CGA Part Deux

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

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

252 posts

Ultimate Geek

#624996 14-May-2012 17:39

The same spec tv by Toshiba in NZ is $1,199

I have cited the CGA to them in my reply. will wait and see

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#625016 14-May-2012 18:16

After following this thread to be honest I think the offer from them was a fair one.

Clearly if they're not going to see your point of view you're going to have to take them to the Disputes Tribunal to get a decision, it'll be interesting to see which way they will rule.

mattwnz

20155 posts

Uber Geek

#625023 14-May-2012 18:25

sbiddle: After following this thread to be honest I think the offer from them was a fair one.

Clearly if they're not going to see your point of view you're going to have to take them to the Disputes Tribunal to get a decision, it'll be interesting to see which way they will rule.

I don't think it is fair, as the consumer needs to be put in the same position, as if the failure hadn't occurred. However we only have the OPs side of the story, and there are two sides to every story. But I don't think the retailer should have forwarded them off to the manufacturer to handle it, as under the CGA the retailer must handle it. If a similar TV retails for around $1000, the cost price to the manufacturer is possibly about what they offered, so I don't know why they just didn't supply that as a replacement. It possibly wouldn't cost them much more.

I do however agree that they would be best to go to the disputes tribunal if they don't reach an agreement. I have heard that when that happens, that can often spur the retailer to make an offer so they don't have to waste their time at a hearing, especially if there is a possibility they won't win. I don't know what their chances would be in this case without knowing the specifics, but do think a TV with a reasonable brand name, should last a lot longer than that.

kiwijunglist

2981 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#625064 14-May-2012 19:30

I wonder if it's better to take the retailer or the manufacturer to the disputes tribunal as you have a choice as to who you want to take... Most people seem to take the retailer. I would considering asking the manufacturer if they can give you a refurbished model if you're having trouble.

HTPC / Home automation (home assistant) enthusiast.

mattwnz

20155 posts

Uber Geek

#625104 14-May-2012 21:13

kiwijunglist: I wonder if it's better to take the retailer or the manufacturer to the disputes tribunal as you have a choice as to who you want to take... Most people seem to take the retailer. ?I would considering asking the manufacturer if they can give you a refurbished model if you're having trouble.

Pretty sure it is the retailer you would take, unless they are no longer trading, as the contract of sale is with the retailer.

Dunnersfella

4086 posts

Uber Geek

#625138 14-May-2012 22:13

$500 for a TV that's just under 4 years old...
Hmmm, sorta tempting.
The issue is, the current 42" LCD TV's are now around $600 - $800.
They will most likely offer better specs (UHF Freeview HD built in, better GUI's, 1080p resolution etc).

Who is the the retailer?

thecripplernz

252 posts

Ultimate Geek

#625152 14-May-2012 22:41

wasn't gonna name the retailer until its over with

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#625160 14-May-2012 22:47

Well I've read the thread, and I think that whilst the offer isn't 100% perfect, it's pretty reasonable and ultimately with a minimum investment of your own you could own a better specification TV and probably bigger with better picture. Up to you, I'd ask them for $600 and take that.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#625165 14-May-2012 22:53

networkn: Well I've read the thread, and I think that whilst the offer isn't 100% perfect, it's pretty reasonable and ultimately with a minimum investment of your own you could own a better specification TV and probably bigger with better picture. Up to you, I'd ask them for $600 and take that.

I agree. The idea of insurance, CGA etc is indemnity. Put you back where you were before, which is the same spec TV, same age, and working. Or in this case, a financial offer that should get you that.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#625166 14-May-2012 22:55

Worthy of note, you aren't guaranteed that the DT would side with you then you would be out of pocket completely. I know some people personally who have lost in situations almost identical to yours.

mattwnz

20155 posts

Uber Geek

#625174 14-May-2012 23:14

tdgeek:
networkn: Well I've read the thread, and I think that whilst the offer isn't 100% perfect, it's pretty reasonable and ultimately with a minimum investment of your own you could own a better specification TV and probably bigger with better picture. Up to you, I'd ask them for $600 and take that.

I agree. The idea of insurance, CGA etc is indemnity. Put you back where you were before, which is the same spec TV, same age, and working. Or in this case, a financial offer that should get you that.

Certainly I think that is the way it should be, but I don't agree with having to put in money to get back to how it would have been if it hadn't have failed. I think however the CGA does appear to be kinder to the consumer in the case of substantial failure, which this appears to be. I believe it gives the consumer the right to ask for a refund. It is however subjective as to what 'refund' means. Is that a full refund of the amount you paid, or a prorata refund based on how old it is, or enough to cover the cost of a new one of similar specs. I think people may think differently if similar products had actually increased a lot in price since it was purchased. If it was an extended warranty for 5 years, what would that cover, as it is regularly discussed that an extended warranty provides consumers with nothing more than what the CGA covers, so we are told they are not worth getting.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#625182 15-May-2012 00:03

networkn: Worthy of note, you aren't guaranteed that the DT would side with you then you would be out of pocket completely. I know some people personally who have lost in situations almost identical to yours.

That would tend to show that the customers demand was unreasonable? Although, I would have assumed that the DT would award what they deemed as a reasonable solution. I'm not sure if by lost, you mean they got nothing, or was awarded less that what they wanted?

thecripplernz

252 posts

Ultimate Geek

#625183 15-May-2012 00:06

tdgeek:
networkn: Worthy of note, you aren't guaranteed that the DT would side with you then you would be out of pocket completely. I know some people personally who have lost in situations almost identical to yours.

That would tend to show that the customers demand was unreasonable? Although, I would have assumed that the DT would award what they deemed as a reasonable solution. I'm not sure if by lost, you mean they got nothing, or was awarded less that what they wanted?

I think they would have got less than they wanted

I dont think its like russian roulette

Ham

462 posts

Ultimate Geek

#625363 15-May-2012 11:01

How much is a second hand (working) TV like yours going for on Trademe?

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#625395 15-May-2012 11:53

I think some of the replies are bizarre. This either fits within the CGA framework or it does not. The legislation says nothing about a pro rata system where you get what it would cost you to go buy a second hand TV. I think what is fair is that either they repair, replace or refund - is simple as that.

The concept of getting a portion of the price based on how much you used it is BS, its not a car thats been neglected and hasn't had its oil changed every year... The OP wants a refund, I would not get picky as if it goes to the tribunal you want to look to have done everything you could have.. Like I said, its either covered or it is not, thats the way it should be.

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