Written Guarantee

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

That would not stand up in court. Your customers contract is with you not the manufacturer.

Why not, if there is a manufacturers warranty, that states they will repair/replace faulty goods?
I assume if I start tinkering with the internals of a faulty appliance and me not being an appliance engineer, then my fiddling introduces a further fault, the manufacturer will not be too happy and perhaps would consider making the warranty void.

 

[JohnW2]

That would not stand up in court. Your customers contract is with you not the manufacturer.

Why not, if there is a manufacturers warranty, that states they will repair/replace faulty goods?

If you could demonstrate that someone else (e.g. the manufacturer, by virtue of a warranty) was going to repair/replace the unsatisfactory goods, then I presume that the law would be satisfied that you were off the hook.

However, if there were any doubt about that (e.g. if the manufacturer was quibbling about 'warranty conditions') then, as winston said, under SOGA you as the 'retailer') would be responsible for the repair/replacement, even if you had tried to avoid such liability by something (probably not acceptable in law) you had put in your contract. in essence, one cannot 'contract out of SOGA' (just as you cannot 'contract out' of most laws).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

As we start to look at a warranty there are many problems which really should be written in.
1) Assess times, dates if you can’t gain assess you can’t repair.
2) Delay time, there has to be a reasonable time given to complete repairs.
3) Emergency repairs by third party. Will you reimburse?
4) Method of reporting.
5) Time limits for reporting.

The latter I have seen the problems both sides with a disabled kitchen installation. Many of the faults would not have been considered as faults if it was not designed for the disabled, like not being able to read oven temperature from below the knob.
It is normal to write a list of snags after a job has been completed, and there has to be a limit to how many times one returns to correct new snags, which have been there since completion.

In some cases it’s also down to who reports faults. Rented property for example can the tenant report direct or must it go through the owner or letting agent.

Also insurance what is covered by clients own insurance. Built in washing machine goes on fire lets assume fault on washer.
1) Who repairs washer?
2) Who repairs fire damage?
3) Are there requirements for being in attendance or having fire extinguishers?
If washer says in instructions don’t leave unattended then setting off washing machine before going to work would mean damage not covered.

We tend to use broad statements like manufactures recommendations and instructions must be followed. Then you read them to find they have unrealistic conditions like should not be used by children. OK children under the age of 6 but I am still my mothers child so without an age phrases like not to be used by children become meaningless.

 

[SimonH2]

If washer says in instructions don’t leave unattended then setting off washing machine before going to work would mean damage not covered.

I was thinking that when I read John's comment about using a manufacturer's warranty to get you off the hook. This would be just one example where the manufacturer's warranty would be invalided by the small print - but the seller would still be liable unless he could show that the product had been "misused".

And in this case, we all know that smart meters are starting to be foisted on us to (in part) persuade us to run appliances like this overnight.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What's the proper medical term for "you are barking mad"?

 

[JohnW2]

What's the proper medical term for "you are barking mad"?

I think that phrase covers it adequately - there's no real point in looking for fancy terminology if the meaning is already clearly expressed

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

I think BAS is slipping, replying to an obvious spammer

Signed up 2 hours ago, started a thread that's obviously copy'n-paste or machine generated drivel, and now replying to random threads with link spam.
Mods have been alerted.

 

[winston1]

Also insurance what is covered by clients own insurance. Built in washing machine goes on fire lets assume fault on washer.
1) Who repairs washer?
2) Who repairs fire damage?
3) Are there requirements for being in attendance or having fire extinguishers?

There is no legal requirement to have insurance in a domestic dwelling.
Even if he has it the client probably won't want to lose his no claims bonus for a fault on the washer that in law is the responsibility of the retailer under SOGA.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think BAS is slipping, replying to an obvious spammer

Not obvious - could just have been an intellectually challenged American.

Signed up 2 hours ago, started a thread that's obviously copy'n-paste or machine generated drivel, and now replying to random threads with link spam.

Only one post had a link it, IIRC.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

.. a fault on the washer that in law is the responsibility of the retailer under SOGA.

I'm pretty sure that responsibility does not extend to including consequential losses.

 

[skotl]

.. a fault on the washer that in law is the responsibility of the retailer under SOGA.

I'm pretty sure that responsibility does not extend to including consequential losses.

Not entirely the case. While you are correct that the entire spider's web of related losses are not necessarily the responsibility of the defendant, it is absolutely the case that unintended costs related to the original cause should be included in calculation of cost.

