Customer protection laws

InsaneChef

Morning!

Would like to have a deep understanding of Irish law regarding two particular examples.

a) Customer brings product to repair a part. Something completely not related to the part repaired is found damaged after a short use after recovering the item. Is there ANY chance for it to be covered by the repair shop warranty?

b) Something was fixed and now it's broken again. Customer does NOT have the invoice and due to the high volume of customers, it's not possible to track down the internal receipt for the warranty, so the customer should pay as a new job.

Any laws protecting the customer? And the shop? If so, please name which ones, as need to know what to say.

Thanks

Bepolite

InsaneChef wrote: »

Morning!

Greetings

InsaneChef wrote: »

Would like to have a deep understanding of Irish law regarding two particular examples.

A deep understanding will probably require more than an investigation on boards and a reading of the relevant Acts. I would look at academic articles on the subject, case law will be hard to come by.

InsaneChef wrote: »

a) Customer brings product to repair a part. Something completely not related to the part repaired is found damaged after a short use after recovering the item. Is there ANY chance for it to be covered by the repair shop warranty?

In gaining a deep understanding you will need to understand some basics of contract law, one of the most annoying of which is that ordinary every day words do not have their ordinary meaning. Have a google for warranty, condition, term etc. One place to start then might be S39 and S40 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980. e.g. one may argue necessary skill was not exercised if the item was damaged during the repair.

InsaneChef wrote: »

b) Something was fixed and now it's broken again. Customer does NOT have the invoice and due to the high volume of customers, it's not possible to track down the internal receipt for the warranty, so the customer should pay as a new job.

This is rather a rather more complicated issue in relation to liability and dependent on a number of factors. Was the item new, and sent to the shop for repair, is it an old item you're getting repaired?

In relation to the receipt, these are merely evidence of purchase, do you have any other evidence of purchase, such as a payment on debit or credit card? While morally the shop should assist the issue becomes one of deniability should the issue ever get as far as the small claims court.

InsaneChef wrote: »

Any laws protecting the customer? And the shop? If so, please name which ones, as need to know what to say.

Thanks

There are various laws both laid down in legislation and in case law that interact on the behalf of both parties, and depend on the facts in greater detail. In England and Wales it has been recognised that Consumer Laws are unecisarily complex and in need of reform, hopefully the same realisation will take place here in short order. While the Acts aren't that difficult to understand, in my opinion, given the very basic concepts of contract law, one would want consumer law to be as easily understood as possible.

While I've taken you at your word OP that you want a deep understanding*, perhaps you might just contact the National Consumer Agency should you simply require a practical solution to a real world problem.


*not that my ramblings will endow you with one!

InsaneChef

First of all, thanks for the time taken for your reply.

Bepolite wrote: »

In gaining a deep understanding you will need to understand some basics of contract law, one of the most annoying of which is that ordinary every day words do not have their ordinary meaning. Have a google for warranty, condition, term etc. One place to start then might be S39 and S40 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980. e.g. one may argue necessary skill was not exercised if the item was damaged during the repair.

Ok, let me rephrase for a better understanding. One goes to a garage to have a window car replaced (was smashed open). The garage itself offers a 12 months "warranty" on the fix done, but after payment and collection, the customer sees that the brake fluid pump is broken (unconfirmed if it was working properly). This customer decides to say nothing for a few weeks and then comes back at the garage. Not only blames the garage that "they did it", but that also it should be covered by the "warranty".

I know it's moronic and unethical, but would like some legal basis to prove the customer wrong.

Bepolite wrote: »

This is rather a rather more complicated issue in relation to liability and dependent on a number of factors. Was the item new, and sent to the shop for repair, is it an old item you're getting repaired?

In relation to the receipt, these are merely evidence of purchase, do you have any other evidence of purchase, such as a payment on debit or credit card? While morally the shop should assist the issue becomes one of deniability should the issue ever get as far as the small claims court.

The item was used, thus it was a post-sale fix. Using the same example as above: broken window. The customer comes back after several months with the same window cracked, so the customer wants it replaced according to the "warranty", but has no invoice. As far as I know, any retail should keep the invoices handy for 7 years, but that doesn't mean on-site (an external accountant may have them, so it may take several days to find it, if he does). Is the garage "forced" to replace the screen?
Oh and the payment was done in cash, so no digital trace of the transaction.

Thanks again, and sorry for mistakenly used the "deep" word, meant "light" :P

Bepolite

I don't really want to get into offering specific legal advice for two reason;

(i) charter
(ii) incompetence

To be frank if I was the garage I'd say take me to court. The consumer in this scenario seems unreasonable. Entirely unreasonable in relation to the pump and some what unreasonable in relation to the window.

Lets say for the sake of argument the window is a legitimate gripe, the garage, if it remembers the customer, should, fix it assuming it was down to a fault. Even proving the garage remembers the customer is enough to make it up to the garage to go hunting for the receipt. This could easily be established by cross examination but look in RL this is going to be small claims court at best, it's going to be a "he said, she said".

Please, please bear in mind reason (ii) cited above before you go relying on any of this, hypothetically.

InsaneChef

Ok, checked the link, rang the NCA and upon re-reading what you said, the garage should win in both scenarios.

Thanks a lot for your help

Bepolite

Make sure your read this bit too!

Bepolite wrote: »

(ii) incompetence

InsaneChef

I understand, I'm here to seek guidance or a rough idea, not legal representation.

Just needed to know if it's worth going to a solicitor to defend my case, and apparently it is.

Thanks again

Bepolite

InsaneChef wrote: »

I understand, I'm here to seek guidance or a rough idea, not legal representation.

Just needed to know if it's worth going to a solicitor to defend my case, and apparently it is.

Thanks again

I was assuming this was a hypothetical, just a pathetic attempt to defray mod-wrath!

Assuming you're the garage, it may well be worth looking at solicitor cost+brand damage vs cost of repair and a happy customer. Thats not legal advice simply business advice.

Always consult a solicitor for serious legal advice.