A question about merchantable quality

Doctor DooM

It's been coming up alot and I'd love to know the truth of the matter before advising anyone else on it here.

Merchantable quality is supposed to last for a "reasonable" period (thanks for that axer ).

Who defines reasonable?

For small electricals, mobile phone, guitars, and clothes, I know industry standard is 1 year and I have never seen anyone claim beyond this and win unless it was goodwill on the retailers part.

I have however myself exchanged beds at 18 months.

Is this clearly laid out somewhere? I cannot find a straight answer. Why do so many places pick 1 year? Surely this is not an arbitrary figure, yet I can't find anything stating that either. Or is this another case of nebulous Irish consumer law (goods must be repaired, replaced, or refunded. But who decides?)

What I am really looking for here is facts, but am unsure if they exist.

Sam Vimes

there's no way there could be one figure that would apply fairly to every product. It's all about what's reasonable and the person who decides is the judge at the small claims court

foggy_lad

most mobile phones are guaranteed for two years now as are many other household items and the larger items such as washing machines and dryers should last around 5 years. it is about what is reasonable and goes by reasonable wear and tear also!

Rebel021

foggy_lad wrote: »

most mobile phones are guaranteed for two years now as are many other household items and the larger items such as washing machines and dryers should last around 5 years. it is about what is reasonable and goes by reasonable wear and tear also!

My Mother in laws tv was guaranteed for 3 years, I week and 3 years to the date of purchase it just turned itself off and never came on again:D

LolaDub

foggy_lad wrote: »

most mobile phones are guaranteed for two years now as are many other household items and the larger items such as washing machines and dryers should last around 5 years. it is about what is reasonable and goes by reasonable wear and tear also!

Bit of gripe with this one-bought a new washing machine and dryer from did about 3 months ago, both are knackered and the washing machine won't even turn on, the dryer just eats all your clothes. Now as its obviously under warranty i rang them about it and they said bring it down here, which gives me a bit of a problem as i haven't got a clue how to unplumb (if thats the expression) a washing machine and dryer never mind get them into a car i don't have. They delivered them to me before for 20 euro and now they say if i want them to collect i have to pay the 20 euro and a 50 euro engineer fee to 'unplumb the machines'. Can they not just get someone to come here and check they're faulty as i imagine if it is a small fault they would replace the part rather than the machine? I think if they need the machine back on their premises they shouldn't charge. Any thought?

Lollipops23

SDooM wrote: »

What I am really looking for here is facts, but am unsure if they exist.

from what i remember about this area in Home Ec(oh yes,they teach consumer studies nowadays!), it must be fit for whatever its use is straight away, and last a "reasonable amount of time"-this is applicable to the item in question, eg a telly must last 6-8 years,a pair of shoes won't last anything near that time!!

Doctor DooM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

from what i remember about this area in Home Ec(oh yes,they teach consumer studies nowadays!), it must be fit for whatever its use is straight away, and last a "reasonable amount of time"-this is applicable to the item in question, eg a telly must last 6-8 years,a pair of shoes won't last anything near that time!!

Ok but I think people aren't getting what Im asking.

Where is the frame of reference for a reasonable amount of time?

I mean, I'd think 5 years is reasonable for a car, but who am I to decide?

Does it just come down to the judge if it goes to the small claims court, or is there rules/guidelines/laws somewhere for different catagories of good?

It seems odd to me it is not laid out somewhere.

axer

SDooM wrote: »

Where is the frame of reference for a reasonable amount of time?

No since it depends on the cost of the product, its intended use, what the fault is and how it was caused (or came about) then add a dose of common sense. When you look at all these things then it can be determined as to whether it was the consumer's fault (i.e. abuse or misuse) or whether the goods did not last as long as they would normally or whether they did last as long as a reasonable person would expect (compared to the same goods in use or comparable goods of the same price and expected quality)

SDooM wrote: »

I mean, I'd think 5 years is reasonable for a car, but who am I to decide?

The courts I guess. They could not lay it out in law since every product is different. One should not expect a 50 euro 21" tv to last as long as a 200 euro 21" tv.

SDooM wrote: »

Does it just come down to the judge if it goes to the small claims court, or is there rules/guidelines/laws somewhere for different catagories of good?

Yes, it just comes down to what is fair and reasonable. It gets harder to prove something should last x length of time the older the product is since you cannot really differentiate between 44 months and 48 months.

Also I believe you are only limited to 6 years by the statute of limitations (but I am open to correction there.)

SDooM wrote: »

It seems odd to me it is not laid out somewhere.

As above - it would be impossible to. How could they differentiate between cheap goods that are not really expected to last long and expensive goods which are expected to last a long time.

At the end of the day the consumer has a contract with the seller. If it were not for the implied terms added by consumer law then consumers would have to make up their own contracts. Since it covers such a range of situations then it has to be left somewhat vague in certain areas. It is then up to the consumer to prove that breach of contract has occurred.

axer

SDooM wrote: »

Merchantable quality is supposed to last for a "reasonable" period (thanks for that axer ).

Your welcome

SDooM wrote: »

Why do so many places pick 1 year?

I am not sure. I think it is because people were so used to getting a guarantee/warranty that said 12 months thus presumed thats all they were covered for. Little did they know that they were really covered by law and that that guarantee/warranty was only an extension of those rights.

SDooM wrote: »

Surely this is not an arbitrary figure, yet I can't find anything stating that either. Or is this another case of nebulous Irish consumer law (goods must be repaired, replaced, or refunded. But who decides?)

(2) Whether a stipulation in a contract of sale is a condition, the breach of which may give rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated, or a warranty, the breach of which may give rise to a claim for damages but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated, depends in each case on the construction of the contract. A stipulation may be a condition, though called a warranty in the contract.

Implied undertakings as to quality or fitness.

14.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any statute in that behalf, there is no implied condition or warranty as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale.

(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition—

( a ) as regards defects specifically drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract is made, or
( b ) if the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to have revealed.

(3) Goods are of merchantable quality if they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought and as durable as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances, and any reference in this Act to unmerchantable goods shall be construed accordingly.

(4) where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill or judgement.

(5) An implied condition or warranty as to quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed to a contract of sale by usage.

(6) The foregoing provisions of this section apply to a sale by a person who in the course of a business is acting as agent for another as they apply to a sale by a principal in the course of a business, except where that other is not selling in the course of a business and either the buyer knows that fact or reasonable steps are taken to bring it to the notice of the buyer before the contract is made.

SDooM wrote: »

What I am really looking for here is facts, but am unsure if they exist.

You really should read the sale of goods act to understand it. You should read up first about contract law though i.e. the difference between conditions and warranties with regards to terms of a contract.