An anecdotal example; I had a used-vehicle warranty on a BMW that excluded consequential loss. My radiator let go and sprayed water over my HID headlight, which promptly burst to the tune of £500.
BMW initially refused to pay up on the grounds of a consequential loss clause, yet it was pretty easy to prove that the headlight would not have failed if the (insured) radiator had not sprayed water on it,

Probably more relevant is the case law quoted here; http://www.out-law.com/en/topics/pr...ims/direct-and-indirect-loss-for-contractors/

Put simply (in my understanding) consequential loss is a tenable objective - it can be very easy to prove a specific connection between a failure and the consequential loss.

So, b-a-s's guess is a dangerous and ill-informed assessment of case law.

 

[garlicbread]

not been on for a while since i posted, but this is what i have drafted up so far, any input welcome.

Guarantee and Warranties apply solely to invoice number _____
Electrical Guarantee

This guarantee is non transferable and is valid for as long as you own the property.
The Manufacturers guarantee for any parts supplied is valid for 12 months from the date of this contract. The Workmanship guarantee as part of the NICEIC covers the customer for 6 years.
Any defects or faults found not to be the responsibility of ______, The customer will be charged for the time/labour.
Guarantee becomes effective when payment in full has been made.
Warranty and guarantee items to be repaired ONLY by _______and the customer must notify ______ within 10 working days of discovering the problem, so that _______ is given the first opportunity to repair the item found to be defective within a reasonable period of time. ________is not liable for damage caused by: Structural damage, structural movement, normal wear and tear, damage or deterioration due to accident, unauthorised repair, changes to the interior or exterior of any building which infringes on the original work carried out by ________.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

An anecdotal example; I had a used-vehicle warranty

Not something within the scope of the SOGA, I believe.

Probably more relevant is the case law quoted here; http://www.out-law.com/en/topics/pr...ct-and-indirect-loss-for-contractors/[/QUOTE]
Definitely not to do with anything within the scope of the SOGA.

Put simply (in my understanding) consequential loss is a tenable objective - it can be very easy to prove a specific connection between a failure and the consequential loss.

Indeed, and there may well be case law which shows that people can successfully go to court and win a case for damages against a retailer for consequential losses - I didn't think that was actually identified in the SOGA.

So, b-a-s's guess is a dangerous and ill-informed assessment of case law.

Please show how it is dangerous.

 

[SimonH2]

Indeed, and there may well be case law which shows that people can successfully go to court and win a case for damages against a retailer for consequential losses - I didn't think that was actually identified in the SOGA.

In the context of the OPs question, it is not just the SOGA that's of interest. And you wrote :

I'm pretty sure that responsibility does not extend to including consequential losses.

You did not mention SOGA in that statement.

And there are lots of things not mentioned in SOGA, but as is the case with pretty well all English law, there is case lore which refines the detail and extent of the law.

Please show how it is dangerous.

Well given how you are so keen to criticise others for much the same thing, I'm surprised you can't see how giving incomplete information which if taken as face value could lead someone to think there is no/less risk where there is in fact risk, could be considered "dangerous". Maybe not "dangerous" in the sense of "could cause injury", but dangerous in the sense of "could cause someone to face financial and/or legal risk".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In the context of the OPs question, it is not just the SOGA that's of interest. And you wrote :

I'm pretty sure that responsibility does not extend to including consequential losses.

You did not mention SOGA in that statement.

I would be very interested to know how unable to pay attention you think everybody is, that they would not notice your selective quoting. Unless, of course, it is you who is unable to pay attention.

.. a fault on the washer that in law is the responsibility of the retailer under SOGA.

I'm pretty sure that responsibility does not extend to including consequential losses.

I didn't mention SOGA, so therefore I must be talking about something different, or wider?

And there are lots of things not mentioned in SOGA, but as is the case with pretty well all English law, there is case lore which refines the detail and extent of the law.

Indeed.

And there's probably case law too, rather than knowledge of a traditional, anecdotal or popular nature.

But as you can see, unless you are so blind that you really think you can get away with your ridiculous criticism, I was talking about the provisions of the SOGA.

Well given how you are so keen to criticise others for much the same thing, I'm surprised you can't see how giving incomplete information which if taken as face value could lead someone to think there is no/less risk where there is in fact risk, could be considered "dangerous". Maybe not "dangerous" in the sense of "could cause injury", but dangerous in the sense of "could cause someone to face financial and/or legal risk".

Are you in contention for clown of the week and looking for votes?

I'm pretty sure that ...

I might be wrong. And if I am, just what sort of person is going to read my "I'm pretty sure that ..." and face financial and/or legal risk as a result?

"Dangerous"? You really are pathetic.