best to explain it.
#17
Xb0xGuru
It will, because:

1. If you read the OP it's the 2nd time it's faulty. http://www.consumerrightsexpert.co.uk/FaultyGoods.html



2. Once again, forget about games being exempt from money back guarantees because it's store policy which means NOTHING. Once again, this is statutory law which overrides ANY store policies. (in this case, it's the hardware which is faulty and since the package is sold as one, they'd need to refund the full amount)
Let me know what part of 'Statutory' you don't understand and I'll do my best to explain it.


im not talking about store policy im talking about the SOGA which incorporates your "stautory" rights.......which does not include games

go read it 6 months isnt a reasonable time either
#18
casparwhite
im not talking about store policy im talking about the SOGA which incorporates your "stautory" rights.......which does not include games


Can you send me a link to where the Sale of Goods Act doesn't include faulty games and/or games hardware?

Also, the original was purchased 6 months ago and the OP has already had this replaced. So yes, it's unreasonable to accept a 3rd set (2nd replacement) of the same thing after a 6 month period!
#19
Basically it comes under the sale of goods act 1979 which states that unless stated any customer has a right to expect an item purchased to last a reasonable amount of time ...and clearly 6 months is not ....if you phone trading standards they will direct you to a template letter on their website to send to argos if they do not help you :)
#20
Xb0xGuru
Can you send me a link to where the Sale of Goods Act doesn't include faulty games and/or games hardware?

Also, the original was purchased 6 months ago and the OP has already had this replaced. So yes, it's unreasonable to accept a 3rd set (2nd replacement) of the same thing after a 6 month period!


Check the bolded words.

Princess Bullit
Basically it comes under the sale of goods act 1979 which states that unless stated any customer has a right to expect an item purchased to last a reasonable amount of time ...and clearly 6 months is not ....if you phone trading standards they will direct you to a template letter on their website to send to argos if they do not help you :)




Yes, they are entitled to a replacement, not refund.

Any court in the land would say that 6 months is too long to get a refund after only 1 replacement.
#21
Xb0xGuru
Can you send me a link to where the Sale of Goods Act doesn't include faulty games and/or games hardware?

Also, the original was purchased 6 months ago and the OP has already had this replaced. So yes, it's unreasonable to accept a 3rd set (2nd replacement) of the same thing after a 6 month period!


go find it yourself, its not hard
Princess Bullit
Basically it comes under the sale of goods act 1979 which states that unless stated any customer has a right to expect an item purchased to last a reasonable amount of time ...and clearly 6 months is not ....if you phone trading standards they will direct you to a template letter on their website to send to argos if they do not help you :)


the soga does not include games .......6 months is plenty of tinme to play a game and be bored of it hence them being exempt
#22
casparwhite

the soga does not include games .......6 months is plenty of tinme to play a game and be bored of it hence them being exempt


The S.O.G.A does include games, but not in the manner described.

The OP is not wanting to send a game back in any case. It's hardware that is faulty, not software.
#23
casparwhite
go find it yourself, its not hard


Translation: "I can't find anything".
#24
thesaint
Any court in the land would say that 6 months is too long to get a refund after only 1 replacement.


This would be the OPs 2nd replacement (3rd set) in 6 months - I think you'll find that under these circumstances he is eligible for a refund. Under the Sale of Goods Act, he's acted in good faith for the first replacement, but to happen again in such a short space of time is unreasonable and should have no trouble demanding a refund.
#25
Xb0xGuru
This would be the OPs 2nd replacement (3rd set) in 6 months - I think you'll find that under these circumstances he is eligible for a refund. Under the Sale of Goods Act, he's acted in good faith for the first replacement, but to happen again in such a short space of time is unreasonable and should have no trouble demanding a refund.


Where did you get this info from?

tinkerbell28
No he is not, he is entitled to a repair, replacement or refund and it will be at the discretion of Argos which if they offer a replacement he will have to accept.


^^^This.
#26
thesaint
Where did you get this info from?


It's right there in the OP!

Does anyone know if I can return it and receive a refund (gift voucher or money would do) as this is the 2nd faulty one I've had so I don't really want a replacement.


1st one - faulty. Gets a replacement set.
2nd one (this one) - faulty. Therefore if Argos offer him a replacement, it'll be the 3rd one he's had in 6 months which is completely unreasonable.

The SOGA states:

If faulty after 30 days and within a reasonable amount of time = repair or replacement.
If the repair or replacement becomes faulty (like it has in this case), he can ask for a refund. He's no expected to accept another replacement unit.
banned#27
thesaint
Where did you get this info from?.


the OP?

Does anyone know if I can return it and receive a refund (gift voucher or money would do) as this is the 2nd faulty one I've had so I don't really want a replacement.

