Author Topic: Any of the RAWK laywers in?  (Read 2191 times)

Offline nidgemo

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 20,836
  • Semper in excremento, sole profundum qui variat.
  • Super Title: Coming soon! Official Launch May 2008
Any of the RAWK laywers in?
« on: April 19, 2006, 01:00:02 pm »
Hi there all

I've been told that UK consumer law extends beyone the warranty to protect the consumers, under some sort of expected lifespan of the product - eg, if you buy something that should be realistically expected to last 5 years, and totally fails a few months after the one year warranty expires.

Is this true?

If so, where can I find some info about it, or even the specific law, so I can quote it to a manufacturer.

The problem, if it helps. My sister bought a computer, and it's dead as a doornail, with a complete motherboard failure. Like I said, I've been told that in this case, because large failures like this should not happen so soon, even outside warranty, that she's covered to some extent - even to possibly getting free repair.

Is this true?

Any help greatly appreciated!

 :wave
« Last Edit: August 28, 2016, 01:47:58 pm by John C »
I'm no longer on RAWK, but if you need to contact me about anything, you can email me on nigelmorrison@connectfree.co.uk

Offline ttnbd

  • RAWK Chief Financial Officer
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,975
  • ANFIELD4EVER
Re: Any of the RAWK laywers in? - Quick question regarding consumer law
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2006, 01:21:10 pm »
It sounds familiar but not certain. Does the company she bought the computer from not have a return to base warranty? The motherboard on my pc failed just over a year after getting it and the firm i bought it from happily sent it back to base to get fixed, well in my case replaced.
try citizens advice
So all say thanks to the Shanks

He never walked alone

Lets sing our song for all the world

From this his Liverpool home

Offline Wigwamdelbert

  • Well wickidd, innit
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,887
Re: Any of the RAWK laywers in? - Quick question regarding consumer law
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2006, 01:24:33 pm »
Nidge - these people are very good -

http://www.gccni.org.uk/consumerline/

think there is some sort of "fit for purpose" rule on goods.
Every man has a dream

Some just can't be spoken of in polite company

Offline Jim Price

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,566
Re: Any of the RAWK laywers in? - Quick question regarding consumer law
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2006, 01:31:30 pm »
Sale of Goods Act 1979 is the relevant legislation I would think, link to an advice sheet below:

http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/calitem.cgi?file=ADV0043-1011.txt

Comes down to the reasonable man test, sounds like there is a case to be made there.

Offline Fiend

  • Want's a Mod to 'give him one'
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,375
  • Never Got Weird Enough For Me
Re: Any of the RAWK laywers in? - Quick question regarding consumer law
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2006, 01:41:09 pm »

Offline Chivasino

  • educated whopper
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,819
Re: Any of the RAWK laywers in? - Quick question regarding consumer law
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2006, 01:42:41 pm »
Basic consumer law is that a product should be of 'satisfactory quality' and 'fit for purpose' under the Sale of Goods Act.  These two conditions are implied into any contract so it doesn't matter if there is a warranty or not.
 
If a computer fails after 15 months, you could argue that it was not of satisfactory quality.
 
This all depends on whether they made you aware of it when you bought it, ie make sure no one said, 'it's on its last legs and will only last 15 months so get a warranty for 1 year only', when your sister bought it.
 
Good luck 

Offline Scally McBeal

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,866
  • I fought the law and the law won
Re: Any of the RAWK laywers in? - Quick question regarding consumer law
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2006, 01:50:08 pm »
Basic consumer law is that a product should be of 'satisfactory quality' and 'fit for purpose' under the Sale of Goods Act.  These two conditions are implied into any contract so it doesn't matter if there is a warranty or not.
 
If a computer fails after 15 months, you could argue that it was not of satisfactory quality.
 
This all depends on whether they made you aware of it when you bought it, ie make sure no one said, 'it's on its last legs and will only last 15 months so get a warranty for 1 year only', when your sister bought it.
 
Good luck 


Is correct. It has to be of satisfactory quality. It doesn't have to be fit for purpose if she's using it for some sort of unusual purpose, unless she explained that at the time of the purchase. However, it sounds as though in the circumstances it's definitely worth a crack. Should think that a computer should last more than a year and a bit.

