CGA Part Deux

Forums › Home Theatre (including HTPC and EPG Collector) › CGA Part Deux

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 9

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#621962 8-May-2012 22:34

thecripplernz: I would definitely prefer a different brand of TV now.

I want to purchase in the city I now live in.

And if a replacement came from the manufacturer, then I would have no 'Face' should
something go wrong in the future.

I think these are all reasonable reasons for requesting a refund.

Actually none of those things is their problem. Your original retailer will be your face, you chose to move to another city and this has no bearing on their recourse.

mattwnz

20155 posts

Uber Geek

#621969 8-May-2012 22:48

illicit:
mattwnz: If that was the case you should expect to replace your TV every year. That would create so much waste. I think product warranties are more for businesses who purchase products

That's exactly my point - the warranty system is 'one size fits all' - according to the current system, 95% of products you buy from a retailer are only made to last 12 months.

Why have it at all if its pointless? Why not just paste in the relevant sections from the CGA over top of the '12 month warranty' page in the manual?

I suspect most warranties are not written specifically for NZ. Instead you will see something in the warranty that states something along the lines of 'unless restricted by that countries consumer laws'.

illicit

553 posts

Ultimate Geek

#621993 8-May-2012 23:23

mattwnz:
illicit:
mattwnz: If that was the case you should expect to replace your TV every year. That would create so much waste. I think product warranties are more for businesses who purchase products

That's exactly my point - the warranty system is 'one size fits all' - according to the current system, 95% of products you buy from a retailer are only made to last 12 months.

Why have it at all if its pointless? Why not just paste in the relevant sections from the CGA over top of the '12 month warranty' page in the manual?

I suspect most warranties are not written specifically for NZ. Instead you will see something in the warranty that states something along the lines of 'unless restricted by that countries consumer laws'.

We know that. What do we do to fix it?

thecripplernz

252 posts

Ultimate Geek

#622001 8-May-2012 23:35

networkn:
thecripplernz: I would definitely prefer a different brand of TV now.

I want to purchase in the city I now live in.

And if a replacement came from the manufacturer, then I would have no 'Face' should
something go wrong in the future.

I think these are all reasonable reasons for requesting a refund.

Actually none of those things is their problem. Your original retailer will be your face, you chose to move to another city and this has no bearing on their recourse.?

Those reasons were more for the people following this thread as to why I want a refund over a replacement.
The retailer has no say over it, according to our friend the CGA. But that won't stop them being difficult.
The tribunal will normally side with anyone trying to escape Hamilton I would think. Lol

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#622010 8-May-2012 23:50

thecripplernz:
networkn:
thecripplernz: I would definitely prefer a different brand of TV now.

I want to purchase in the city I now live in.

And if a replacement came from the manufacturer, then I would have no 'Face' should
something go wrong in the future.

I think these are all reasonable reasons for requesting a refund.

Actually none of those things is their problem. Your original retailer will be your face, you chose to move to another city and this has no bearing on their recourse.?

Those reasons were more for the people following this thread as to why I want a refund over a replacement.
The retailer has no say over it, according to our friend the CGA. But that won't stop them being difficult.
The tribunal will normally side with anyone trying to escape Hamilton I would think. Lol

Actually the Retailer has complete discretion so long as they meet their obligations. They can offer you a refund, replacement or repair. They are even entitled to offer you a second hand replacement.

mattwnz

20155 posts

Uber Geek

#622012 8-May-2012 23:58

networkn:
thecripplernz:
networkn:
thecripplernz: I would definitely prefer a different brand of TV now.

I want to purchase in the city I now live in.

And if a replacement came from the manufacturer, then I would have no 'Face' should
something go wrong in the future.

I think these are all reasonable reasons for requesting a refund.

Actually none of those things is their problem. Your original retailer will be your face, you chose to move to another city and this has no bearing on their recourse.?

Those reasons were more for the people following this thread as to why I want a refund over a replacement.
The retailer has no say over it, according to our friend the CGA. But that won't stop them being difficult.
The tribunal will normally side with anyone trying to escape Hamilton I would think. Lol

Actually the Retailer has complete discretion so long as they meet their obligations. They can offer you a refund, replacement or repair. They are even entitled to offer you a second hand replacement.?

Only if the fault isn't 'substantial' . I believe if it is 'substantial', then it is the consumers right to chose the remedy.

illicit

553 posts

Ultimate Geek

#622015 9-May-2012 00:04

Can anyone tell me what negatives they see in having the manafactures set a warranty period for their products, basically setting the expected lifespan of the product. This can be advertised on the product (like energy star labels) to provide a clearer indication of value/quality.

eg: Budget 40"LCD = $800 with 10,000hr warranty/lifespan or Top of the line 40" LCD = $2800 with 50,000hr warranty/lifespan.

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

thecripplernz

252 posts

Ultimate Geek

#622019 9-May-2012 00:14

mattwnz:
networkn:
thecripplernz:
networkn:
thecripplernz: I would definitely prefer a different brand of TV now.

I want to purchase in the city I now live in.

And if a replacement came from the manufacturer, then I would have no 'Face' should
something go wrong in the future.

I think these are all reasonable reasons for requesting a refund.

Actually none of those things is their problem. Your original retailer will be your face, you chose to move to another city and this has no bearing on their recourse.?