Having said that I agree with you on this, theres no way the OP is getting a refund I'm afraid unless the shop decides to play noce
banned#28
Xb0xGuru
It's right there in the OP!



1st one - faulty. Gets a replacement set.
2nd one (this one) - faulty. Therefore if Argos offer him a replacement, it'll be the 3rd one he's had in 6 months which is completely unreasonable.

The SOGA states:

If faulty after 30 days and within a reasonable amount of time = repair or replacement.
If the repair or replacement becomes faulty (like it has in this case), he can ask for a refund. He's no expected to accept another replacement unit.


Where does the SOGA say that?
#29
Xb0xGuru
It's right there in the OP!




Personally, I don't believe that the OP is entitled to a refund after only having one replacement, which would be the case if they received a refund now. The 2nd is broken, but has not been replaced. If this happened a month or two after purchase maybe, not six.

It boils down to how a court would interpret it.
#30
colinsunderland
Where does the SOGA say that?


http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

Also:

http://whatconsumer.co.uk/and-if-my-statutory-rights-are-breached/

Due to the emphasis on proportionality and reasonableness in this legislation, in most cases you must give the seller reasonable time to repair or replace before demanding your money back and you should be aware that the refund given may well take account of any use you have had of the goods since you took possession of them


In this case, accepting a replacement unit and for that to go faulty within a few months would give the OP grounds to demand a refund.
#31
tinkerbell28
Xbox you are wrong here I am afraid, I have been through this very recently with a top of the range washing machine that started to blow up 8 weeks in.......... the part in bold, show a link to where that is, as I believe that's your spin, as it's not correct.
Argos will refund/replace/repair at THEIR discretion. As of today he has had 2 faulty not 3!


Look at my links above - 8 weeks is absolutely no time at all for white goods and you should have (and were entitled to) demanded a full refund.

Yes, he's had two faulty units - therefore he's not expected to accept a replacement for the 2nd faulty one (which would mean the 3rd set he'd receive).
#32
Xb0xGuru



In this case, accepting a replacement unit and for that to go faulty within a few months would give the OP grounds to demand a refund.


Anyone can demand a refund, the question is "Are they entitled to a refund".
You say "Yes".
#33
thesaint
Anyone can demand a refund, the question is "Are they entitled to a refund".
You say "Yes".


The law says yes. In fact, the OP was entitled to a refund after the 1st one was faulty - it's just that they either accepted the replacement in good faith or actually wanted the product. Now he's had two fail on him, he just has to go to Argos and say "This is the 2nd unit I've had after the first one was faulty. I took a replacement in good faith, now this one is faulty too. I'm not willing to accept any more replacement units, so can you please refund me my money". It really is as simple as that. The reason retails don't refund that often is the average consumer doesn't understand that Statutory Law (such as SOGA) overrules their store policy and will just accept what they say.
#34
Xb0xGuru
The law says yes. In fact, the OP was entitled to a refund after the 1st one was faulty -


Really? So if they bought it in December, it worked perfectly and then it failed for the 1st time in April, they would be entitled to a refund?

Xb0xGuru
The reason retails don't refund that often is the average consumer doesn't understand that Statutory Law (such as SOGA) overrules their store policy and will just accept what they say.


If you can show me this "2 strikes and your out policy", I would be grateful.

argos may choose to refund, but I am trying to ascertain whether they are obliged to.
#35
tinkerbell28
Your wrong trust me after having a very expensive washing machine go wrong twice now,[COLOR="Red"] first was within 8 weeks of purchase, second time, a few weeks later[/COLOR], you ARE WRONG in your interpretation of the law believe me, we took legal advice on it.
As like the op we had an item go wrong a lot sooner, the same amount of times, and the item was worth a hell of a lot more.


Going by the Key Facts of SOGA, I think you were given poor advice by your legal advisor....


Key Facts:

• Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).

• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.

• Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.

• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.

[COLOR="Black"]• If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)[/COLOR]

• For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).

• A purchaser who is a consumer, i.e. is not buying in the course of a business, can alternatively request a repair or replacement.

• If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit

• In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).

• If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)

• After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity.


I would say within 8 weeks (for the first), and then within a few weeks (for the replacement) is within a reasonable amount of time for a washing machine
#36
tinkerbell28
Nope, we got two opinions and both said, not worth persuing a small claim as the law is open to interpretaion, however they were following their legal obligations, first time was a repair, then they caved for a replacement second time, they will refund on a third, this is more than fair and I would not of had much chance taking them to court as legally they were fufilling thier obligations:)
I would like to think your right as I was furious, but your not, chances are we would not of won a small claim, reasonable time is open to interpretation and is usually classed as 30 days.


