Helen recently acquired the following items and now seeks your advice about any remedies she might have, and any legal issues that might arise, as a result of the following problems:

(a)     A plasma television set bought from a High Street store for which she paid £600. The TV never worked but because of the pressures of work she only managed to return it to the store 12 months later.

(b)     A new Playstation which she exchanged for an old one. She bought this at the same time and from the same store as the television. This never worked.

(c)     A second-hand wristwatch which she bought from a car boot sale and paid £30 by cheque. It was described as “waterproof” and the leaflet advertising it claimed it kept excellent time. When she got it home, she found that it was not waterproof and also that it lost more than 1 minute in time every week.

(d)     A skirt for a dinner party she was planning. In a rush, she picked up the wrong size from the shelf.

(e)     Some roofing tiles from a local builders’ merchant. The tiles were mostly cracked and unusable. Helen was in a hurry when she bought them and only had a quick look at them. She hadn’t noticed they were cracked.

Answer

You should start off your answer by explaining that although we are not told when the contracts were formed, we do know that they were recent. If this means after 1 October 2015, all of the transactions apart from (c) will be governed by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The reason why (c) will not be governed by the CRA is because that Act only applies to transactions between a trader and a consumer. The transaction in (c) is between two consumers, in which case it will be governed by the Sale of Goods Act 1979. If the transactions took place before 1 October 2015 then they will all be governed by the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

For the purposes of this answer, we will first assume that the contracts were made after 1 October 2015 and then provide an answer if it turns out that the contracts were entered into before this date.  

The advice you should be giving to Helen is as follows:

(a)

If the contract was entered into after 1 October 2015:

A television that does not work is neither of satisfactory quality nor fit for purpose, both of which are terms about the quality of goods included in all contracts to the which the CRA applies (ss 9 and 10). Helen would have had a “short-term” right to reject the television (ss 20-22) had she rejected it within 30 days but as she didn’t, her remedy now is the right to repair or replacement (s 23) and, finally, a right to a price reduction or a final right to reject (s 24).

If the contract was entered into before 1 October 2015:

This is a contract of sale of goods because s 2(1) SGA has been satisfied. The seller sold the goods in the course of a business and therefore the implied terms as to satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose (ss 14(2) and 14(3) SGA) apply. These are conditions which appear to have been breached. She has probably had the goods for too long to reject them and therefore it is likely that the seller’s breach of condition will be treated as a breach of warranty only (s 11(4) SGA). Alternatively, she may require the buyer to repair or replace the TV or to offer her a refund (ss 48A – F SGA). The rule in s 48A(3) will not assist Helen as she has had the goods for 12 months.

(b)

If the contract was entered into after 1 October 2015:

Helen’s remedy for the Playstation is the same as noted above although she also has the short-term right to reject provided she exercises this right within 30 days (ss 20-22). Unlike the rules under the SGA 1979 where the consideration needed to be “money”, there is no such requirement under the CRA, so no additional difficulties arise in relation to the exchange. We are not told whether she also paid money with the exchange and, if she did, the seller is required to return whatever she paid/transferred for the goods in the event of rejection.  

If the contract was entered into before 1 October 2015:

At first glance, this might not look like a contract of sale of goods because s 2(1) has not been satisfied (the consideration was an exchange and not “money”). However, as Helen bought the Playstation at the same time and from the same store as the TV, it should be argued that the sale of the TV and of the Playstation was one contract in which case (applying the reasoning in Aldridge v Johnson (1857) 7 E&B 885 if necessary) the same remedies as above will apply here. If it is not a contract of sale of goods, then common law rules will apply.

(c)

The date of the transaction is not relevant because, as noted above, as this transaction is between two consumers it is the SGA and not the CRA that will apply. This is a contract of sale of goods because s 2(1) SGA has been satisfied. The seller did not sell the goods in the course of a business and therefore the implied terms as to satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose (ss 14(2) and 14(3) SGA) will not apply. However, the implied condition as to description (s 13(1) SGA) will apply as this does not require the seller to have sold the goods in the course of a business. The word “waterproof” is likely to amount to a term of the contract (Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd. v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd [1991] 1 QB 564). For the description to fall within s 13, it must amount to a “substantial ingredient of the identity of the thing sold” (Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989) and the seller might argue that this was not the case here. It will also be important for Helen to show that she relied on the description (Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd) although this should not present Helen with much of a difficulty. Provided Helen can bring the claim under s 13(1) then she will be entitled to reject the watch for breach of condition; failing which she will only be able to rely on common law principles.

(d)

The date of the transaction is not relevant because there has been no breach of the contract of sale. The fact that Helen picked up the wrong size does not give her any remedy at all against the seller. You should not get mixed up with the customer-friendly approach adopted by many stores who will, as a gesture of goodwill, take such goods back.

(e)

If the contract was entered into after 1 October 2015:

Roofing tiles that are cracked and unusable are neither satisfactory quality nor fit for purpose, both of which are terms about the quality of goods included in all contracts to the which the CRA applies (ss 9 and 10). Helen has a “short-term” right to reject the tiles within 30 days (ss 20-22), failing which her remedy is the right to repair or replacement (s 23) and, finally, a right to a price reduction or a final right to reject (s 24). However, we are told that Helen was in a hurry when she bought the tiles and only had a quick look at them. She hadn’t noticed they were cracked. This is likely to mean that the term as to satisfactory quality will not apply to these tiles because of the exception contained in s 9(4)(b) “where the consumer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal”. The tiles do, of course, still need to be reasonably fit for purpose which they appear not to be.

If the contract was entered into before 1 October 2015:

This is a contract of sale of goods because s 2(1) SGA has been satisfied. The seller sold the goods in the course of a business and therefore the implied terms as to satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose (ss 14(2) and 14(3) SGA) apply. These are conditions which appear to have been breached. However, because Helen “had a quick look” at the tiles before purchase then the seller might have a defence under s 14(2C)(b) SGA if her examination ought to have revealed the defect she now complains about.