Supply of Goods and Services Act 1980

Sully

Hey,
Quick hypothetical question. Say if a business (business Y) requested work to be done by another business (business X) in November, and the work was completed by business X within that month, however business Y was to provide data for the project and failed to do so despite calls and emails to them requesting it. In the end, business X had no choice but to give them 3 weeks to provide the data or they will be invoiced for the remainder of the bill. This request was made in late February.

Can business Y correctly quote the "Supply of Goods and Services Act 1980" and say that under this act, a person who enters into an agreement for a said price for a said service can not request more payment unless the said service has been increased which in this case is not. Or, can business X make a point about "reasonable time" for the completion of the work (ie business Y did not provide the data for a good few months, hence not being done within a reasonable amount of time).

Completely hypothetical situation, just curious about this act in the above event, and does it apply to Business -> Business transactions?

Sleepy

Don't mean to hijack your thread Sully but there's a word (yes, literally a single word) in the Act that's always been of interest to me.

When the act states that the consumer is entitled to a refund, replacemen or "satisfactory" repair in the case of faulty goods to whom's judgement is it referring when deeming what constitutes a satisfactory repair?

seamus

The Act in question defines exactly what a "consumer" is. Well actually, it more defines what is not a "consumer";

(1) In the Act of 1893 and this Act, a party to a contract is said to deal as consumer in relation to another party if—

( a ) he neither makes the contract in the course of a business nor holds himself out as doing so, and
( b ) the other party does make the contract in the course of a business, and
( c ) the goods or services supplied under or in pursuance of the contract are of a type ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption.


(2) On—

( a ) a sale by competitive tender, or
( b ) a sale by auction—
(i) of goods of a type, or
(ii) by or on behalf of a person of a class

defined by the Minister by order, the buyer is not in any circumstances to be regarded as dealing as consumer.


(3) Subject to this, it is for those claiming that a party does not deal as consumer to show that he does not.

It would of course depend on what section of the mentioned Act they believe the other company is in breach of.

Sully

Can you clarify that Seamus, as I am not 100% sure what it means? If no contract is signed by either party - your dealing as consumers?

seamus

No, it doesn't deal with the definition of "contract". You don't necessarily have to have signed anything to enter into a contract for sale of goods/supply of services, verbal agreement may do just fine.

It basically says that in order to be considered a "consumer", you must fulfill 3 conditions:
1. You cannot be a business nor purporting to be dealing as/on behalf of a business.
2. The other party must be providing the goods/services in the course of businesss.
3. What you're buying must be normally sold for use privately by private individuals.

What the third item means that if a private individual goes to buy something normally in the realm of business, for example they go to buy a forklift, then they will not be considered a "consumer", even though they may be buying it as a private individual, for private use.

Subsection (3) also says that if the vendor claims that the buyer is not a consumer, the onus is on the vendor to prove that the buyer is not - it is not up to the buyer to prove that they are a "consumer".

Sully

What happens in the case that the two partys are registered businesses / companies? I take it, the act therefore does not apply?

seamus

Sully wrote: »

What happens in the case that the two partys are registered businesses / companies? I take it, the act therefore does not apply?

Condition 1 above would be in force, because one party is a business. Thefore it's not a consumer sale.

I don't know if the act applies. Afaik, some sections deal only with consumer sales, other sections deal with any sale. Which section applies, depends on which section company Y has quoted as being the one they are acting under.

axer

Sully wrote: »

What happens in the case that the two partys are registered businesses / companies? I take it, the act therefore does not apply?

It is then down to whatever contract the two parties had - the agreement between them i.e. the sale of goods and supply of services act 1980 cannot be quoted as it does not imply conditions/warrantys as would be in the case of a consumer dealing with a business.

Edit: with regards the hypothetical situation above, there was no agreement of when the work was to be completed by. The both of ye can argue all ye want but if the other does not agree then you will have to go see a solicitor. You should look into using written contracts in the future.

Sully

seamus wrote: »

Condition 1 above would be in force, because one party is a business. Thefore it's not a consumer sale.

I don't know if the act applies. Afaik, some sections deal only with consumer sales, other sections deal with any sale. Which section applies, depends on which section company Y has quoted as being the one they are acting under.

Okay, lets use my services as an example. We get the request in November to do the site, we complete it to their specification and they say they are happy. We ask for content, they say it will be with us in a few weeks. This continues right up until February where we say they have 3 weeks to provide it before the remainder of the bill is due. They quote the above act saying that we cant do this, as the act prohibits us from doing so.

Edit: Contracts - if the above is correct, how does a contract have the right to waver the above act?

axer

Sully wrote: »

Edit: Contracts - if the above is correct, how does a contract have the right to waver the above act?

The above act can *only* apply to consumer contracts.

Sully

Well then, if both of us are businesses - we are not consumers, as stated in the above act, rendering it useless to businesses.. no?

axer

Sully wrote: »

Well then, if both of us are businesses - we are not consumers, as stated in the above act, rendering it useless to businesses.. no?

Yes, that act does not apply to your situation and cannot be used.

You might be better off just adding the content because if they refuse to pay you then you will have to take them to court which will cost you more in the long run and considering there was neither no written contract nor agreement on timeframes then I doubt you will get much via the courts other than a large bill.

Sully

Ah yeah I was just interested to find out if the act applied.