The Sale of Goods Act 1978 (the "Act'') protects consumers by providing that goods sold in the course of a business must be safe and of "merchantable quality''.

This latter term means that they must be fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought.

For example, if you buy a clock radio, and you discover that it does not tell the time or allow you to tune into your favourite morning show, you are entitled to sue the store for breach of contract.

The reason is that the seller of the faulty clock radio has breached the implied terms in the contract of sale. In such cases, the law tries to put the parties to the contract in the positions they were in before the breach occurred. Rather than force you to sue, most stores will now immediately refund the purchase price. The situation might be different if some time passes before you return the clock radio.

If you took the clock radio home, discovered it did not work but waited three months before returning it, you are unlikely to get your money back.

The seller would argue that you accepted the condition of the goods and are therefore prevented from relying on the implied terms of the contract as to merchantable quality.

It is important therefore to act quickly if you wish to reject goods which are not of merchantable quality. Just how quickly will depend on the nature of the goods purchased.

The Act provides that a buyer accepts goods when: he intimates to the seller that he has accepted the goods; or if when the goods are delivered he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the goods being owned by the seller; or if after a reasonable time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them.

A buyer will be entitled to more time in which to reject a complex item, than a straightforward one but the amount of time must still be reasonable in the circumstances. If the purchased goods are defective then you can also seek damages if you can establish that the defect caused loss or damage.

If, for example, the clock radio caught fire and damaged your bedside table, the lamp and half the wall, you would be entitled to sue to replace the items damaged by the faulty clock radio. You will need to prove on a balance of probabilities that the clock radio was defective.

If the seller specifically drew your attention to the defects before the contract of sale was entered then you would not be able to reject the goods.

Similarly, if you examine the goods before purchase, and this examination ought to have revealed a defect, then the right to sue is lost if the item later turns out to be defective.

The Act also covers goods supplied to shops in the course of a business. A shopkeeper who accepts goods that are later found to be defective may have an action against the supplier.

Consumers who purchase a clock radio from another individual may not have a legal remedy if it does not work. In these circumstances the adage "let the buyer beware'' applies.

The situation may be different if representations were made which induced you to enter the contract, and which later turned out to be untrue. If so, you may be entitled to sue the seller under the Law Reform (Misrepresentation and Frustrated Contracts) Act 1977. Now, if you happen to buy a perfectly good clock radio but it later transpires that it was stolen property, you are entitled to retain the radio if you bought it in good faith with no knowledge that it was stolen.

Sales by auction are also covered by the Act. Each lot is deemed to be the subject of a separate contract of sale that is completed when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of his hammer or in another customary manner. Until this happens any bidder may retract his bid. It is unlawful, unless the auction sale particulars state otherwise, for the seller to bid himself or employ others to bid on his behalf. Any such sale may be treated as fraudulent by the buyer and he will have a right of action against the auctioneer and the seller for any losses he sustained as a result of the fraud.

Attorney Rachel Cabot is a member of the Litigation Department at Appleby Spurling & Kempe. Copies of Mrs. Cabot's columns can be obtained on the Appleby Spurling & Kempe web site at www.ask.bm.

This column should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice.

Before proceeding with any matters discussed here, persons are advised to consult with a lawyer.