Fair enough, it's just that we've gone through exactly the same with Whirlpool - machine failed after 6 months, then had parts replaced and it failed again a couple of weeks later. Have now had a full refund from them :) I wouldn't class 28 days as reasonable time for a washing machine tbh (maybe a low value item, but not expensive domestic white goods).

Also had an ipod shuffle a couple of years ago that broke a month after 13 months. Took it back to Currys and managed to get a full refund for a replacement (had to get a fault report from an Apple repair shop though).
#37
I hope the OP has been to Argos and posts back soon.

HUKD=serious business
#38
Sorry tinkerbell you are too soft or whoever gave advice on a product developing a fault within 8 weeks and not being entitled to a refund is wrong. When you approached wherever you bought it from you should have asked for a refund and insisted on it , having little faith in the quality of the obvious faulty goods were grounds enough for refund* see bottom, if you accepted a repair first Co's the shop said thats all you were entitled to then they conned you and accepting a repair makes it a lot harder to get refund.

I had to return 23 commodore 64 computers to same shop over a 1 and a half period lots other things I have returned when faulty and have had plenty of refunds from faulty goods. Whereby Dixon's and Curry's staff told me I would not get refund when I knew I would .. I would not have been there wasting my time If I thought I was going to come home empty handed when the goods I was returning were obviously faulty and 8 months old is not an acceptable amount of time to expect a TV / dvd player/ whatever the product to last when in use 3 hours a day. Some people are far too easily dissuaded into thinking what shop is telling them is accurate when it's not even truthful

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023045.htm


if your washing machine no longer washes it ain't a washing machine and was wrongly advertised/ described and does not fit the the use and therefore

consumer guarantee" means any undertaking to a consumer by a person acting in the course of his business, given without extra charge, to reimburse the price paid or to replace, repair or handle consumer goods in any way if they do not meet the specifications set out in the guarantee statement or in the relevant advertising;
#39
a washing machine and unsealed sofware/hardware cannot be compared, 30 days could be regarded as sufficient for the game but not for a washing machine

If a store refuses to take responsibility for a faulty product, currently the only way to seek redress is through legal action, which involves proving the goods are faulty. And this is exactly what Which? reader Brenda Robertshaw did when electrical giant Currys refused to fix her �400 washing machine free of charge, when it broke down after only 18 months and ruined some clothes (see 'Currys taken to the cleaners', Which?, October 1999, p4). Brenda won the cost of repairs, compensation and expenses, totalling �190. The judge ruled that it was reasonable to expect a �400 washing machine to last longer than 18 months. Sadly, though, some stores don't seem to have learned from Currys' ruling.
#40
SOFTWARE AND DIGITAL CONTENT

-by-

Professor John N Adams
University of Sheffield (emeritus)/Notre Dame University

This paper addresses the issue as to whether transactions involving the acquisition of software are sales of goods. In addition it considers the application of the Distance Selling Regulations to such transactions. With certain exceptions, all consumer sales within the UK have to comply with the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations. How these apply to consumer supplies of software is unclear. The Office of Fair Trading (‘OFT’) has issued guidance about this, but given that this refers to ‘unsealing’ software clearly what they have in mind is software sold on disk, similarly the OFT website listing exceptions to the right to cancel provided by the Regulations includes ‘un-sealed audio and video recordings or computer software’. Given the declining importance of this method of selling software (and indeed of CDs generally), I believe that there is a need to look again at this.

A ‘distance contract’ is -
... any contract concerning goods or services concluded between a supplier and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service provision scheme run by the supplier who, for the purpose of the contract, makes exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the moment at which the contract is concluded.

Although the regulations therefore apply to both sales of goods and supplies of services, so far as domestic UK law is concerned, it is still important to distinguish between the two types of contract, because the Sale of Goods Act applies to the former and imposes ‘strict liability’, whilst the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 applies to the latter, and imposes only a duty to carry out the service with reasonable care and skill. Given that the internet is international, we cannot simply concern ourselves with UK law, however.

To simplify matters, however, we will first consider the situation in purely domestic sales where the regulations clearly apply. An important right provided by the regulations is of cancellation. The period is 7 working days from the date of delivery in the case of goods, and 7 working days from the date of the order in the case of services. But is a supply of software on-line a supply of goods or services? Some have argued for a distinction between software delivered on disk (which is rather like the purchase of a book or a record), and software delivered on-line. Steyn J in Eurodynamics Systems plc v General Automation Ltd expressed the view that the transfer of software was the transfer of a product. Some support for the view that a transfer of software is a sale of goods can be found in the cases.

