Groups
    EXPIRED

    Sale Of Goods Act

    Hi there,

    A couple of people have asked me for these and so rather than have people PM me, I thought I would just put them on the open web for people to use and abuse at their leisure. I hope I am not flouting any rules of the site by doing this, and if so, I apologise...

    I wrote these letters for my brother who's iPhone was in a very sorry state and even though it was under warranty, because the back had cracked, some water had got in and discoloured one of the water sensors, which gave Apple grounds to void the warranty. However, after sending these letter off to O2 and Apple, they replaced his 3G with a new 3GS as they didn't make the 16GB 3G anymore.

    Hopefully these letters will help people who's goods have failed and are out of warranty

    Tim

    To whom it may concern,

    I purchased my Apple iPhone on *insert date*, meaning it is still well within warranty. I have been very pleased with the phone, but I have had some issues with the build quality:
    • Cracked case
    • Buttons falling off
    • Any others

    Since the phone is still within warranty and is consequently under a year old, I would have expected it to age much better than it has done. I also have a Nokia 5310 that I use more regularly, which is older and is in far better condition than my iPhone. Given my iPhone is still within warranty, I brought it into your store (where I bought it from) for repairs, only to be told that because one of the water sensors had changed colour, the warranty was now void due to water damage.

    Now, this seems to me to be a catch all get out clause that will void most iPhone warranties. Given that most, if not all people will keep their phones in their pockets at some point or other, then isn’t it fairly obvious that it will be exposed to sweat every now and again? This something that my 5310 handles with aplomb, but evidently, my iPhone (with its cracked case), cannot. You may well say that it could have been dropped in some water, but then surely both sensors would have changed colour (due to the cracked case) and not just one? Only a complete idiot would dunk half of their phone, especially one with a cracked case...

    Anyway, all this talk of warranties is rendered null and void when you take into consideration UK Law. According to the legal advice I have received, the warranty means nothing at this particular point as I have a legally binding contract for six years with under the Sale of Goods Act 1979. In section 14 (2B), this act stipulates that “the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods:
    (a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
    (b) appearance and finish,
    (c) freedom from minor defects,
    (d) safety, and
    (e) durability.”

    As a general rule, people expect their phones to last at least 18 months without falling apart (given that contracts are now 18 months or more). Considering the price point of the iPhone and that my (significantly) cheaper 5310 is also in tip-top condition, I would expect (and so would a great many other people) the iPhone to remain in a good condition far in excess of 18 months. This therefore means that the goods supplied were not of sufficient durability and thus not fit for purpose. With this in mind, I fully expect to sanction full repair of my iPhone at no cost to myself under the legally binding contract created in accordance with the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

    As I am due to go away on holiday on 5th July, I am keen to get this matter resolved as soon as possible as I would like a fully functioning iPhone to take with me (I cannot take my 5310 as that is my work phone). Therefore, I would appreciate it if you could reply to me in writing at the above address as a matter of urgency. I look forward to hearing from you.

    33 Comments

    not_the_messiah

    ...I have a legally binding contract for six years...



    When “The Sale of Goods Act 1979″ was amended in 1994 it included a clause to say that goods purchased from a trader must correspond with the description, be of satisfactory quality, & be fit for purpose with a continued operation over a “reasonable” length of time.

    If the goods are not of “satisfactory quality” you are entitled to claim a refund or compensation (that typically represents the cost of any repairs).

    You may make a claim up to five (in Scotland) or six years after the initial purchase date. You do not have a six year warranty.


    The retailer, not the manufacturer, is legally obliged to resolve any issue with the goods.

    The terms of the Consumer Law are in excess of the standard one-year guarantee provided by the manufacturer.

    Extended warranties are, again, in addition to the cover provided by “The Sale of Goods Act”.

    BFN,

    fp.

    I don't understand this bit :

    This is some that my 5310 handles with aplomb, but evidently, my iPhone (with its cracked case), cannot.

    Original Poster

    fanpages

    You may make a claim up to five (in Scotland) or six years after the … You may make a claim up to five (in Scotland) or six years after the initial purchase date. You do not have a six year warranty.



    Agreed, but nowhere have I said that you have a six year warranty...

    Original Poster

    deb8z

    I don't understand this bit : This is some that my 5310 handles with … I don't understand this bit : This is some that my 5310 handles with aplomb, but evidently, my iPhone (with its cracked case), cannot.



    Apologies - "some" should have been "something"... I was referring to the fact that if a crappy Nokia can cope with being in a pocket, then surely the Jebus Phone should be able to...

    deb8z

    I don't understand this bit : This is some that my 5310 handles with … I don't understand this bit : This is some that my 5310 handles with aplomb, but evidently, my iPhone (with its cracked case), cannot.



