Tweet
Interesting Scottish case on the rejection of goods unedr the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Summary of case
The Johnstons exercised their short term right to reject on the basis that the custom made sofa was not of satisfactory quality and sought a refund of the price paid. They were told that someone would turn up, which they did but failed to collect and instead sought to repair the problems.
Johnstons wrote to seller no less than 7 times and a further 3 times by their local MP but failed to act. They issued a claim and obtained judgment for payment and subsequently after the judgment, disposed of the sofa. Seller tried to argue that the Johnstons are not entitled to the refund because they disposed of the sofa and had an indefinite duty to make the goods available for collection.
The Court rejected the seller's arguments and found that the seller had lost its right to collect the goods through its failure to act given the number of opportunities it had (due to their avoidance/engagement), and so it was reasonable for the Johnstons to do what they wish with the sofa on the basis that it was considered abandoned.
At paragraph 29, the judge said that when considering the duty to retain rejected goods a number of factors ought to be taken into account, including:
- the timescale within which rejection was intimated;
- the nature of the goods;
- the practicality of providing storage;
- the nature, extent and frequency of communications sent by the consumers to the seller;
- any response, or lack of response, from the sellers;
- the length of time for which goods were retained; and
- whether proceedings have been raised.
Although a Scottish case which has no binding effect on English claims, the CRA does apply in Scotland as well as England and Wales. Given that the decision was made by the Sheriff Court of Appeal, this could be highly persuasive to judges in England and Wales in County Courts where similar issues are raised.
Summary of case
The Johnstons exercised their short term right to reject on the basis that the custom made sofa was not of satisfactory quality and sought a refund of the price paid. They were told that someone would turn up, which they did but failed to collect and instead sought to repair the problems.
Johnstons wrote to seller no less than 7 times and a further 3 times by their local MP but failed to act. They issued a claim and obtained judgment for payment and subsequently after the judgment, disposed of the sofa. Seller tried to argue that the Johnstons are not entitled to the refund because they disposed of the sofa and had an indefinite duty to make the goods available for collection.
The Court rejected the seller's arguments and found that the seller had lost its right to collect the goods through its failure to act given the number of opportunities it had (due to their avoidance/engagement), and so it was reasonable for the Johnstons to do what they wish with the sofa on the basis that it was considered abandoned.
At paragraph 29, the judge said that when considering the duty to retain rejected goods a number of factors ought to be taken into account, including:
- the timescale within which rejection was intimated;
- the nature of the goods;
- the practicality of providing storage;
- the nature, extent and frequency of communications sent by the consumers to the seller;
- any response, or lack of response, from the sellers;
- the length of time for which goods were retained; and
- whether proceedings have been raised.
Although a Scottish case which has no binding effect on English claims, the CRA does apply in Scotland as well as England and Wales. Given that the decision was made by the Sheriff Court of Appeal, this could be highly persuasive to judges in England and Wales in County Courts where similar issues are raised.
