It is not al all unusual for a retail floor covering customer to complain to a dealer that the floor she has just installed contains a slight imperfection. Too often, after the customer informs the retailer of the defect she also tells him she has stopped payment on the check.

As we all know, many times this defect is something that can be easily repaired if he is given the opportunity. The case below happens to deal with a television set, but the law that applies is the same that would be used if it were carpet or linoleum.

The set was purchased for cash on Nov. 4. The sales slip, the contract of sale, showed the price paid and contained a guaranty of 90 days for free service and one year for replacement of defective parts. Two days after it had been in the home, hooked up to an antenna, it would not function properly.

Apparently, the picture was tinted red. The buyer called the store and on Nov. 8, a service man arrived to repair the set. The repairman advised the consumer that he could not fix the set in the house.

It required more extensive work which could only be done in the shop. The consumer refused to allow the TV to be removed, stating she did not want a repaired set and would only accept another brand new TV.

Compare this to a situation where a customer refuses to allow a flooring dealer to attempt to fix a seam in the carpet or perform some other type of simple repair to eliminate a defect. The consumer continued to demand a new set and, when this was refused, changed her demand to a full refund.

The retailer refused both and instead continued to extend his offer to first be allowed to repair the set and, if he could not, to replace it at that time. This went back and forth for a while and, eventually, the consumer sued the dealer for return of her money.

A short trial was held and the judge, agreeing with the buyer, ruled her complaint was justified and ordered the store to take back the product and to return the purchase price. The retailer however, was very unhappy with this decision and appealed it to the court in his jurisdiction.

In his appeal he argued he was always willing to comply with the terms of the sale either by correcting the malfunction by minor repairs or, in the event the TV could not be made to operate properly, by replacement; that he was denied the opportunity to attempt to repair the defect; and that he had not breached the contract of sale or any warranties made in connection with it.

The court, after reviewing a few similar cases, noted, “While these cases provide no mandate to require the buyer to accept patch less merchandise, they do indicate that minor repairs or reasonable adjustment are frequently the means by which an imperfect tender many be cured.”

Quoting from another source, the judge continued, “The seller should be able to cure [the defect]…in these cases in which he can do so without subjecting the buyer to any great inconvenience, risk or loss.”

To which the appeals court noted, the dealer’s expert witness had testified that it was not unusual for minor repairs or adjustments to be necessary before the type of set would function perfectly. It also noted that if the minor repairs would not correct the defect then the retailer could look to the manufacturer for replacement.

“Here,” the decision continued, “the adamant refusal [of the consumer] to allow inspection essential to the determination of the cause [of the defect] defeated any effort by the seller to provide timely repair or even replacement [if a proper repair could not be done].

The cause of the defect might have been minor and easily repaired or it may have been substantial and required replacement, but the seller was never given adequate opportunity to make such a determination.”

In conclusion, the court, while it did not hold that the dealer had no obligation to this customer, since he was denied access and a reasonable opportunity to repair, the consumer had not shown a breach of warranty entitling him to a brand new set.

The judgment awarding the purchase price to the consumer was then reversed and, apparently, nothing further would be done until the store owner was given the opportunity to repair or replace the defective goods.

While this decision is obviously favorable to all retailers, this sale involved only $675, and there is no doubt that it cost the company well beyond that amount in legal fees alone to go to the appeals court.