Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Faulty goods, Sale of Goods Act, consequential losses.
Briefly, I bought a new toilet online which the plumber fitted then spotted was faulty (leaking under the rim when flushed, due to a hairline crack). It wasn't practical to wait for a replacement (10 days delivery) and the plumber was sat idle in my bathroom, so I went to B&Q to buy a replacement which cost �23 more than the original, and the additional plumber's time cost �60. The supplier has agreed to refund the cost of the original toilet but nothing else. I think the extra �60 for the plumber is a consequential loss incurred as a direct result of the fault (I would have had to pay the plumber even more than �60 to come out again to install a replacement from the supplier) and is therefore recoverable from the supplier under the terms of the S of G Act 1979. I'm not sure about the �23 though - any solicitors out there?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by deso. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Thanks Buildersmate, but what are B2B and B2C? I know a lot of companies have these standard clauses in their T&C's as you say, but this doesn't relieve them of their obligations under the law. My (very basic) understanding was that these exclusions are more geared towards indirect consequential losses such as loss of profits which are more relevant to commercial contracts - I've always believed the consumer has more protection. Specifically, isn't the extra cost of the plumber a direct loss?
Thanks again Buildersmate - My thinking entirely, and I will definitely be pursuing this with the supplier. The annoying thing is that if you look under the the rim you can see what is clearly a botched repair job - a big blob of some cement like substance. Whether this was the supplier or a previous customer I don't know, but the fact that the supplier has agreed to a refund without even asking me to return the toilet for them to inspect makes me wonder. They said I can just dump it (at my inconvenience and expense I might add!) Maybe I'll press for the other extra costs as well now I think about it. Can I ask what your profession is just out of interest?
Hi if it is not fit for purpose it is covered by s.14(3) SGA 1979, therefore you can repudiate and claim damages. check the contract though as most businesses try to exclude liability, and it can be evident sometimes that you cannot say something is not fit for purpose after only 2 weeks or so and if you closely examined it. but don't let it get too late or you've accepted the goods also. - the UN convention on the international sale of goods makes it law that the £23 is recoverable as the damages you should be able to claim if you repudiate (put you into the position you would be in iff the contract had been fulfilled) but this is obviously not necessary for your position so - the business should offer repair and replacement under the 20002 consumer regulations. My advice would be contact the Citizens Advice Bureau, and then the relevant codes of practice/consumer direct. (consumer direct would probably be better).
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.