On Tue, 20 May 2008 01:16:02 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Mon, 19 May 2008 17:30:36 +0100, "The Todal"
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Cynic" wrote in message
>>news:jg8334d91hlmhjbjsi2ui2n3rfijd098qr@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 16:27:09 +0100, "The Todal"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Quite simply, your goods had a manufacturing defect which was not apparent
>>>>on the day of purchase but became apparent in about 2 months. That
>>>>justifies
>>>>a refund rather than a repair.
>>>
>>> Surely the SOGA also allows the retailer to repair or replace the
>>> faulty item?
>>
>>This has always been a grey area.
>>
>>The rule is that once you have accepted delivery you can't reject the goods
>>and must therefore accept a repair or replacement. But "delivery" is an
>>imprecise concept and it has been held that if you have not had a chance to
>>examine the goods properly, which may involve trying them out over a
>>reasonable period of time, you have not yet accepted delivery.
>
>While the law does not define a "reasonable period", the courts have
>consistently used a much shorter period than two months for this type
>of item.
Please can you point to a couple of example reports where the courts
have done as you said. |