It’s a story that made him laugh as much as it annoyed him. Grégory Rouland led a standoff for two months with the big brand, BUT, over a simple story about a light bulb.
It is amused and a little saddened that Grégory Rouland is preparing to answer our questions. “BUT, it’s a big brand, a store I trust, but here, it must be said, they surprised me.” A lawyer, he presents himself as a consumer defender and intervenes when a client feels cheated by a brand or an entrepreneur. But this time, he is the injured customer.
The problems started in March. Grégory Rouland had purchased a microwave oven from BUT three months earlier. But then, overnight, “the bulb in the device no longer worked.” Grégory Rouland then informs the store. And what could have been resolved in a few days quickly turns into an obstacle course.
He takes his phone and contacts BUT customer service, but the exchange turns absurd. The brand offers him appointments, but only on court days when he is not available. “Can’t you leave your keys near the entrance?” he is asked. “Of course not,” replies the lawyer.
If Grégory Rouland is not available, it is not a problem for the brand. BUT simply closes the case, considering that the lawyer does not wish to be helped. “Since you don’t want to, we won’t take care of it,” he was told. An unjustified conclusion, which pushes the lawyer to call customer service again to set things straight. But the worst is yet to come.
To avoid paying for the bulb and the intervention on site or due to ignorance of the rules in force, a BUT advisor explained to him that a microwave bulb, like any small accessory, is not covered by the legal guarantee. So to replace the bulb, you have to pay. “I burst out laughing,” laughs the lawyer and relishes: “You make my day, ma’am. I think you came across the wrong person. I know the law well,” he replies.
“The two-year legal guarantee of proper functioning, what do you do with it?” asks the lawyer. The BUT advisor persists, assures that it is “marked in the general conditions of sale (CGV)” and promises to send them by email. Grégory Rouland will never receive them.
The lawyer knows he is in order. “In the General Terms and Conditions, it is nowhere stated that an oven bulb is not guaranteed and, even so, the legal guarantee of conformity protects the buyer against the defect of a product.” The malfunction of a bulb is naturally one of them. Precisely, the legal guarantee of conformity is mandatory when there is a contract concluded “between a non-professional buyer and a professional seller. It concerns goods purchased new or used, digital goods, content and services”, summarizes service-public.gouv.fr.
Furthermore, if the problem arose within six months of purchase, there is no need to prove the cause of the fault. If BUT does not want to pay, it is up to the brand to prove that the product was perfectly compliant at the time of sale and that it was Grégory Rouland who damaged the device. In this situation, “BUT was obliged to change it for me,” he concludes.
The store ends up letting go of some ballast. BUT offers to order the bulb, provided that Grégory Rouland changes it himself. A solution that the lawyer dismisses straight away. “If I change it myself and there is the slightest difficulty, the manufacturer will absolve itself of all responsibility. It is not my place to touch. I am a lay consumer, I am not the professional.”
Two months. This is the time it took Grégory Rouland to obtain what he was simply entitled to. BUT ends up sending someone to his house to replace the bulb. “It was still a two-month battle for a problem that is frankly very basic,” sighs the lawyer. And that’s the problem: if Grégory Rouland, with his legal knowledge, was able to stand up to BUT, how many other clients simply gave up?
