Lemon Law and a New Aircon: The Seller Owes the Remedy

A new system that will not cool the way it should usually triggers one phone call, and it goes to the brand. That call is about the manufacturer's warranty, a promise the maker chose to give on terms it wrote. Singapore consumer law adds a second route that points elsewhere.

The second route sits in the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, the Lemon Law. It lets a buyer ask for repair, replacement, a price reduction or a refund when goods do not conform to contract at delivery. The obligation falls on the seller: the business that took the money answers for the goods.

Neither route cancels the other. Government guidance states that a warranty granted separately by the maker or supplier keeps running alongside the statutory rights. A household holds two claims, addressed to two different parties. Being turned away by a brand settles nothing about the position with the seller.

The statutory route has edges. It applies to purchases by consumers, so a company buying for its own premises falls outside it, as does a private sale between households. Used units are inside it, though age and price are weighed when judging fair quality. This page is orientation, not legal advice.

A unit that runs may still not conform. The statutory test asks whether the goods matched the contract at the point of delivery, wider than whether something has failed. Government guidance draws the standard from sale of goods law: satisfactory quality, fitness for the purpose bought, reasonable performance expectations given the description and price.

Satisfactory quality is broken into parts: durability, fitness for the purposes goods of that kind are supplied for, appearance and finish, freedom from minor defects, and safety. A system that cools weakly from new can fail that test while every part inside still works, and so can one that runs louder than described.

Timing is where households lose ground without noticing. The problem has to have been present at delivery, even if it showed itself later. A weakness inside the unit on day one counts, whenever it surfaces. Harm the household caused afterwards does not.

The law also names the situations where nothing is owed. CASE sets them out plainly, and they are worth reading before a claim is raised rather than after.

• •The buyer damaged or misused the item and caused the fault.
• •A repair attempted by the buyer, or someone acting for the buyer, caused damage.
• •The buyer was told about the fault before buying it.
• •The buyer changed their mind.
• •The fault is down to wear and tear.

The remedies are tiered, and a buyer cannot start at the bottom. Repair or replacement comes first, within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience, and guidance states the seller carries the costs. Labour, materials and moving the goods for repair all sit on the seller's side.

A price reduction or a refund opens once the first tier has had a fair chance. That point arrives when repair and replacement are not possible, would cost the seller disproportionately, or cannot be done in reasonable time without significant inconvenience. A seller may offer a different remedy where the one demanded costs disproportionately more. A refund can be trimmed for the use the buyer has already had.

Six months from delivery decides who has to prove what. A problem inside that window is presumed to have been there at delivery, unless the seller proves otherwise, or the presumption does not suit the nature of the goods. Past six months the buyer carries that burden.

That distinction matters. Plenty of consumer writing describes the six months as a deadline for claiming, and guidance says the opposite: remedies stay available afterwards, and what changes is who is arguing uphill. CASE publishes the current position, handles complaints and runs mediation.

A new aircon that underperforms is more often a fitting problem than a faulty product. The statutory remedy attaches to goods, and both CASE and government guidance state that the Lemon Law does not apply to services.

Installation is a service, and frequently a separate agreement with a separate party. A household that bought from one company and hired another to fit holds two contracts. The seller does not answer for how somebody else ran the pipes. Where one company both supplied and fitted, one contract carries two kinds of obligation, and the fault's side still has to be worked out.

The split between product cover and workmanship cover is set out separately, in the guide devoted to it. What matters here is narrower: the statutory route only opens where the fault sits on the goods side of that line.

A third possibility gets missed regularly. A unit can be precisely what was ordered, correctly fitted, and still fail to cool the room, because the capacity was wrong for the space. That is a specification failure, answerable through what was recommended and quoted, not either warranty.

The statutory route runs on the contract, and paperwork proves it. The invoice or sales agreement carries the most weight: it names the business that sold the unit, and that business holds the obligation. The legal name on the invoice is not always the name above the shopfront.

The delivery date is the next thing to pin down. The presumption window runs from delivery, so the day the unit arrived matters and the day it was ordered does not. Handover paperwork, the fitting contract where another party was involved, and any commissioning readings all belong in the same folder.

• •The sales invoice, naming the business that sold it and the model supplied.
• •The delivery or handover date, written down.
• •The quotation, plus anything stating capacity, coverage or promised output.
• •The fitting contract, where a different party carried out that work.
• •Commissioning readings, where any were recorded at handover.
• •A dated note of when the problem appeared and what it does, with photos or video.
• •Every exchange with the seller and the fitter, kept in writing.
• •An independent diagnosis naming the cause.