You are right in this respect but there is more to it than simply the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act.
The statutory mainframe for consumer protection, where there is sale of goods and supply of services, is provided by 2 statutory acts, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 has four main protections for the consumer which are:
a) The seller must have the right to sell the goods (s.12);
b) The goods must correspond to description (s. 13);
c) The goods must be of satisfactory quality (s 14);
d) If the goods are sold by sample then they must correspond to the sample in quality (s. 15)
Where the goods are supplied together with the services then the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 applies. The act has the same provisions as the Sale of Goods Act but in addition it also implies that the service must be carried out with reasonable care and skill, within a reasonable time and, if there has been no agreement as to the price, for a reasonable price. The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 effectively imposes strict liability upon the person who supplied the goods and the services. In other words it doesn’t matter whether, for example, the electrician knew or not that the device that he supplied and fitted was faulty. What matters is that the device was faulty and therefore he has to replace it and refit it at his own cost and expense. Even if the legal terms used are not entirely appropriate. For example in the case of the electrician mentioned above he effectively becomes the “seller” and the consumer becomes the “buyer” (in the case of the Sale of Goods Act). In the case of the Supply of Goods and Services Act the terms may change to “transferor” and “transferee” respectively. For all intents and purposes it is the spirit of the law that matters, which in the instant case it is meant to be for the protection of the consumer.
I hope that the above helps.
Regards
Logos