    The Nokia handles his sweat, the iPhone doesn't

    just got my tv repaired under this

    i had to pay for the engineers report and quote sent it off to DSG grp and they paid me directly for the repair.I did send an email to the MD made this happen quicker I think.
    TV was only 18 months old.
    It was a LG TV there CS dept is rubbish.
    You can get all the letter templates from Consumer Direct website aswell

    Sadly, the great British public are yet to embrace the SOGA.

    thesaint

    Sadly, the great British public are yet to embrace the SOGA.


    Yeah deffo worth doing you can also hold your credit card company jointly liable if you paid with it.

    sancho1983

    The Nokia handles his sweat, the iPhone doesn't



    I understand that,i wanted to know what it should have said and it should say someTHING

    Oh, thought that bit was obvious!

    Good work on getting a replacement. Unfortunately most people would just buy a new one - exactly what Apple (and every other company) would prefer.

    With high value electrical products (TVs, expensive phones, games consoles, etc) you expect that they will last longer than a year and if it does break when older than a year the manufacturers will wash their hands of any responsibility as it's out of their 1 year warranty period. A standard and compulsory 3 year warranty on such goods would be a good idea but for now we have to rely on chasing companies using the SOGA... Still, better than nothing to fight with!

    Edited by: "oldmanhouse" 26th Aug 2010

    fanpages

    You may make a claim up to five (in Scotland) or six years after the … You may make a claim up to five (in Scotland) or six years after the initial purchase date. You do not have a six year warranty.



    not_the_messiah

    Agreed, but nowhere have I said that you have a six year warranty...



    I was making the distinction that you have six years in order to pursue a claim, before anybody (mis)quoted you elsewhere; I thought that is why you provided your correspondence as you did above.

    For example, if an item fails in the third year of ownership it is not automatic that you are can claim a full refund, exchange, or seek a claim for repairs, if that item's "reasonable" lifespan was only two years.

    BFN,

    fp.

    its also up to you to prove it was bad workmanship and not you after the first year iirc

    I think the OP was just putting an example letter here for others to use.

    It's good. Thank you!

    My surround sound system became faulty a few months ago, one of the surround speakers developed a very bad crackling problem, and is so bad that i have had to disconnect it from the system as it becomes unbearable.

    I bought it from Amazon about 12-13 months before, but know that the SOGA Act says that it should last for a reasonable time, whereas a little over a year is appalling.

    I keep getting the same response from Amazon saying "blah blah you are not covered by anything, we are not responsible, contact the manufacturer, and don't tell us to do things against the rules etc"

    So i guess i will be taking them to a small claims any time soon.

    Jeez, Amazon is one of the biggest online retailers and they are so tight that they can't even pay like £50 for a quick repair job.

    Original Poster

    woz

    I think the OP was just putting an example letter here for others to … I think the OP was just putting an example letter here for others to use.It's good. Thank you!



    That's exactly the reason :-)

    Banned

    fanpages

    You may make a claim up to five (in Scotland) or six years after the … You may make a claim up to five (in Scotland) or six years after the initial purchase date. You do not have a six year warranty.

    not_the_messiah

    Agreed, but nowhere have I said that you have a six year warranty...



    Unlike you, the OP was actually trying to be helpful and I'm sure those affected by this issue are actually grateful.

    Toodle Pip

    G

    Supermod

    Some good work OP (in getting the replacement) but it needs to be noted that each case must be judged on its own merits.

    DarkKnight

    My surround sound system became faulty a few months ago, one of the … My surround sound system became faulty a few months ago, one of the surround speakers developed a very bad crackling problem, and is so bad that i have had to disconnect it from the system as it becomes unbearable.I bought it from Amazon about 12-13 months before, but know that the SOGA Act says that it should last for a reasonable time, whereas a little over a year is appalling.I keep getting the same response from Amazon saying "blah blah you are not covered by anything, we are not responsible, contact the manufacturer, and don't tell us to do things against the rules etc"So i guess i will be taking them to a small claims any time soon.Jeez, Amazon is one of the biggest online retailers and they are so tight that they can't even pay like £50 for a quick repair job.



    I thought Amazon were based in Jersey.

    Original Poster

    magicjay1986

    Some good work OP (in getting the replacement) but it needs to be noted … Some good work OP (in getting the replacement) but it needs to be noted that each case must be judged on its own merits.



    Indeed it does, but provided you are able to prove that you have not mistreated the item in question, then the law is on your side... I even used it successfully on getting a part on my car fixed by Motorpoint as Ford wouldn't touch it under the terms of their worthless warranty... Be firm, stand your ground and you should get the outcome you want. If not, small claims court.

    thesaint

    I thought Amazon were based in Jersey.



