Posted by Terryd on 27/11/2010 10:27:58:
Dear John S,
I suppose you are one of those who moan about the nanny state and then moan when every mile of road in the UK is not gritted within the first 10 minutes after it snows and never carries emergency equipment or warm clothing in the car in winter. Expecting the emergency services to be there to aid you within a few minutes if you break down.
The ‘warranty’ you hold so high in estimation is a manufacturers warranty and has little legal force. It is completely arbitrary and is a marketing aid. the legal points is that a product sholud be fit for purpose. Whether you sneer or not that is the legal position and the actual life of a product depends on it’s purpose not some arbitrary one that a marketing manager decides.
Britain led the way in this protection (under a Tory government), the European Union has followed this lead but their protection is not quite as good. This legislation is one of the reasons that Motor manufacturers are increasing their warrant periods. They realise it is now more difficult to wriggle out of their commitments so have nothing to lose and everything to gain in reputation by fulfilling their legal requirements.
You sneer, as all cynics find so easy to do, so I don’t expect you to ever complain about faulty or useless (i.e. not fit for purpose) goods.
Hi Terry –
You obviously don’t know John S; if you did, you wouldn’t attribute such preposterous suppositions to him. I suggest you withdraw those comments and apologise to him before he gives you both barrels.
From my reading of his post, he wasn’t sneering at anything; he was simply pointing out the reality, which is that regardless of the words in the sale of goods act, the test of what is or is not “fit for purpose” is made in the courts, not in the barrack room by a bunch of armchair lawyers, or by a hue-and-cry in an engineering forum. That being the case, it is, in my not-so humble opinion, a brave man that chooses to test it in court, given that the downside is that you lose the case and end up paying yours and the plaintiff’s costs, which could be not inconsiderable, even if your next-door neighbour happens to be a barrister. So, for most purposes, waving the sale of goods act under a vendor’s nose and threatening legal action is just so much pi$$ and wind. (In Ketan’s case this almost certainly isn’t the reason he has never been sued – that is down to the fact that he deals honestly with his customers.)
Now to get on one of my own favourite soap-boxes, there’s a regrettable move towards USA-style litigious attitudes in the UK – ads on the TV for no-win-no-fee, etc. etc. – which tends to breed an attitude of mind where personal responsibility goes out of the window and suddenly everything bad that happens to you is someone else’s fault. In the case of buying cheap imported tools, the point is that if you pay thruppence for a tool that would normally cost 5 bob, and then cry foul when it doesn’t perform like the 5 bob version, you are absolving yourself from the responsibility of deciding what is and is not reasonable. If you buy a Lada and expect it to perform like a Lamborghini, then you are simply failing to apply your brain to the problem, and it isn’t the Lada vendor that is at fault. Incidentally, the Lada is an interesting case in point, because the underlying engineering was sound – it was after all a Fiat design – it was the QC, assembly and attention to detail that meant it was unreliable. However,if you treated your Lada as a kit of parts that just happened to come pre-assembled, and did the equivalent of Arc’s in-house preparation on the car, its reliability (and probably safety too!) increased significantly.
Regards,
Tony
Edited By Tony Jeffree on 27/11/2010 11:49:08