Is It The Fish Store Clerk's Responsibility?

[andywg]

andywg, you seem to be saying, whatever the case, if deliberate or by mistake, the retailer has no responsibility of any kind for the action or inactions of itself or its staff when related to stock sales.

Sadly I am not. I am saying that if there is an honest "mistake" when giving advice over something that is far from set in stone (look on the internet, how many different maximum sizes and minimum tank sizes can you find for fish like a BGK?) they should not, and will not, be held responsible.

apart from being untrue, like it or not, the sale of goods act and the trade description act both apply here as anywhere else in the retail trade.

If you so are certain, why have you not provided the sections of the statute that apply here as I requested you to do so? I read through the BERR guides on those statutes last night (I didn't have time to read the entire acts) and I could find no reference to a situation such as this. Could it be because the sort of situation we are describing here is not covered by statute? I think that is the case, hence why English transaction law has the principle of caveat emptor.

You seem certain that the above acts cover this situation and makes your view correct. I shall not believe you until you can point me to the relvant section of statute, or at least to relevant case law regarding this. I do not feel this is an unreasonable position to take. Since you are so sure this is the case, I presume you will have no difficulty in posting the exact sections/case references in your next post.

it is a morally bankrupt attitude, making it a very eighty's. personally i cant help thinking Maggie would be proud of you.

Why would I be worried about Maggie? I think she did absolute wonders for the country (and not just for crushing the unions) and the fact she was re-elected by the public twice would imply many others agree with me.

As to morally bankrupt, what is wrong with the customer taking on some responsibility for their actions. I think it is equally morally bankrupt to decide to take on a life but to not do any personal research and rely on just one person's view on how it should be kept (if you even ask that). I just don't see how you can say it is morally bankrupt if someone who doesn't know any better gives incorrect advice to someone who is not paying for that advice (and that bit in bold is what truly differentiates between this and the endowment mortgages - the lack of a transaction for the advice).

If we actually paid the store for advice then everything you have said would ring true, but we don't.

 

[pastabake]

With regards to the original poster, while it isn't directly the responsibility of the employee or the LFS as the Animal Welfare Act in England and Wales clearly staes that it's the responsibility of the owner to make sure that they can keep and feed their pets properly, its a very lax store that sells any animal without asking questions. The same act also gives the buyer a set of protections.

The sales of goods act clearly states that the goods sold must be fit for the purpose. So if someone sells you a fish and it dies as soon as you get it home then you have a case. The water is muddied slightly because 'live fish' are counted as perishable items and so the onus is on you to show that there was nothing you did that caused its demise. As for the quibble about paying for advice, you are paying for it in the price of the goods. Whether you ask for that advice or not is upto you.

Furthermore, if you ask a specific question of the seller and they answer incorrectly then they are again held responsible - the onus is on them to provide valid information - the point here is reasonable - is it reasonable that the seller should have known. That is why you should always ask such questions as 'has there ever been rot' etc when buying a house. Sure everybody has a different set-up, you can't expect every LFS to be manned by experts, but you can expect them not to sell you a fish for your 10g tank that will grow to be 2ft, or a voracious Piscivore for your peaceful community tank.

No animal should be stocked or sold unless the staff (or a member of staff) is familiar with the care and welfare of that animal.

Its pointless to argue the toss on a forum because in the UK every council has a team of friendly and very helpful Trading Standards Officers who will be more than happy to answer your questions and give you free useful information - I've used them successfully on more than one occasion, not with fish mind you. In England and Wales you can also use this http/www.consumerdirect.gov.uk

Caveat emptor basically covers the seller from the comebacks of idiots, it doesn't give them immunity from lying or supplying bad information - its not a license to con.

11. SALE OF GOODS ACT AND SUPPLY OF GOODS AND
SERVICES ACT 1982
11.1. All transactions should be conducted within the terms of these Acts.
11.2. The goods should be:
• of merchantable quality
• properly described
• fit for the purpose
11.3. If a customer insists on making a purchase against the member’s advice he
should be warned at the time of purchase that his rights under the Act might be
limited. The retailer may refuse a sale on welfare grounds.
11.4. Full and clear information must be given upon request regarding goods, services
and livestock.
11.5. All services provided must be undertaken with reasonable care and skill and,
unless a specific time has been agreed beforehand, within a reasonable time.
11.6. The customer must be prepared to pay a reasonable charge.
11.7. A customer cannot query a price which has been agreed beforehand.
11.8. The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1952 does not apply in Scotland, but
similar provisions exist under common law.

Is it reasonable to expect the LFS clerk to ask questions or offer advice when faced with a new customer making a wide and incompatible range of purchases? ... even if it isn't strictly against the law I personally wouldn't think much of that person.

 

[andywg]

The sales of goods act clearly states that the goods sold must be fit for the purpose. So if someone sells you a fish and it dies as soon as you get it home then you have a case. The water is muddied slightly because 'live fish' are counted as perishable items and so the onus is on you to show that there was nothing you did that caused its demise.

Indeed. Livestock is a huge grey area. How can you prove that the fish was not fit for purpose? How do you prove it was not your journey home with the fish, or acclimatisation or anything that was the issue? A potential case you might have, but I doubt any barrister will give more than 10-30% success rate (if that) without extenuating circumstances.

As for the quibble about paying for advice, you are paying for it in the price of the goods. Whether you ask for that advice or not is upto you.

One is not paying for advice. I know of no lfs that offers in its services advice for sale. When I buy a fish I am paying for that fish, not for any advice. There is nothing I can think of that would imply that advice is an implied term of the sale contract when purchasing fish from a fish store.

The large lfs near me has signs up saying that while its staff may try and help with queries they are not the be all and end all of keeping fish and it is up to the consumer to do their own research and therefore the shop is not liable for any issues relating to poor advice.

Furthermore, if you ask a specific question of the seller and they answer incorrectly then they are again held responsible - the onus is on them to provide valid information - the point here is reasonable - is it reasonable that the seller should have known.

But how incorrectly? Ignoring the extremes which are somewhat clear cut, how much tollerence do we give the employee. This forum tends to err on the side of large minimum size aquaria than other fora. Surely you can't hold someone responsible if they have reserched, but their research gives a different result to you?

Is it reasonable that they make an error when asked about a single species of fish when the shop has over 100 tanks? After all, "to err is human..." and all that.

That is why you should always ask such questions as 'has there ever been rot' etc when buying a house. Sure everybody has a different set-up, you can't expect every LFS to be manned by experts, but you can expect them not to sell you a fish for your 10g tank that will grow to be 2ft, or a voracious Piscivore for your peaceful community tank.

No animal should be stocked or sold unless the staff (or a member of staff) is familiar with the care and welfare of that animal.

You state that a purchaser of a house should ask whether there has ever been rot. Many on this thread (though not you) are claiming that the seller should openly tell the buyer rather than leaving it to the buyer to decide what he needs to know. It's also interesting that the licence conditions only imply a (singular) member of staff (not the one selling, or even there at the time, based on the above) should be familiar with the housing requirements.

What happens if you happen to get the person who thinks they know it, but turns out they have made an honest mistake?

Is it reasonable to expect the LFS clerk to ask questions or offer advice when faced with a new customer making a wide and incompatible range of purchases? ... even if it isn't strictly against the law I personally wouldn't think much of that person.

But we are back to the extreme again. Suppose they don't make a wide range, but just buy one or two that are incompatible?