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 warranty is a promise the maker chose to give, on terms the maker wrote. Singapore consumer law adds a second route that most households never hear about, and it points somewhere else entirely.

The second route sits in the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, known widely as the Lemon Law. It gives a buyer the right to ask for repair, replacement, a reduction in price, or a refund when goods do not conform to contract at the time of delivery. The obligation falls on the seller. A contract binds the parties who made it, so the business that took the money is the business that answers for the goods.

Neither route cancels the other. Government guidance on the law states that a warranty granted separately by the maker or supplier keeps running alongside the statutory rights. A household holds two claims rather than one, addressed to two different parties. Being turned away by a brand service centre 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, and so does a private sale between two households. Used units are inside it, though age at delivery and the price paid are both weighed when judging what quality was fair to expect. This page is orientation, not legal advice.

A unit that runs is not automatically a unit that conforms. The statutory test asks whether the goods matched the contract at the point of delivery, which is a wider question than whether something has failed. Government guidance draws the standard from existing sale of goods law. Goods should be of satisfactory quality, fit for the purpose they were bought for, and meet reasonable performance expectations given their description and price.

Satisfactory quality is broken into named parts. Durability is one of them. The rest are fitness for the purposes goods of that kind are commonly 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 it still works. So can one that runs far louder than the model was described as running.

Timing is where households lose ground without noticing. The problem has to have been present at delivery, even if it only showed itself later. A weakness sitting 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 the item, or misused it and caused the fault.
• •The buyer, or someone acting for the buyer, attempted a repair and caused damage in the process.
• •The buyer was told about the fault before buying it.
• •The buyer changed their mind and no longer wanted the item.
• •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. The seller is expected to deliver it within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the buyer, and government guidance states that the seller carries the costs of doing so. 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 been given a fair chance and has not worked. That point arrives when repair and replacement are not possible, when they would cost the seller disproportionately, or when neither can be done in a reasonable time without significant inconvenience. A seller may also offer a different remedy from the one demanded, where the cost of the one demanded is disproportionate by comparison. A refund can be trimmed to reflect the use the buyer has already had.

Six months from delivery decides who has to prove what, and nothing beyond that. A problem appearing inside that window is presumed to have been there at delivery, unless the seller proves otherwise, or unless the presumption does not suit the nature of the goods. Past six months the buyer carries that burden instead.

That distinction deserves holding on to. Plenty of consumer writing describes the six months as a deadline for claiming, and government guidance says the opposite: remedies stay available afterwards, and what changes is who is arguing uphill. CASE publishes the current position, handles consumer complaints and runs mediation, and is the right place to confirm anything read online.

A new aircon that underperforms is more often a fitting problem than a faulty product, and that one fact redirects the whole claim. The statutory remedy attaches to goods. Both CASE and government guidance state that the Lemon Law does not apply to services, on the reasoning that remedies built around returning and replacing an item do not fit work already performed.

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

The split between product cover and workmanship cover is set out separately, in the guide devoted to it, and is not rebuilt on this page. 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. It is answerable through what was recommended and quoted, not through either warranty.

Gather the paperwork before the first conversation. The statutory route runs on the contract, and paperwork is what proves the contract. The invoice or sales agreement carries the most weight, because it names the business that sold the unit, and that business is the one holding 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 a second party was involved, and any commissioning readings taken on the day all belong in the same folder.

• •The sales invoice, showing the legal name of the business that sold it and the model supplied.
• •The delivery or handover date, written down rather than recalled.
• •The quotation, plus anything stating capacity, room 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 first appeared and what it does, with photos or video.
• •Every exchange with the seller and the fitter, kept in writing rather than by phone.
• •An independent diagnosis naming the cause.