Uncertainty about rights when buying goods can cause disputes. We want to establish clear rules, including defining the period during which consumers can get a full refund for faulty goods.
See more on the supply of goods consultation.
Menu
- Confidence for consumers, clarity for businesses
- More information of the supply of digital content
- More information on the supply of goods
- More information on the supply of services
- Norman Lamb on why this matters
- Our moderation policy
- Privacy policy
- The supply of digital content
- The supply of goods
- The supply of services
-
The consultation is now closed.
The government response to the consultation will be published in due course on the BIS website.
-
The full consultation
The full version of the consultation, which sets out the proposed changes to the law in more detail, is available here:
Consultation on the supply of goods, services and digital content (July 2012) (PDF, XMB)
To read the associated Impact Assessments and respond to the full consultation, see this page at the Department for Business website:
Consultation on enhancing consumer confidence by clarifying consumer law
The consultation will run until 5 October 2012
Recent comments
- Chris Price on The supply of services
- mg on The supply of goods
- Mr J T Stuart on The supply of goods
- Penny on The supply of goods
- Susan Singleton on The supply of digital content
Search
Policies
I expect the shop to look after my interests as a customer. It should be easy for me to understand the process
The improvements will help improve the quality of products because traders will be encouraged to sell only high quality products to avoid incurring losses. Ultimately, manufacturers will respond accordingly.
Consumers frequently buy goods and sometimes services (eg Theme Day activities) as gifts for family members and friends. Why shouldn’t consumer recipients of goods be able to directly enforce the quality standards against the seller if things go wrong rather than having to rely on the original purchaser taking action on their behalf? This would not impose additional burdens on business because the obligations of the business seller towards the consumer buyer would simply be transferred to the consumer recipient of the goods.
Whether a recipient of gifts has any direct rights against the seller currently depends on whether the contract is one to which the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act applies. If a contract of sale or supply is made for the express benefit of a third party that third party would be able to enforce the terms of the contact (including implied terms as to “satisfactory quality”). By moving away from consumer protection being provided through implied terms to a system of statutory rights (which I strongly welcome) even that little protection available to consumer recipients of goods and services would be lost. This could leave recipients of corporate gifts having more protection than consumers.
Thanks for your comment! I should clarify that we’re not proposing to remove the need for an underlying contract, so the current law regarding third party rights would continue. Unfortunately the link to an underlying contract means it wouldn’t be easy to extend consumer rights more directly to third party recipient of gifts. Having said that, many retailers already offer gift receipts which are honoured as if the recipient was the original buyer.
The intention regarding the statutory quality standards is that the statute will clearly state what those standards are, and the remedies for breach. The aim is to prevent people from needing to navigate through terminology like “condition” and “warranty” to identify their rights. We are proposing that the statutory guarantees will still be part of the contract for goods, but that the rights they give rise to will be clear from the new law.
Thank you for your reply.
As you are aware, consumers have certain rights when they buy goods, namely that goods are of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, etc. These quality standards are clearly set out in statute but are implied into the contract between the seller and the consumer. The European remedies available for a breach of the quality standards are also set out in statute (albeit not as clearly as they might be), and there will be few consumers who will not be aware of the traditional short term right to reject faulty goods and get their money back.
The problem with the implied terms model of providing consumer protection is that it introduces and unnecessary layer of complexity into the law which makes it difficult for consumers to understand and sales staff to explain. For example, many consumers will not appreciate that when they buy goods they are entering into a contract with the seller, even less that making a claim for a breach of the quality standards must be expressed as a breach of the relevant implied terms of the contract.
The law could be greatly simplified by introducing a genuine system of statutory consumer guarantees which clearly state the quality standards that goods must meet and the remedies available to the consumer if these guarantees are breached. The difference is that a claim for a breach of the quality standards would be expressed simply as a breach of the statutory consumer guarantee and not a breach of a contractual obligation (which the consumer is probably not aware he has entered). This is the system that has been adopted successfully in New Zealand and Australia and which has resulted in a high level of consumer awareness of their rights in those countries.
Concerns about the possible breadth of such a system could be addressed by introducing a requirement that consumer guarantees only applied where there was a contract between the seller and a consumer, so that they would not apply to free gifts or to goods supplied under statute, eg water and NHS prescription drugs. But where there was an underlying contract the law could provide that the consumer guarantees could be enforced by the consumer party to the contract or to the consumer to whom the goods were gifted (who would of course need to provide evidence of the sale). Again this is the situation that applies in New Zealand and Australia. There is no general right of representative action in the UK so it would not be possible for any third party to seek to enforce the consumer guarantees.
However, if the intention is that the guarantees would still operate as contractual protections it is not obvious from the consultation paper to see how this will be different in substance to the existing implied terms model of providing consumer protection. It suggests that consumers would still have to frame a claim for breach of the quality standards in terms of a breach of contract thereby maintaining an unnecessary layer of complexity.
If the new system is to be no different in substance it is difficult to see the justification for departing from the existing implied terms approach which at least lawyers and consumer advisers (if not individual consumers) understand. The new law could still include a more comprehensive statement of the remedies available for a breach of the quality standards – even if those standards are contractual obligations and not directly enforceable consumer guarantees.
In the example where a product has been returned within the 30 day period because of a fault, 30 days should renew from when the product has been repaired including a new guarantee. Also if the faulty product has been exchanged for a new product the 30 period should start from when it was replaced otherwise it does not give you the same rights as the original item purchased.
The system needs to be clear and unambiguous with what is ‘reasonable’ spelt out. I’m not sure if this will deal with two problems. Poor design where a fault is inherant and products which are made to a price and not expected to last a long time. If we put up too many quality hurdles then prices will undoubtedly rise and some products may disappear all together. There may also be a case of being able to ‘offload’ the responsibility from the retailer to the manufacturer where the manufacturer gives a guarantee as deciding if a product is faulty or has been abused is sometimes beyond the technical ability of the retailer.
Retailers always have the upper hand especially when items are of high value; cost of litigation is too much for consumer but OK to retailer who pays insurance or before tax (consumer pays from taxable income)
SOG Act should be very clear and make example of attempts to circumvent rights.
The Sale of Goods Act should definitely be changed so that people are entitled to a full refund for the first year after purchase – that will help the British public to stop being ripped off by the shops who have got so use to being able to get away with selling us utter rubbish and getting away with it. We shouldn’t have to accept a repair either if we don’t want one.
Agree with every word Penny says. This is where the whole problem with purchasing goods lies. Remove the rubbish goods and excuses of repair instead of refund problem solved.
EU Directive 1999/44/EC
Could consideration be given to incorporate this into our new regs. I understand that our Sale of Goods Act etc allegedly gives us better protection but having a 2 year guarantee at the out-set on a purchase gives more peace of mind.