![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
mattwnz:gzt:
But the situation does not give confidence about the remaining fridge. .
Exactly, infact I was told the reason why the first one had failed was due to wear in the wire from opening and closing the door. This is because a wire in the hinge which powers the doors LCD display, was flexing at the pinch point in the door, and the wire sheafing had broken away, and shorted the whole thing out. So I wouldn' t be surprised if the existing one will do that eventually too over time. But you don't know whether it is a design defect or just bad luck, but it isn't the best design having the wiring in the hinge like it was. I will see what the manufacturer says, and then the retailer as I am sure we can come to some arrangement. But interesting to read peoples opinions, and I see it from both sides too.
richms: Im going to have to classify this as a prime example of a first world problem. Unless you specifically bought a matching set of fridges then they have no obligation to ensure that you have a matching pair of them.
But when the second one fails, and has to be replaced with a new one, you will have a matching pair again. So if its a worn cable causing it to break, then wear the cable.
mattwnz:MikeB4: I feel your pain with this however I would say they only have an obligation with regards to the faulty fridge, the one that is working is fit for purpose.
I agree from a legal perspective they are possibly only required to address the faulty one. Although there are possibly breaching the CGA by not having the parts to repair it, which would prevent the problem entirely. The visual aspect is very important, so I am wondering if them not matching, would be considered a consequential loss. eg To remedy it, I would need to buy a new fridge to match, as I couldn't sell the house with two fridges that don't match.
nathan:mattwnz:MikeB4: I feel your pain with this however I would say they only have an obligation with regards to the faulty fridge, the one that is working is fit for purpose.
I agree from a legal perspective they are possibly only required to address the faulty one. Although there are possibly breaching the CGA by not having the parts to repair it, which would prevent the problem entirely. The visual aspect is very important, so I am wondering if them not matching, would be considered a consequential loss. eg To remedy it, I would need to buy a new fridge to match, as I couldn't sell the house with two fridges that don't match.
I didn't think it was normal in NZ to sell a house with whiteware included?
You can never have enough Volvos!
You can never have enough Volvos!
Bung: IANAL but a stove is usually a fixture and stays unless specifically excluded whilst chattels including fridges would go.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |