Volvo Owners Club Forum - View Single Post

rogerthechorister · Feb 27th, 2009, 19:35

or some time now (since our masters in Brussells got at the Sale of Goods Act), the correct term has been "satisfactory quality". That and "fit for purpose" are addressed in S. 14 Sale of Goods Act ("SoGA").

There is a laundry list of things to be taken onto account in S 14 (2) and this sounds like a righteous claim just on that basis. But if goods ahve been "accepted" (see S 35) then they cannot be rejected and only damages obtained.

But Wait! Our masters in Brussels have more for us. Sections 48A to 48F set out (according to the heading) "Additional RIGHTS IN CONSUMER CASES". The big unanswered question is whether they are additional (and only the heading tells us that, and classically headings are not taken into account in interpretation) or limitative. This is important becase although there is a cascade of rights from repair via replacement and reduction in the purchase price, finally ariving at rejection, if the court permits rejection UNDER THESE SECTIONS it may make a reduction for the use had of the item. That does not apply under the "classic" english law, under which, if you can reject (and that may be harder to establish) you get back every penny.

This is a very importnat point, and unlitigated to date AFAIK.

Feb 27th, 2009, 19:35	#16
rogerthechorister Rogerthechorister Last Online: Dec 16th, 2023 02:15 Join Date: May 2006 Location: Rochester	Satisfactory quality or some time now (since our masters in Brussells got at the Sale of Goods Act), the correct term has been "satisfactory quality". That and "fit for purpose" are addressed in S. 14 Sale of Goods Act ("SoGA"). There is a laundry list of things to be taken onto account in S 14 (2) and this sounds like a righteous claim just on that basis. But if goods ahve been "accepted" (see S 35) then they cannot be rejected and only damages obtained. But Wait! Our masters in Brussels have more for us. Sections 48A to 48F set out (according to the heading) "Additional RIGHTS IN CONSUMER CASES". The big unanswered question is whether they are additional (and only the heading tells us that, and classically headings are not taken into account in interpretation) or limitative. This is important becase although there is a cascade of rights from repair via replacement and reduction in the purchase price, finally ariving at rejection, if the court permits rejection UNDER THESE SECTIONS it may make a reduction for the use had of the item. That does not apply under the "classic" english law, under which, if you can reject (and that may be harder to establish) you get back every penny. This is a very importnat point, and unlitigated to date AFAIK.