Right to Reject CASES

In English law, the right to reject is a consumer remedy that allows buyers to refuse goods that do not meet contractual standards. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, consumers can reject faulty goods within 30 days for a full refund.

Definition and Principles

The right to reject ensures goods must conform to terms as to description, satisfactory quality, and fitness for purpose. If they fail, the buyer can reject them outright rather than accept repair or replacement.

Requirements for Establishing

  • Non-conformity: The goods must breach implied terms, such as being faulty or misdescribed.
  • Time limit: A short-term right to reject applies within 30 days of delivery.
  • Notice: The consumer must inform the trader of their intention to reject.
  • Condition: Rejection must be of the whole, not partial, unless divisible goods are supplied.

Practical Applications

Used frequently in retail disputes, the right to reject enables swift remedies for defective goods, reinforcing consumer confidence in transactions.

Importance

The right to reject underpins consumer protection by offering a strong, immediate remedy. It incentivises traders to ensure product quality and honesty in sales.

Lady justice with law books

Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 220; QB

Facts The claimant, Mr. Bernstein, purchased a new Nissan Laurel motor car from the defendants, Pamson Motors, for £8,000. Three weeks after taking delivery, having driven the car for 140 miles, the engine completely seized while he was on the motorway. The car was towed to a service station and then back to the defendants’ premises. The cause of the failure was identified as a piece of sealant that had blocked the oil supply to the camshaft, which was a latent defect present from the time of manufacture. This constituted a clear breach of the implied condition of merchantable quality

Law books in a law library

Ronaasen & Son v Arcos Ltd [1933] UKHL 1 (02 February 1933)

Facts The appellants, Arcos, Limited (‘the sellers’), entered into a contract to sell a quantity of Russian redwood and whitewood staves to the respondents, W. N. Ronaasen & Son (‘the buyers’), for the purpose of making cement barrels. The contract specified, amongst other dimensions, that the staves were to be of “1/2 an inch” thickness. Upon delivery, the buyers measured the staves and discovered that while they corresponded with the contract in other respects, a significant proportion did not conform to the specified thickness. Only around 5% of the staves were precisely 1/2 inch thick; the vast majority (over 80%)