Subject: Re: ink re-fills and warranty
From: "MC" (e-mail address removed)
Date: 1/22/04 6:59 PM GMT Standard Time
Message-id: <
[email protected]>
However, the truth is that in UK law
the warranty is not worth the paper it is printed on and you have the Sale
of Goods Act to back you up if the printer develops a
mchanical/manufacturing fault within a "reasonable" time (sometimes over
many times longer than the manufacturers warranty), irrispective of what ink
you use.
I beleive this to be true but there may be some consumer lawers out there
who may correct me, however.
Well, You are partly right, Firstly when discussing UK law it is important to
distuinguish between (England and Wales), (Scotland) and (Northern Ireland) as
these three seperate entities often have different laws, however referring to
England and Wales if the manufacturer does not honour their warranty it may
well be possible to sue the manufacturer for loss or damages incurred by them
not honouring their warranty or obtain a court injunction forcing them to
honour their warranty.
The sale of goods act which you refer to has been replaced by something like
the Goods and Supply of services act circa 1996.
This originally seemed to lessen consumer rights as shortly after this was
first tested a court ruled that a vendor no longer had to give a full cash
refund as he did under the old act but merely to give a replacement or repair
the item. I dont know if higher court rulings have changed this ruling back to
the cash refund entitlement or if the law has changed yet again to go back to
the cash refund entitlement.
An important change did take effect in about April last year which has
strengthened consumer rights however: Originally the burden of proof on the
balance of probability lay on the consumer to prove that the goods were not of
merchantible quality when manufactured, now the burden of proof lies with the
retailer.
A very important piece of law, but as of this moment, I dont know all the
answers either.
With regards to rejecting goods in order to obtain a refund (If possible) or
repair,replacement the consumer must reject the goods
(Take them back to the retailer making clear, preferrably in writing that you
are rejecting the goods, this is because some retailers have been known to
argue that you did not formally reject the goods)
The consumer must reject the goods within a reasonable time that he/she becomes
aware that the goods are not of merchantible quality. As for how long after
purchasing the item you can use the goods and supply of services act, well when
this has been tested, the Judge usually takes a common sense view, with a 200
Pound washing machine the court often would not go above the manufacturers
warranty but with a 500 pound washing machine a judge did rule that the
customer was entitled to a free repair or refund some 3 years after purchase.
Presumably the same principle would apply to printers.
Warranties are important because neither the sale of goods act nor the supply
and sale of goods act actually set a time limit, so without a 12 month
manufacturers warranty a retailer might well be able to argue that because of
the nature of the goods and the price of the goods that the retailer was
responsible for a lesser period, say 6 months for example, in fact
theoretically evn with a warranty they could still argue this.
This piece of legislation is more complex than it first seems, twice I have
issued a County Court "Claim" (No longer called a Summons) one against Maplin
Electronics and even when the shop could have argued that they were in the
right, they paid the refund and the cost of the claim immediately, presumably
because they correctly decided that it was easier to pay up rather than employ
a Lawyer (Costing about 200 pounds an hour in London) to defend my court
action.
Other people such as private wheel clampers have paid out after court
proceedings have been issued rather than defend the claim even though in the
case of a private wheel clamper I am convinced that they would have won the
case.
John.
