Sales Of Goods Act Comparison
This is a personal comparison study between Business Link and Wikipedia’s view on the Sales of Goods Act in the UK. This is just an educational comparison and no legal meaning is meant by this discussion.
From reading over the 2 Sales of Goods acts from the two sources, the first opinion on them both is that Business Link’s act is more positive for the end consumer, it is pointed more towards the options that consumers have when/if anything goes wrong with a sale. It includes additional information about Services that are provided apart from just a physical product. Whereas Wikipedia’s version is more purely process based with not much information regarding services. They put across that they do not believe the Goods Act is as good as they would like, saying: “a new sales of goods act is thought to be overdue”. If a consumer reads this act, it may make them feel that the Act is flawed if it is put across like this.
Carrying on with Wikipedia, who states there is “a minimal amount of minor restrictions” could mean that Consumers and Businesses are in need of a new detailed Act to cover more events that occur within the selling of goods. Wikipedia explains information more about the actual sales process, rather than the actual product. Including details about the ownership of the goods and possession, that the seller must hold the full ownership of a product to be able to sell it, this keeps the consumer free from events when a 3rd party who has security on the same product interferes with the sale or the consumer. This includes the ownership transfer occurring only when the goods have been delivered as advertised, not when any monies have been passed from the two parties. Business Link does not mention anything about ownership transfer.
Both acts mention pricing, timing and quality must be satisfactory, however Wikipedia mentions that all of the above may be affected and the expected satisfaction level from the consumer may differ depending on the condition of the item (new or used) and the price. Business Link does not mention this; I believe this is an important fact to show, especially in the workplace in retail, where both new and used products are available.
The main discrepancy found between the two act sources is concerning the first 6 months of the product, if the consumer requests a repair, reduction in cost, refund or replacement. Business Link states “it is up to the retailer to prove the goods are in full working condition at the point of sale”. Whereas Wikipedia is the opposite explaining that it lies with the consumer to prove otherwise: “the buyer successfully claims the goods where not to standard when delivered”. This can be very concerning for the consumer, as they will not know where they stand if this matter occurs, and could lead to conflicts.
The main areas of the acts that state about a product are very similar. Both mentioning goods must fit the description, whether verbally, written or otherwise and the items must be capable of doing what it is intended for without any problems. If a retailer is in breach of these, then they are made responsible to rectify the problem, with a refund, replacement or repair at their own cost. This is specified by both sources that it can be up to 6 years, 5 years in Scotland, for a Customer to bring an issue up to the Retailer.
Overall, Business Link seems to be very consumer-friendly, with additional information about the Service not only the products covered by the law, and giving consumers advice on what to do in the situation and what the retailer must cover in terms of the product wrong . Whereas Wikipedia is more process not product based, with additional information about ownership of the product and those items may come in different conditions and so should be looked at respectively. However, together, both sources cover the Buyer and Seller when it comes to the satisfactory condition of an item and service, but both slightly with different views.