Notwithstanding the fact that software is by its nature digital content, and that the end-user is simply licensed by the proprietor to use it (which would otherwise be an infringement of the proprietor’s intellectual property), there is authority on from both sides of the Atlantic that the sale of software is a sale of goods. In the United States, the predominant purpose test has been applied to software. Under this test the court must look to the ‘essence’ of the agreement and determine whether the sales aspect or the service aspect predominates. In Advent Systems v Unisys Corp the 3rd Circuit ruled that in a contract for the sale of a ‘turn‑key’ computer system, including hardware and software, installation and post‑installation service, software was a ‘good’ within Article 2 Uniform Commercial Code. In Neilson Business Equipment Center v Italo V Monteleone the Delaware SC ruled similarly in relation to a turn‑key system. In Analysts Intern Corp v Recycled Paper Products the court observed -
‘We conclude that except for the provision of a good - a computerized reordering system - the agreement in this case would have no purpose.’

Interestingly, this case involved customized software, but the court took the view that had there been no transaction involving a good - a computer system - underlying the agreement, there would have been no purpose to it at all. In Colonial Life Insurance Company of America v Electronic Data Systems Corporation which involved a license of software and an on-going relationship between the parties during the term of the license involving substantial supplies of services, the court found that the thrust of the contract was the supply of the software itself, and that the supply of services was simply ancillary to this. The approach evolved by the US courts, it is submitted, is that right one. If the predominant purpose of the contract is the acquisition of the end-product, software that does what it is supposed to do, it is a sale of goods, even if there is a substantial service element ancillary to this. Compare this with the situation in Micro-Managers Inc v Gregory in which $55,968 of $59,828 price was for labor, and this, combined with the fact that service language predominated in the contract, pointed to the fact that the predominant element in this contract was services.

In England and Wales in St Albans City Council v ICL two judges expressed the view that a computer disk is ‘goods’ and covered by the Sale of Goods Act. However, in Beta Computers (Europe) Ltd v Adobe Systems (Europe) Ltd Lord Penrose critized the view that the medium by which the software was delivered is a relevant consideration. He said -
‘It appears to emphasise the role of the physical medium, and to relate the transaction in the medium to sale or hire of goods. It would have the somewhat odd result that the dominant characteristic of the complex product, in terms of value or of the significant interests of the parties, would be subordinated to the medium by which it was transmitted to the user in analysing the true nature and effect of the contract. If one obtained computer programs by telephone, they might be introduced into one’s own hardware and used as effectively as if the medium were a disk or CD or magnetic tape.’

Similarly, in Eurodynamics Systems plc v General Automation Ltd Steyn J expressed the view that liability should not depend on the physical medium bearing the software. It is submitted that this is correct. As White & Summers say -
‘We believe that the best general approach for the courts to take is to determine what policy objectives the particular code section in question implicates, and then, in the light of those policies, determine whether the particular facts of the transaction invite the application of the section by analogy.’
I believe that this is the correct way to approach European legislation. This approach can be squared with the US ‘predominant purpose’ test, because if the thrust of the contract is that acquisition of a good in the form of software which does the job it is supposed to do, then the contract should be treated as either a sale within the Sale of Goods Act, or a contract for the transfer of goods to which the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 applies. This amounts almost to a presumption that transfers of software are subject to the quality warranties of the Sale or Goods Act or their equivalent in the 1982 Act. This presumption, however, can be displaced where a substantial part of the payment made by the ‘buyer’ is in respect of services, and this is borne out by the way in which the contract between the parties is couched.

With this in mind we are in a position, I would argue, not only to apply correctly the provisions of the Distance Selling Regulations, so that the cancellation period for most software bought on-line would be 7 days from delivery. In exceptional cases where it is clear that what is being contracted for are the services of a programmer or similar, the cancellation period would be 7 days from the placing of the order. It also gives a workable test for the applying the unfair contract terms legislation.

For UK buyers the fact that the credit card is the invariable form of payment over the Internet leads to a useful possible source of redress against the credit card company where the goods supplied are defective. The key provision is section 75(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 -

‘If the debtor under a debtor‑creditor‑supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract [emphasis supplied], he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.’

Subsections 12(b) and (c) respectively define ‘debtor‑creditor‑supplier agreements’ which are ‘restricted’ and ‘unrestricted‑use’ credit agreements. The exact details of these definitions do not concern us here. The key to them is the definition of ‘consumer credit agreement’. Under section 8(2) this is ‑
‘... a personal credit agreement by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding [£25,000]’

Note: it is the amount of credit that matters, not in this definition the value of the goods. However, s.75(3) further limits the application of these provisions by requiring the value of the goods to be above £100 and below £30,000

Where the seller is in the UK these provisions can provide a most useful remedy. The Act was thought not to apply, however, to contracts entered into outside the UK. However, this problem was been surmounted by the Court of Appeal in Jarrett v Ba [snipped by DBA for length]

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!