    No the European branch of Amazon is based in Luxembourg, although it distributes within the UK.
    So i guess the laws are based on over there rather than over here.

    Just found an interesting article actually, saying that as Amazon are located over there, we are actually covered for electronic goods failures within 2 years as that is the consumer rights in Luxembourg.

    Link

    Hmm, i may pass on this handy piece of information to my old pals at Amazon and see what they have to say

    Supermod

    not_the_messiah

    Indeed it does, but provided you are able to prove that you have not … Indeed it does, but provided you are able to prove that you have not mistreated the item in question, then the law is on your side... I even used it successfully on getting a part on my car fixed by Motorpoint as Ford wouldn't touch it under the terms of their worthless warranty... Be firm, stand your ground and you should get the outcome you want. If not, small claims court.



    You have reiterated my point that each case be judged on its own merits.

    Original Poster

    magicjay1986

    You have reiterated my point that each case be judged on its own merits.



    And your point is? Actually, I added quite a bit more information, but fine, put me down if you haven't got anything constructive to say...
    Edited by: "not_the_messiah" 27th Aug 2010

    Banned

    Here’s an interesting fact. The Sale of Goods Act was actually invented after an incident involving this guy I used to go abseiling with.

    His name was Graham The Bender (mainly because he was an actual gay) and he used to love shopping. Anyway, one day he bought a crate load of mixed fruit; apples, bananas, yoghurt, grapes. You name it, this crate had it. (As long as it was fruit based)

    Anyway, he gets the fruit crate delivered to his house and opens it up. Oh what?! It’s only all gone bad. He had no idea what to do, the bloke who sold it to him was not answering his phone and this was 20 years ago so there was not internet forum full of loose orange women and fat angry virgins that could help him out.

    He ends up hiring a solicitor to take the seller to court on account of the product being bad. The court rules in his favour deeming that all items sold must be “good.” From that case, various other ones came about and eventually The Queen Her Royal Highness of England decreed that all items sold must be of “good quality” and hence came the name “The Sale of Goods Act”

    BFN

    fp


    20 years ago... Hmmmmm... The SOGA act 1979.:|
    Edited by: "thesaint" 27th Aug 2010

    Banned

    thesaint

    20 years ago... Hmmmmm... The SOGA act 1979.:|



    Are you some sort of a brain-disabled? The numbers "1979" refer to the number of cases brought in court before the act was "actified." If I have to explain further, "actified" is when the Queen (Her Royal Highness Lady Elizabeth of Windsor) reads a new act and decides whether she will stamp it to make it a law.

    Original Poster

    DJ1

    Are you some sort of a brain-disabled? The numbers "1979" refer to the … Are you some sort of a brain-disabled? The numbers "1979" refer to the number of cases brought in court before the act was "actified." If I have to explain further, "actified" is when the Queen (Her Royal Highness Lady Elizabeth of Windsor) reads a new act and decides whether she will stamp it to make it a law.



    I do believe you are, to put it bluntly, talking out of your backside. The number after an act dictates what year the act was passed, not how many cases were against it - what a ludicrous suggestion! All you have to do is have a look at this link to see that you are wrong. Based on that information, then your theory suggests that coincidentally, all the acts passed in those years had precisely the same number of cases against them as the year.... I think you owe thesaint an apology... What the hell kind of word is 'actified' anyway?

    Banned

    How either of you thought I was being serious boggles my mind

    http://www.dan-jackson.com/smilies/iiam.gif

    DJ1

    How either of you thought I was being serious boggles my mind



    should've let it run. the thread could've been "epic".

    Original Poster

    DJ1

    How either of you thought I was being serious boggles my mind



    I assumed you must have been, given it wasn't amusing in any way and you were actually pretty offensive...
    Edited by: "not_the_messiah" 27th Aug 2010

    ants97

    should've let it run. the thread could've been "epic".



    +1 It was shaping up to be something special

    sancho1983

    Oh, thought that bit was obvious!



    Indeed,but if people were copying it for their own use they might not have noticed it and not amended it when it didn't make sense,that's the only reason i pointed it out

    DJ1

    How either of you thought I was being serious boggles my mind



    Di d you think I thought you were being serious? I lol'd.
    Post a comment
    Avatar
    @
      Text
      Top Discussions
      1. Win a Free minion usb stick1111
      2. Tv choice magazine Issue 391515
      3. mail on sunday comp - win a £3,000 thomas cook gift e-card22
      4. DICKINSONS REAL DEAL £25,000 COMPETITION11

      See more discussions