Sales Of Goods Act

[HelpDIY]

I am writing with the hope that you may be able to help me with clarification on which Act has precedence over which based on my example.

If a buyer entered into a contract with a seller who said that they supply and install Brand A products. The buyer thought when the product arrived he would see Brand A label on the product. However, the product came with a Brand B stuck on it. The seller said their supplier sourced product from the same manufacture as Brand A sourced theirs. Therefore they have fulfiled their contract with the Buyer because the product have the specification.

The Buyer argued that he entered the Contract with the seller to have Brand A label and not Brand B label on the finished product. The Buyer said the Seller has in breach of Act 1982. The Seller came back and said according to Act 1979 he was not in breach of the contract because the product has the same spec. Remember the buyer entered a contract with the seller to supply and install Brand A product. (a another example is that a buyer trusts and buys Marks & Spencer's food in a BP petrol station because they trust M&S brand and wants to see M&S label on his food.

The buyer knows that many M&S products are made in other countries and that the same manufacturers also make the same products for other companies but the labels on the finished product would NOT be M&S. He went ahead purchasing M&S stuff because he likes to see M&S label on his purchase) In this example I am not sure in this example, which Act would apply.
Any comment is much appreciated. Thanks

 

[D_Hailsham]

I bought an LCD monitor about two years ago from a large chain of electrical sheds. A few months ago it started playing up - taking a long time to come on. Eventually it died completely. I did the usual checks - swap with a know good LCD monitor, tried my monitor on another PC. No joy.

So I visited the shop where I bought it and was told that, as it was out of warranty, I would have to contact their head office. So I emailed thhe head office and eventually received a reply that I would have to get an independent report on the monitor. This was harder than you can imagine. The local PC independent PC shop said that they did not have the kit to carry out any tests or investigations; it would have to go back to the makers (China).

Eventually I found a firm which specialised in repairs of monitors. They said they could do a report for £25 (plus VAT). So I packed up the monitor and sent it to them.

I have today received their report, which says:

Fault: No start up from cold
Cause: Heat damage to components on PSU PCB
Reason for damage: Poor air circulation by design.

I don't think they mean that the monitor was deliberately designed to have poor air circulation; just that the design was such as to give poor air circulation.

I can get the monitor repaired for another £14 + VAT, but I am not inclined to go down that path as it will still have the same inherent fault.

I wll be very interested to get the reaction of the retailer when they receive a copy of the report.

 

[Steve]

D_Hailsham, to think, they have been mass producing LCD monitors for PCs now for 10 years plus, and they still churn them out with design faults. I mean, come on, something gets hot, it needs air! Its not rocket science.

On a similar vien to the post above about the car stereo, I have a set of logitech z5500 speakers, which have been faulty from day 3 (literally 3 days after i took delivery). The speakers will cut out, one by one, until its silent, then start playing agian. When its warm weather, it will exasserbate this, and will keep cutting out. Also the control unit will turn on in whatever mode it feels like (more recently). Extremely annoying! But its not the sort of thing you'd feel is worth returning to the retailer, especially as bought online. Only a minor fault, so i live with it.

 

[securespark]

Only a minor fault. Speakers cutting out?

 

[wotan]

Speakers cutting out, to me means only one thing, they have been hammered, the coils and / or flexible connections to the coils are damaged.

Wotan

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

edit: bo**ocks, duff reply to a duff thread.

 

[JohnD]

I am writing with the hope that you may be able to help me with clarification on which Act has precedence over which based on my example.

If a buyer entered into a contract with a seller who said that they supply and install Brand A products. The buyer thought when the product arrived he would see Brand A label on the product. However, the product came with a Brand B stuck on it.

If you buy something according to specification, it must conform to specification.

That's it.

However it is unclear from your post if the supplier offered a Brand A product as part of the description, or if the buyer simply assumed that it would be brand A.

 

[D_Hailsham]

Who changed the title of this Thread? I received an email from Admin referring to "Extended warranties on appliances", so I went to my watched topics list - nothing there. Clicking on the link in the email brings this topic up.

Was this change really necessary? Or is it just a case of a Mod throwing his weight about?

 

[Steve]

Only a minor fault. Speakers cutting out?

I should have been clearer, it only happens when the ambient temperature is 25 degrees +. Below this they work perfectly.

 

[JohnD]

@ D_Hailsham

I think Extended Warranties was a different one

 

[big-all]

the sale off goods act says "it must be fit for purpose" it also says "it must be as describe"

was there any conditions in sales pitch like "or simmilar may be substituted" or" picture for illistration only"

if there was nothing in wording at point of sale to say it was other than presented in the main pitch then you should have exactly what you paid for and not a substitute

on to the monitor dependant on how much you paid for it it should be expected to work for up to 6 years
as you have done what is required outside the first year or after the warenty period which is to prove the goods are faulty and not fit for purpose

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

What did it say on the back of your sales agreement?
I'd ask for the item to be replaced for the correct brand, that was ordered by you.
If they don't agree to, send them a letter(recorded delivery) giving them a period of time i.e. 7 days to replace it or money back.
If this is not done, then report them to trading standards and tell them( the seller) that this is your intension in the letter, if things are not resolved.
Trading standard will tell you to do the above. But you will have the ball rolling by then and document any correspondence and any conversations you have with seller.
Is it a well known reputable company?
If so shouldn't be a problem.
This is purely a tactic to get either the said brand or a refund, if it ever goes so far as going to court, trading standards have no powers and a refund would be decided by a judge and if the judge finds in your favour that will not guarantee you your money.

 

[JohnD]

The buyer thought when the product arrived he would see Brand A label on the product...

..the buyer entered a contract with the seller to supply and install Brand A product.

So which is it?

Did he "think" it would be Brand A or was that specified in the contract?

 

[D_Hailsham]

@ D_Hailsham
I think Extended Warranties was a different one

It can't be a different topic. As I said above, the email referred to a topic titled "Extended Warranties" but the link in the email brought me to this topic. There is no topic on the site titled "Extended warranties".

 

[D_Hailsham]

If a buyer entered into a contract with a seller who said that they supply and install Brand A products. The buyer thought when the product arrived he would see Brand A label on the product. However, the product came with a Brand B stuck on it. The seller said their supplier sourced product from the same manufacture as Brand A sourced theirs. Therefore they have fulfiled their contract with the Buyer because the product have the specification.

Just because Brand A and Brand B both buy from the same supplier does not mean they are the same product to the same specification. Brand A may lay down tighter quality control criteria than Brand B.

Philips used to do this. They would manufacture a batch of TVs and then carry out Quality Control tests on a sample. If the sample passed the test, the whole batch went into cases with the Philips badge. If the sample failed, it was retested to a lower spec. If it passed, the whole batch went into cases with a Sobell label. If the sample failed the second test the whole batch was rejected and sent back to the production line for repair and readjustment.

The same thing would happen on the valve and semi-conductor production lines. Ine product could be sold under several names, depending on the Quality Control results. Kept the reject rate very low.

I used to do the work, that's how I know.

As for the specific case, I would ask Trading Standards first, so you open a case with them and can refer back to them as the saga unfolds.