Faulty goods, Sale of Goods Act, consequential losses.

[deso]

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?

[buildersmate]

I think that you are going to have to look at the small print of the T&Cs of the contract with the original supplier. Some retailers seek to limit consequential loss liability - particularly in B2B contracts. Yours is a B2C contract.

[deso]

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?

[buildersmate]

B2B - business to business
B2C - business to consumer, aka retailer

The extra cost of the plumber is surely a consequential loss - it occurs as a consequence of the original failure.

[deso]

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?

[buildersmate]

I am not a lawyer.
What knowledge I have of contract and employment law is acquired from the job. My knowledge of property law comes from having had to sort out inadequate advisors in the past

[ben1261]

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).