Brief cases: proving that a damaged sofa is the retailer’s responsibility

Thanks for this Conversation, Chris.

Durability is not defined in either the Sale of Goods Act or the new Consumer Rights Act that will take its place. In another Conversation we have been discussing durability in the context of washing machines. Are there any legal cases where owners have successfully made a claim under the Sale of Goods Act for a machine that proved to be insufficiently durable?

I think it’s a bit worrying that Sofaland were able to reject a report by the customer’s expert and effectively impose their own choice of expert. Thankfully the retailer’s expert supported the findings of the customer’s expert in this instance, but what a performance adding further stress to the situation. The stakes were high for Sofaland which is why they dug their heels in and made the dispute more unpleasant than it needed to be. They knew that if a manufacturing fault was upheld they would have to write off the sofa [and possibly have to concede other claims] since getting a leather sofa repaired so that it doesn’t show is virtually impossible, especially if it was made in China as so many are these days; the re-upholstery is the easy bit – that can be done in the UK; but getting a piece of leather that will match the rest of the sofa in shade, tone and texture would be very difficult.

A further point is the claim by Sofaland that the excess wear of the arm was due to improper care. I’m not sure what care regime will make a thin or weak piece of leather durable, and conversely what lack of care will make a mark or weak patch spread. Sofas are made to be sat on and the arms to be rested on; to expect people not to rest their arms on the armrests in case the leather stretches would be ridiculous. Leather varies naturally in texture, thickness and strength so it is necessary to select appropriate qualities for the wearing parts like the arms. And when you pay £825 for a sofa you are entitled to expect it to last a lot more than a few months before any distress appears. Leather is not inherently an expensive material [thousands of livestock die or are slaughtered around the world every day] but it can look luxurious and has a quality premium built into the price that is not necessarily justified by the cost of the raw material. The quality of the preparation of leather for upholstery purposes is the critical factor and the manufacturers of leather furniture have developed ways of making lesser grades of leather look as good as the best leather at the time of purchase but it will probably not have the same endurance.

So few Sale of Goods Act claims end up in front of a judge but that is the only way that the question of durability can be effectively resolved after taking into account several relevant factors, including price, product presentation, information and care advice given to the purchaser, and any advertising claims. The cost of going all the way to a trial is prohibitive, and binding mediation is a fair way of reaching a conclusion since neither party can take the matter any further. However, it does mean that the law is not being tested properly and consumers’ rights secured.

Presumably the settlement in Margaret Green’s case made allowance for the period of use and the possibility that the defect could be remedied, but it didn’t exactly leave her in the position she was in before the fault became apparent. A sofa is a statement article and once the owner is aware of a defect it is ever present and commands attention. No relief appears to have been given for that aspect.

Longer manufacturers warrantees is the only way to resolve issues re durability of goods. I recently purchased a leather electrically operated recliner chair following a Which? recommendation from HSL that came with a 5 year warrantee. I paid considerably more than Margaret did for her leather sofa but am optimistic that a 5 year warrantee that came with it means what it says on the tin.

I was visited yesterday by a surveyor acting on behalf of John Lewis to measure up for some new cupboards I am having installed and we had a long chat about the issue of responsibility when goods fail under the SoGs Act. I made the point that if manufacturers and not retailers were held more responsible then maybe they would produce more durable
goods and longer warrantees. He agreed with me :-]

Regarding the wear and tear issue, some people own pets which can cause a lot of damage to the arms of armchairs and sofas, particularly cats who are inclined to jump up onto the
arms of chairs and dig their claws in. I assume this was taken into account in Margarets case and the nature of the damage
identified before pursuing the court case in this instance.

I am the lady who had problems with Sofaland it concerns me that large firms can attempt to make it difficult for customers who have a legitimate complaint to have the problems rectified without having to seek redress through the Courts . I would like to thank Which Legal especially Peter Litchfield for all his help and support when I was dealing with this matter
Margaret

Well done to you Margaret for sticking to your guns and also your husbands initial reluctance to fight for your cause. Company policies dictate that they make it as difficult as possible so that consumers will give in to their demands and your case is an inspiration to others to keep up the pressure to maintain their rights under the Sale of Goods & Services Act.