Under previously existing law, English consumers have the legal right to make a claim against suppliers up to six years after they bought a product (five years in Scotland). However, some other EC states had consumer laws that were far more limited. The new European Directive ensures that there is a certain minimum legal provision ('harmonisation') throughout the EU, so that consumers can purchase freely in any country secure in the knowledge that they are covered by these basic provisions. Individual Member States are free to go beyond these provisions in their national laws. So our existing timescales (up to six years) will prevail.

But commercial guarantees - as opposed to legal rights - are something else entirely. Suppliers may offer a variety of guarantee provisions, to suit themselves, their customers,and their competitive environment; indeed commercial guarantees may often reflect elements of legal rights. However it is illegal for a commercial guarantee to attempt to limit the legal rights of the consumer.

Manufacturers are not obliged to offer a guarantee. However in recent years in the UK it has become standard to offer at least a one-year commercial guarantee on many products - consumer durables in particular. Some retailers - perhaps in conjunction with the manufacturer - provide two or three year guarantees, maybe more.Bearing in mind that this Directive covers virtually all the products that a consumer might buy, from a car to a rubber band it is ludicrous to suggest that, for instance, a pair of
socks bought in the January sales now has a two year guarantee. As the DTI says 'liability periods are not to be taken as an indication of durability'.

The provisions of the Directive specifically cover the 'typical use' of a product. If you buy a refrigerator then you might well expect it to last for many years. If it doesn't and if it fails within 2 years then, wherever you are in Europe, you have the legal right to make a claim on the manufacturer. In addition, if you are in England that right extends to six years. But you might well find that the commercial guarantee is for three or five years and therefore if the product failed after four years you would not - necessarily - need to go to the courts to get recompense.

But having the legal right to make a claim and winning that claim are not the same. The retailer might dispute that there is a fault in the product, or that a fault can be attributed to them. They might well be able to prove that the product was inherently fine until the consumer subjected it to inappropriate use, for instance subjecting a 'domestic' product to a professional level of use. And of course, if it were a product where the 'normal' life was less than two years (or six, or five as appropriate) then although you could bring a case in court (lawyers usually being very happy to take your money at any time) you would not be likely to win. And if you tried to make a claim for a worn-out pair of socks your claim would undoubtedly fail - unless those socks had been sold with a retailer's or manufacturer's claim that they were everlasting socks, or that they would last a specific period of time, irrespective of usage. But on the matter of socks, if they wore into holes after being worn and washed just a couple of times - within the two year limitation period (or five, or six years in England or Scotland) then this would probably mean they were not fit for the 'typical use such products are normally used for', and you
might well, therefore, have a case in law.

Although English and Scottish law has over many years arrived at a generally accepted range of remedies for when products have been proven to be faulty, the new Directive now quite clearly defines the range of remedies available. The remedies are free repair, free replacement, complete refund, and retrospective discount.

The Directive has two main areas that may cause concern or confusion. Firstly, if a fault comes to light within the first six months the new law presumes that the fault existed at time of sale. Previously (in a legal claim) it would have been up to the consumer - the claimant - to prove that the fault existed at time of sale, this change is known as 'the reversal of the burden of proof' and is considered by some to be a major change in British law. Secondly, the Directive states that the consumer may choose from the remedies available and when originally drafted this caused panic bells to ring throughout manufacturing and retail businesses. Imagine the havoc when a customer with a minor fault returned the product two years later demanding his money back in full, and imagine the cost of such an exercise. But also remember who it is who always ends up paying. In the early stages of the consultation process it was estimated that if this provision stood as originally drafted consumer prices would rise by up to 50% (depending on the industry concerned).

With regard to remedies, the Directive was subsequently clarified as follows:There will be a hierarchy of four specific remedies available at the consumer's request, namely and in the first instance free of charge repair or free of charge replacement, followed by a retrospective discount or complete refund. These remedies must be completed within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience.Furthermore, it is clearly stated that the remedy must not be disproportionate to the problem. Therefore, for example, it would be disproportionate for a computer that exhibited an intermittent fault with its modem or graphics card eleven months after purchase to be replaced by a completely new system. Free repair is the most appropriate solution in such a situation. If part of the system failed within two years the consumer would probably be within his rights in requiring the supplier to remedy the problem. But of course any system that was faulted as a result of the customer doing something improper or just plain stupid would not be eligible for free repair or anything else.

As has been the situation in past years the biggest bone of contention will be to do with perception. The customer, especially the new user perceives the PC as something that he can do anything and everything with without having any prior knowledge or experience. The reality is that this attitude may cause problems with the computer, but the customer may genuinely believe that the supplier has an obligation to refund him.

Remember, a minor lack of conformity does not warrant free replacement or refund, and the inability to run a demo game downloaded from the Internet or from a cover disk doesn't mean the computer is faulty.