news
ARTICLES
23/12/2011
Buying and Selling at Online Auctions: Your Rights and Responsibilities

The rights of individuals who buy from a retailer, either in the shop or online are well versed. The consumer is entitled to receive what is described, for it to be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose[1] and despite the efforts of some retailers to direct customers to the manufacturer, it is now widely appreciated that in nearly every case, the principal claim is against the retailer itself.

 
If a product is defective, poorly described or not fit for purpose then the consumer has rights and if they return to the retailer within six months of purchase, the Sale of Goods Act places the burden firmly upon the retailer to demonstrate the product conformed to the statutory requirements. If the product is returned after six months, the consumer must demonstrate the product fails to conform to the statutory requirements. If the product does not confirm to the statutory requirements then technically, a consumer has six years to seek redress but the passage of time will not serve the consumer well and as soon as a defect arises, the retailer should be contacted.
 
Once contacted, assuming the product was not fit for purpose, as described or of satisfactory quality, most consumers will be aware they may be entitled to: (i) a repair; (ii) a replacement (iii) a partial or total refund; or (iv) to terminate the contract.
 
The consumer may choose the most appropriate and proportionate way of proceeding in terms of either repair or replacement[2] but a little known provision of the Sale of Goods Act[3] confirms that if at the time of the delivery or purchase the goods did not confirm to the statutory provisions and the retailer does not repair or replace within a reasonable time then the consumer is entitled to a partial or total refund depending on the circumstances and may even be entitled to terminate the contract.
 
In the vast majority of cases, a speedy repair will be most appropriate but in an ever increasing market where consumers are ready to complain, many will also receive a gift voucher or a formal apology.
 
Most people assume that when they buy at on online auction, their rights are similar to those outlined above, but that is not quite the case. If a consumer buys from a retailer at auction, then similar rights to those above will follow but the onus is upon the consumer to demonstrate that such a relationship existed.
 
In most cases, the transaction will be from one individual to another and the obligations of a seller and particularly the rights of a buyer are significantly different from those outlined above that apply to retailers.
 
An online auction should be thought of in much the same way as an advert in the local newspaper. The product is effectively sold as seen.
 
As a seller there is a duty not to mislead a potential buyer and consequently advertisements should be accurate and succinct without embellishment and supported with pictures if at all possible. One must tread with especial care when selling a motor vehicle, there existing a statutory duty upon the seller to ensure the car is roadworthy, with the obtaining of a recent MOT Certificate the most obvious way for sellers to protect themselves.
 
When acting as a buyer, one should be alert to any fanciful statements, which may give rise to suspicion, particularly if purchasing an expensive item. Will the seller allow an inspection before the auction closes? If not, why not? If pictures were not provided with the advertisement will the seller now provide them? If not, why not? If collecting items are you asked to meet at a location other than the seller’s home? If so, why?
 
A number of online auction hosts have their own dispute resolution service, but a conscienscious buyer can avoid the need to entertain the same with proper planning and investigation. A prudent seller can avoid a dispute with accurate and clear advertisements.
 
Finally, in respect of purchases for more than £100, wherever possible use a credit card, which provides a form of protection if needed and if all else fails, consult a solicitor.

For more information please contact:
 
Robert Breckon, Associate Solicitor
Sharp Young and Pearce LLP
Tel:                  0115 959 00 55
E-mail:             rdb@syplaw.com
 
This commentary is intended as a general guide and acts (or omissions) should not be undertaken in reliance of this commentary alone.
  
[1] Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)
[2] Section 48 (as amended) Sale of Good Act 1979
[3] Section 48C
06/09/2011
Buying a Used Car ?
Buying a Used Car There are many pitfalls to buying a used car, especially from a private seller. Whilst the consequences of being a victim can be significant, the risks can be readily avoided using our helpful suggestions below.

