Lessons about implied warranty of quality and right of return

The annual report of the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud contains two important lessons on warranty of quality and your right to return goods.

According to the report, a consumer noticed that the washing machine she bought was leaking after some time, which clearly demonstrated a defect. The leakage further triggered electrical faults, causing power outages and eventually led to the washing machine breaking down.

The consumer contacted the store where she bought the washing machine and asked for a replacement or a full refund. However, the store rejected her claim on the basis that a third party, who was not authorised by the store, worked on it in an attempt to detect the fault.

ALSO READ: How to guarantee that you understand the warranty

According to the supplier’s warranty terms and conditions, engaging a non-authorised technician during the warranty period constitutes a breach of the policy. As a result, the supplier did not honour the claim.

The consumer wanted to have the washing machine replaced or a refund in line with section 56(2) of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) that provides for an implied warranty of six months when a consumer can exercise the right to receive a repair, replacement or refund for goods not meeting the standards set out in section 55 of the CPA. The consumer must choose the outcome.

Implied warranty time was over

In this case, the consumer complained to the store after the six-month period provided for in section 56(2) of the CPA was over. Therefore, the store assessed the consumer’s claim in terms of the supplier’s standard warranty and related provisions.

The store maintained that the consumer’s decision to involve a non-authorised third party voided the supplier’s warranty condition. Although the complainant argued that no repairs were done and that the technician merely did an assessment of the electrical components, this did not alter the supplier’s position.

The CGSO could therefore also not make a recommendation due to the breach of the supplier’s terms and conditions.

What do we learn from this complaint? Tread carefully when having appliances repaired that may have a supplier warranty attached. Always seek direction from the store before attempting to fix the problem independently. Engaging third-party service providers without explicit authorisation may result, as in this case, in a breach, which could void any warranty.

ALSO READ: Devil is in the detail if you want to return defective goods

Your general right of return

In another case, a consumer bought a pair of shoes for her child, only to realise they were one size too small. She believed she had the right to exchange the shoes for a larger pair and went to the store to ask them to exchange the shoes.

However, the store refused because it said the shoes displayed signs of wear and tear, which voided their return policy. The consumer then complained to the CGSO.

The store responded to the CGSO, saying that the shoes were returned in a noticeably used condition. Staff observed significant wear and tear on the soles and the leather uppers, indicating that the shoes had been worn extensively. Given the condition of the shoes, the store declined the return as they could not be resold.

The consumer said in her complaint to the CGSO that she wanted the shoes exchanged or a full refund.

ALSO READ: Guarantees, warranties and everything you need to know as a consumer

Misconception that you can always return everything

The CGSO says this case underscores a key misconception about the CPA, specifically that all purchases come with a general right of return. “While a consumer enjoys the right to return goods that do not meet the standards of section 55 of the CPA, that right is triggered only if the goods are found to be defective.”

In terms of section 18 of the CPA, a consumer has the right to examine goods before completing a transaction. While certain stores may provide for an exchange or return as part of their store policy, this is not a guaranteed right.

It is also important to remember that the CPA does not place an obligation on stores to accept returns in cases where:

• Consumers change their mind;
• The product does not fit or is uncomfortable;
• The item has been used and is no longer in its original condition.

Unfortunately, the CGSO could not make a recommendation as there were clear signs of use on the shoes despite the fact that they were too small.

What do we learn from this complaint? The CGSO points out that a change of heart or incorrect sizing, especially after use, does not entitle you to a refund or exchange under the CPA. Consumers must understand the supplier’s return policy and ensure that a product fits correctly before leaving the store to avoid disappointment if a return is rejected.