Those reasons were more for the people following this thread as to why I want a refund over a replacement.
The retailer has no say over it, according to our friend the CGA. But that won't stop them being difficult.
The tribunal will normally side with anyone trying to escape Hamilton I would think. Lol

Actually the Retailer has complete discretion so long as they meet their obligations. They can offer you a refund, replacement or repair. They are even entitled to offer you a second hand replacement.?

Only if the fault isn't 'substantial' . I believe if it is 'substantial', then it is the consumers right to chose the remedy.

For the record, the fault is substantial.

gregmcc

2147 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#622028 9-May-2012 04:58

illicit: Can anyone tell me what negatives they see in having the manafactures set a warranty period for their products, basically setting the expected lifespan of the product. This can be advertised on the product (like energy star labels) to provide a clearer indication of value/quality.

Because likely they will bury something in the fineprint that makes the warantee slightly less useful than a bucket of spit, this was exactly what brought about the CGA. Manafactures/retailers cannot be trusted to provide a fair and balanced warantee

Bung

6480 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#622044 9-May-2012 08:11

thecripplernz: For the record, the fault is substantial.

You should get advice on that. If they can fix it by replacement I don't believe you'll make that fly.

CGA

'21 Failure of substantial character

For the purposes of section 18(3), a failure to comply with a guarantee is of a substantial character in any case where—
- (a) the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure; or
- (b) the goods depart in 1 or more significant respects from the description by which they were supplied or, where they were supplied by reference to a sample or demonstration model, from the sample or demonstration model; or
- (c) the goods are substantially unfit for a purpose for which goods of the type in question are commonly supplied or, where section 8(1) applies, the goods are unfit for a particular purpose made known to the supplier or represented by the supplier to be a purpose for which the goods would be fit, and the goods cannot easily and within a reasonable time be remedied to make them fit for such purpose; or
- (d) the goods are not of acceptable quality within the meaning of section 7 because they are unsafe.

illicit

553 posts

Ultimate Geek

#622047 9-May-2012 08:22

gregmcc:
illicit: Can anyone tell me what negatives they see in having the manafactures set a warranty period for their products, basically setting the expected lifespan of the product. This can be advertised on the product (like energy star labels) to provide a clearer indication of value/quality.

Because likely they will bury something in the fineprint that makes the warantee slightly less useful than a bucket of spit, this was exactly what brought about the CGA. Manafactures/retailers cannot be trusted to provide a fair and balanced warantee

I'm not suggesting we get rid of the CGA.

Just update the warranty system so it actually achieves the purpose it was designed for, instead of the flawed system it is now.

Or... we can continue to debate the inadequacy of it and which hoops we must jump through to achieve a common sense solution to a warranty issue... all the while tying up everyone's time and money with delays, arguments and disputes tribunals.

mrdrifter

576 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#622048 9-May-2012 08:22

For the record, the fault is substantial.

Technically its not substantial simply because you feel it is - in regards to a refund vs. replacement. A substantial fault in this respect would be a fault the occurs on the majority of TV's in that series, or using that panel. Because they can most likely replace the unit with a working unit, that would meet their obligation. Many retailers would replace with a newer model of the same specifications/size simply because they don't have access to historic models. I would find this an acceptable remedy.

mrdrifter

576 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#622050 9-May-2012 08:32

illicit: Can anyone tell me what negatives they see in having the manafactures set a warranty period for their products, basically setting the expected lifespan of the product. This can be advertised on the product (like energy star labels) to provide a clearer indication of value/quality.

eg: Budget 40"LCD = $800 with 10,000hr warranty/lifespan or Top of the line 40" LCD = $2800 with 50,000hr warranty/lifespan.

I would like to see some real world, decent examples of self regulation before going down this route. So far I don't think its worked for anyone else. Surely you can see the inherent problems with letting the manafactureres set their own arbitrary lifespan expectancies.

Real world example of CGA issue:
In the United states with the HP Tx1000 series laptops, they had to go to a class action lawsuit berfore HP & Nvidia would admit there was even a problem with the units. (mean while 90+% of the units were due to bad GPU/Motherboard combinations.

Even after this occured, HP in New Zealand wouldn't even acknowledge that there was a known issue. Our particular machine was repaired 4 times over the extended warranty and spent more time away than it did with us.

illicit

553 posts

Ultimate Geek

#622065 9-May-2012 09:06

It is in the manfactures interest to provide a warranty period which accurately reflects the expected lifespan of the product. If manafacture 'A' has 22" LCD for $200 with a 1 year warranty/lifespan and manafacture 'B' has a 22" LCD for $300 with a 4 year warranty /lifespan- consumers can make an informed decision on which product they want, the lower quality (but cheaper) one or the longer lasting (but more expensive) one. - look at that, 'you get what you pay for'

illicit

553 posts

Ultimate Geek

#622066 9-May-2012 09:09

According to the current system most TVs are the low quality variety which are only expected to last 1 year - even the $5000 top the range model...

The best way to determine the quality of a pproduct is to ask those who made it. The manafactures know which of their products are the budget models and which are high end. We should we know which is which when purchasing... Why should it be a guessing game?

I have no issue with buying a budget model with a 1 year warranty - in some cases it suits the requirements (eg: spare TV for the kids to watch DVDs on until the main tv is upgraded next year)

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 9