DO:

1. Run a check on the vehicle to ensure it is finance free, legitimately owned and not an insurance write off. Basic reports can now be purchased for as little as a few pounds. 2.Check the VIN identification matches that on the log book and the number plate; . 3.Ask an expert or a local garage to check the vehicle before parting with any monies; . 4.Check that the MOT Test Certificate is valid; and . 5.Get a receipt together with full details of the seller. .

DO NOT

1.Pay in cash and preferably obtain the seller’s bank account details; 2.Undertake the transaction at a location away from the seller’s home – you want to know where they live; and 3.Rely on the seller’s word that documents may follow in the post.

The lists are not exhaustive and should not be relied upon alone without fuller advice. Please contact our Mr. Breckon for an informal discussion.

19/07/2011
Sharp & Partners announce merger
Sharp & Partners have announced a merger with Nottingham firm Young & Pearce to form an 11 partner practice. The two firms believe they have a similar culture but complimentary strengths. Each shares a philosophy which puts the client at the centre of everything we do. The merger will take place on 1st September. Young & Pearce will over a short period move into Sharps' premises at Weekday Cross, Nottingham. All existing branch offices will be retained.

Then new firm will be called Sharp Young & Pearce.

Press release

Young&Pearce's website
08/06/2011
Not so Super Injunction?
If one were to read the tabloid press, one might be forgiven for inferring that injunctions, particularly Super Injunctions are deployed to protect the celebrity, footballers and those of wealth to prevent publication of extra marital affairs and salacious matters. Such is the public interest that the Master of the Rolls has published guidance spanning 112 pages[1] but one cannot avoid the elephant in the room and in doing so ignore the media frenzy and ask: what is the purpose of the Super Injunction and do they work?
 
The Super Injunction appears to be a media term for what is otherwise known as an Anonymised Injunction, i.e. an interim injunction which restrains a person from publishing information which concerns the application and is said to be confidential or private[2], which may be imposed as a result of Section 12, Human Rights Act 1998[3]. If there is a “Super” component to such an injunction, it is prohibition on third parties, usually the media in identifying not only the contents of the injunction, but more importantly that the injunction exists at all.
 
The Anonymised Injunction, if general reports are to be believed is overwhelmingly used to protect t
20/04/2011
Sharp and Partners
We would like to inform you that as of 29th April 2011 Sharp and Partners Solicitors will change their trading status from Sharp and Partners to Sharp and Partners LLP. This will in no way effect our clients, but if you have any concerns please let us have these in writing within the next 14 days.
16/12/2010
Fair Comment?

In what might be considered one of the most difficult areas of the law of defamation, the defence of fair comment, clarity has been provided by the Supreme Court in their Judgment of 1 December 2010.

Initially described as a “storm in a teacup” by defence lawyers, the recent case of Spiller (and another) v Joseph and Others [2010] UKSC 53, brought the unlikeliest of claims before the auspices of the Supreme Court, facilitating what is now considered to be a landmark ruling in the area of defamation.

The Claimants, members of musical acts including “The Gillettes” agreed to be promoted by the Defendants in October 2004. The relationship broke down, resulting in the Defendants posting the following note “…1311 Events is no longer able to accept bookings for this artist as the Gillettes c/o Craig Joseph are not professional enough to feature in our portfolio and have not been able to abide by the terms of their contract…”.

26/10/2010
Pre Nuptial update
On the 20 October 2010, the UK Supreme Court ruled that a Pre-Nuptial Agreement is binding in the case of Granatino and Radmacher. In that case the court indicated that Pre-Nuptial Agreements have decisive or compelling weight, and it would be “natural” to infer that the parties entering into agreements will intend that “effect be given to them”. As a result of this decision it is likely that Pre-Nuptial Agreements will become more popular as couples entering into marriage will hopefully be able to rely on Pre-Nuptial Agreements more. The effect of this will be that if the marriage does not work, rather than going through lengthy and expensive proceedings to resolve who should have what upon divorce, they will be able to look back at the Pre-Nuptial Agreement and divide their assets according to its terms