Consumer law question - Laptop warranty

My laptop recently broke due to no fault of mine and the retailers replaced it. However, this laptop has also subsequently broken (all in the space of about 14 months). The warranty of one year the first laptop had has now expired and the retailer is telling me they don't need to replace/fix the replacement laptop because the warranty has expired.

Is this correct?

I believe I'm right in saying that use of a warranty is not the only route to redress in these cases and that Sale of Good's and certain EU directives can be invoked if the goods become defective within an unreasonable time and therefore unsatisfactory quality/not fit for purpose?

In short, you're correct. I'll reply more completely in a sec.

OK, I believe the first thing to ask is whether the second laptop broke within 6 months of you getting it. If you've purchased something and it develops a fault within 6 months, EU law means that the retailer has to prove that it wasn't faulty, rather than you having to show that it was. (I'm not sure what the position is where we're dealing with replacement goods, but I'd imagine it'd be the same.)

If you've had something for more than 6 months, you'd have to rely on the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SGA 1979) "instead". In short, goods sold in the course of a business must be of satisfactory quality for all common purposes. Given that a laptop usually lasts a few years - I've had mine for about two and a half now - I don't think it's unreasonable to expect it to survive for more than "under a year". Of course, since the EU presumption doesn't apply, you would have to show that it's not of satisfactory quality (i.e. damaged).

The warranty issue is a red herring.

All correct save for one perhaps minor detail; EU law as a whole is irrelevant here. The Sale of Goods Act actually provides everything that you need. The provision relating to the six month presumption is at section 48A(3) of the Sale of Goods Act. To be fair relying on EU in any guise in cases such as this is a very common mistake, but in reality you don't need it at all.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's irrelevant given that it was s.48A that incorporated EU law, but it's not something I've studied in depth so I wouldn't know. Thanks for the heads up.

Following on from the advice given above, I'm interested to know what the practical steps the OP would then take in this situation. Let's say the OP has had the second laptop for 7 months, and thus tries to rely on the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SGA 1979) (goods sold in the course of a business must be of satisfactory quality for all common purposes). Would the OP realistically be advised to (a) waive the law in the retailers' face and hope they see the error of their ways (b) seek the help of a high street solicitor and start issuing a claim form etc thus incurring some expenses? Is this kind of claim likely to be settled in a small claims court? If it got to that stage, how much would legal representation be likely to cost the OP? How long would the whole process take? Hopefully someone can give me a flavour of the practicalities of what would actually happen here!

Great answer Tortious, thanks. TSR won't let me give you a positive rating because I've done so before. I presume this is LPC knowledge - I'm due to start this shortly and was intrigued!

There is a fee for issuing the claim form - which I think is about £80 - but I believe you can recover this from the defendant if you win.

Rule 27.14 (2)(c) of the CPR - at least I assume that's what it means, haven't done Civil Procedure, I just looked through the small claims bit of the CPR !

PRSOM.

Shouldn't you have moved this out of the careers section, what with it not being about careers...