Black dot in 100mm f2.8L IS USM lens

[Cathus]

The trouble is that the law is not so black & white as you are suggesting.

There are some faults that clearly can be construed as being faulty 'at the time of delivery' i.e. when you buy it, for instance when you get it home & it doesn't work, or is broken.

I would agree that this is when you can demand a replacement.

If a similar problem occurs 3 months after you bought it, then, as you are within 6 months of buying it S48A(3) of the Sale of Goods Act says that the buyer is entitled to assume that "goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date."
Which I think is where you are getting your six months, new replacement, bit from

however, S48A(4) says that the six months bit does not apply if "it is established that the goods did so conform at that date"

Now I appreciate that the Sale of Goods Act says that if it is under six months old then it is for the seller to prove it wasn't faulty & over 6 months it is for the buyer to prove it was faulty, but in order for the seller to show it was not faulty at the time of purchase they must be allowed to test it, and therefore return it to Canon to have it examined.

Further, S48B (3)(c) says the buyer must not require the seller to repair or replace the goods if the remedy to the problem is either impossible or "disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies"

and

S48B (4) explains:
One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—

(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,

(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and

(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

So you might assume that if it costs £50 to have the lens cleaned at Canon & the replacement cost is £700, then replacing it might impose costs on the seller which are disproportionate in comparison to getting it cleaned, if indeed, the problem is one of a rogue flake of something inside the lens rather than a fault which has developed since purchase, or at the time of purchase.

All I'm saying is things in law are usually never as simple as is sometimes made out & it might be problematic to give false expectations to someone that you can walk into a shop with a problem & walk out with a new lens without giving the shop a chance to investigate & remedy the matter.

Some cases will be clearer than others.

I always advise contacting Consumer Direct rather than anyone else as a) it's their job to advise the public about consumer matters since the government created the body specifically for this to take the day-to-day heat off local Trading Standards offices, and b) I found them really rather good & knowledgeable when I had a problem with a microwave oven that failed after a few weeks.

By the way, I'm no expert in civil law but sadly have spent a career referring to various laws & statutes

[donoreo]

I cannot believe how this has gone. The simple solution is that it is under warranty, take it back. The details or replacement or fix can be worked out. Honestly, I do not even understand why the question was even asked in the first place.

It is interesting to see how consumer protection laws work in the UK though

[Cathus]

the question wasn't whether to take it back, the OP knew it had to be looked at, it was whether to take it to back to the seller or go straight to Canon, which then lead on to the discussion about consumer law.

[donoreo]

Originally Posted by Cathus

the question wasn't whether to take to back, the OP knew it had to be looked at, it was whether to take it to back to the seller or go straight to Canon, which then lead on to the discussion about consumer law.

I lost track, you are correct.