Offline nidgemo

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 20,836
  • Semper in excremento, sole profundum qui variat.
  • Super Title: Coming soon! Official Launch May 2008
Re: Any of the RAWK laywers in? - Quick question regarding consumer law
« Reply #7 on: April 19, 2006, 01:58:30 pm »
Thanks everyone :wave

time for an angry (but polite) phone call - will let you know how I get on!
I'm no longer on RAWK, but if you need to contact me about anything, you can email me on nigelmorrison@connectfree.co.uk

Offline Rizla

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,089
  • Super Title: Once a knob always a knob
Re: Any of the RAWK laywers in? - Quick question regarding consumer law
« Reply #8 on: April 19, 2006, 02:14:01 pm »
Just threaten them with legal action...these fuckers are often pretty spineless and would back down just to save all the aggro :-\

Offline L666KOP

  • Wants everyone to fuck off. Especially you. Yes YOU! Too Tender for Tinder. Would swallow his knob on a genuine fuck up.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 21,116
Lawyer ?
« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2015, 10:07:49 pm »
I could do with some advice from a lawyer ?

One that's familiar with a GBH case ?

13mins - Bournemouth have gone home. Utd kicked off anyway. Still 0-0 as Smalling passes it back to De Gea.

Offline L666KOP

  • Wants everyone to fuck off. Especially you. Yes YOU! Too Tender for Tinder. Would swallow his knob on a genuine fuck up.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 21,116
Re: Lawyer ?
« Reply #10 on: October 16, 2015, 11:10:14 pm »
Thanks for the rush of replies guys.....

It's now sorted.

And no, it wasn't me that had the issue...

 :)
13mins - Bournemouth have gone home. Utd kicked off anyway. Still 0-0 as Smalling passes it back to De Gea.

Online CraigDS

  • Lite. Smelt it and dealt it. Worrawhopper.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 61,476
  • YNWA
Re: Lawyer ?
« Reply #11 on: October 16, 2015, 11:17:42 pm »
Did you smack one of the hired help for not cutting the hedge into the right shape, Lord?

Offline JerseyKloppite

  • HE'S THE DADDY!!! Staff Room Gimp. Very excited, but cheapened, mail order scam victim with bling headphones. Lovespuds. Jaqen H'ghar, the Mod without a Face.
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,432
  • Exiled to Formby
Re: Lawyer ?
« Reply #12 on: October 16, 2015, 11:27:08 pm »
I've not done any criminal law since law school but I'm happy to give you whatever help I can...

Online John C

  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 42,224
Re: Any of the RAWK laywers in?
« Reply #13 on: August 28, 2016, 01:50:30 pm »
An employment law question to help my daughters bf.
If you leave and your employer refuses to pay your final salary (week in hand) on the basis that you have to contribute to damage to a van, what specific employment law does this contravene?

Offline SP

  • Thor ain't got shit on this dude! Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,042
  • .
  • Super Title: Southern Pansy
Re: Any of the RAWK laywers in?
« Reply #14 on: August 28, 2016, 05:03:38 pm »
An employment law question to help my daughters bf.
If you leave and your employer refuses to pay your final salary (week in hand) on the basis that you have to contribute to damage to a van, what specific employment law does this contravene?

Starting point:

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Documents/Advice%20factsheets/Employment/e-employer-withholds-your-pay.pdf

Offline Millie

  • Athens Airport Queen. Dude, never mind my car, where's my hand sanitiser?!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,054
  • IFWT
Re: Any of the RAWK laywers in?
« Reply #15 on: August 28, 2016, 05:05:25 pm »
An employment law question to help my daughters bf.
If you leave and your employer refuses to pay your final salary (week in hand) on the basis that you have to contribute to damage to a van, what specific employment law does this contravene?

As well as reading SP's link.  Acas are worth a shout as well.
"If you can't say anything nice, don't say nothing at all"  Thumper (1942)

Justice for the 96

I'm a Believer

Online John C

  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 42,224
Re: Any of the RAWK laywers in?
« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2016, 05:34:35 pm »
Yep, thanks guys.

Online Barneylfc∗

  • Cross-dressing man-bag wielding golfer. Wannabe Mod. Coprophiliac. Would like to buy an airline seat if he could. Known 'grass'. Wants to go home to He-Man
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 59,858
Re: Lawyer ?
« Reply #17 on: September 14, 2016, 08:44:34 pm »
If there is anyone familiar with custody law in Northern Ireland can you PM me please.

Thanks
Craig Burnley V West Ham - WEST HAM WIN - INCORRECT

Offline The 1989 Brit Awards

  • He may be of thome aththithtanthe if there ith a thudden kwaithith!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,997
Re: Any of the RAWK laywers in?
« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2020, 09:21:25 pm »
Hello. I'm not sure where else to ask this but, does anyone (maybe a lawyer) know if the decisions and judgements of the European Court of Human Rights, concerning one state (say, UK), constitute case law that could be mandatory for other unrelated states (say, Netherlands)?

It's for my thesis, I'd appreciate any info