The relationship between consumers and users is common and healthy in any economy; however, there are grey or dark areas where this relationship can be affected.
Such is the case with the guarantee and customer satisfaction. In these situations, when there are disputes over enforcing the guarantee, the parties can resolve the matter on their own, although they can also request the intervention of a judge.
Let us first look at what the quality guarantee is
When buying a product, various scenarios can arise. The first, and the one we all hope for, is that the product satisfactorily meets the customer’s expectations for a reasonable time, depending on the use they have given it.
Another possible situation is that the customer finds the product defective or that it is not of the quality offered. In other cases, despite the product working well and meeting the quality standards offered, it does not match what the customer requires. In these last cases, the consumer will be able to enforce the guarantee.
If the guarantee is invoked, one may opt for the repair or the replacement of the product. In the case of repair, if the defect appears again, one may opt for replacement or one of the options the seller offers as a guarantee of their sale.
Among the most common situations that may arise in these cases are a price reduction or termination of the contract, which would lead to a refund. These measures must be reasonable in order to avoid abuse of this right by the customer at a high economic cost borne by the seller.
Now, in some cases where the customer and the seller fail to reach an agreement, these disputes can end up in court. It will then be the judge who determines the customer’s level of satisfaction and the seller’s intention to fulfil their obligation.
“At BBM Abogados we defend the interests of individuals and businesses in Santander and Cantabria with a close, rigorous and fully transparent approach. If you have doubts about your case, we help you see it clearly.”
Who is better placed to decide?
While the guarantee is a right of the customer, it should only be applied to those cases that genuinely warrant it. Thus, consumers should not abuse a supplier’s return policies when, in principle, their need has been met by the goods purchased.
Meanwhile, the seller cannot refuse to honour the guarantee when the customer is not satisfied with their product.
At this point, determining a customer’s level of satisfaction and ruling on whether the guarantee applies is a task that, in principle, customer and seller can agree upon at the time of the purchase. However, in the event of a conflict, a judge could come into play.
Among these options, let us look at the pros and cons of each one’s intervention and who is better placed to decide.
The customer
They know exactly the use they have given the product and how satisfied it makes them.
On the other hand, beyond the goods’ advertising, they do not know exactly the reasonable quality they can expect. As for their interests, their reputation will not be affected and they know exactly what is at stake, that is, what they paid for the product.
Thus, with their claim, they will either have a product that works perfectly or a refund of their money, so they really have a lot to gain.
The seller
The seller or supplier might seem the least interested in honouring the guarantee, but in reality they can be negatively affected if they fail to fulfil their obligation. It should be borne in mind that the seller may have plenty of elements at hand to determine whether or not the customer is abusing their right to the guarantee.
First, they have greater knowledge of the product’s features. At the same time, they can gather information about their clientele, which will make it easier to detect when they are facing a “professional returner”.
Furthermore, they will seek to build or maintain a good reputation, directing their efforts to meeting the customer’s expectations, which will not be possible if customers know they do not keep their promise. It is precisely this last point, reputation, that on many occasions leads sellers to continually put up with an excess of abusive returns.
The judge
They are the ones with the least quantity and quality of information, since they are unaware of the same aspects the customer is unaware of. But nor do they know the customer’s use of, and satisfaction with, the product. This leaves the judge with two options: the first, to abstain and leave the decision to the parties’ discretion; the second, to apply the guarantee automatically.
As for their interests, although they are called to impartiality and justice, they could fall into excessive interventionism.
Implications of excessive court intervention
As shown, the judge will not always be the most suitable person to determine how satisfied a customer is with a product. Especially in those relationships where the parties’ autonomy is an essential element.
Thus, it is worth stressing that when the judge automatically applies the guarantee or denies the validity of the contract, it reduces the possibility of the market and individuals regulating their relationships efficiently.
Another element affected by this constant intervention is corporate reputation. On many occasions, the image of a brand, company or supplier is tarnished regardless of whether the company wins in court. Generally, the dispute and all its implications draw all the attention; yet the outcomes rarely receive the same coverage. As a result, the one who bears all the harm is the supplier.
This same intervention is seen in relation to arbitration, to which the parties could submit in these cases so that a third party decides on the application of the guarantee. Unfortunately, arbitration decisions are reviewed excessively by judges, who tend to rule on the substance and not just the form.
In conclusion, on the guarantee and customer satisfaction
Criteria are needed to keep inefficient court intervention to a minimum. The hope is that individuals will regulate their commercial relationships, because they are the ones with the necessary and sufficient elements to reach agreements.
Now, should the intervention of a third party be needed, alternative means of dispute resolution should be promoted and their effectiveness allowed.