Spark vs CGA - Out of warranty iPhone

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › Spark vs CGA - Out of warranty iPhone

1 | 2

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#1814060 6-Jul-2017 19:05

michaelmurfy: @surfisup1000 yes I was being serious. These are the guidelines that have been given to retailers regarding mobile devices but there are always people who think their phones should last a lifetime. Spark in this case are adhering to their portion of the CGA no matter how you argue it. The CGA is there to also help protect retailers. I would agree with let's say a laptop or large appliance but I've worked for retail with mobile in the past, I know what kind of crap some phones go through and yet the customer still expects them to be let's say run over by a lawnmower.

Not kidding. I've seen some horrific "CGA claims". This one to be honest isn't CGA as I said. It is simply with Apple especially if it is a known defect.

People are quick on pointing out what benefits them while ignoring what is there for the retailer.

Who has actually given those guidelines to retailers? IANAL, but it appears retailers do risk breaching the law, if they try to mislead consumers over their rights. http://www.comcom.govt.nz/fair-trading/fair-trading-act-fact-sheets/misleading-consumers-about-their-rights/ Many manufacturers are based overseas so may not be aware of NZs consumer laws. I had one manufacturers overseas call centre staff tell me once that the NZ CGA was only 2 years, and I quickly corrected them.

Obviously something that has been damaged, eg dropped or run over by a lawn mower, or has visible dings from being dropped, is likely not to be covered by the CGA, if it is shown that that is the cause of the problem. But I would hope most people would be honest when they make a claim, and not try to hide or deny physical damage. Wear and tear is another one, but goods should be durable and fit for the purpose they have been designed for. eg spending a lot of time in pockets.

The retailer also should never be out of pocket (apart from time costs), as a CGA claim should be reimbursed by the manufacturer. The retailer is just the middleman in this type of situation.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1814062 6-Jul-2017 19:20

michaelmurfy: @surfisup1000 yes I was being serious. These are the guidelines that have been given to retailers regarding mobile devices but there are always people who think their phones should last a lifetime. Spark in this case are adhering to their portion of the CGA no matter how you argue it. The CGA is there to also help protect retailers. I would agree with let's say a laptop or large appliance but I've worked for retail with mobile in the past, I know what kind of crap some phones go through and yet the customer still expects them to be let's say run over by a lawnmower.

Not kidding. I've seen some horrific "CGA claims". This one to be honest isn't CGA as I said. It is simply with Apple especially if it is a known defect.

People are quick on pointing out what benefits them while ignoring what is there for the retailer.

I am sorry but you really need to stop making stuff up and posting blatantly wrong legal advice. At the risk of alienating the usual crowd here, I very much doubt that (1) you're a lawyer; (2) that you have held senior risk/legislative compliance roles with multiple listed companies, and (3) have advised both retailers and consumers on the Consumer Guarantees Act. I have done all three.

There is no legally enforceable, definitive "guidelines" (these wouldn't be called guidelines if they were authoritative) that says a mobile phone need only last 2 years to meet the CGA. As I said to Steve Bibble here, when it comes to these outrageous claims that are easily proved or disproved, action speaks a lot louder than words. He never found the Commerce Commission's supposed guidelines because they don't exist. What some retailer publishes also doesn't matter.

More importantly, your assertion that "It is simply with Apple especially if it is a known defect" is outrageously wrong. The Consumer Guarantees Act is absolutely clear on this - this is basic, elementary knowledge of responsible citizenship given how widely available this information is. Section 16 sets out the circumstances under which consumers have a right of redress against suppliers. These circumstances include failing to meet the tests for acceptable quality under s 6. Supplier is then defined under s 2 as follows:

supplier—

(a)
means a person who, in trade,—
(i)
supplies goods to a consumer by—
(a)
transferring the ownership or the possession of the goods under a contract of sale, exchange, lease, hire, or hire purchase to which that person is a party; ...

On what planet would "a known defect" somehow not give the OP a claim against Spark but provide him with a viable claim against Apple? Being a mod shouldn't exempt you from doing the right thing by other posters, especially the less sophisticated ones who might take your words far too seriously (they would be foolish to, however, given what my simple analysis shows regarding your level of understanding of the CGA. You really should withdraw your post, especially given the vehemence with which you have asserted that the other posters are wrong and the implication that their beliefs and demands are excessive or frivolous.

maxeon

1279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 106

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1814087 6-Jul-2017 19:39

dejadeadnz:
michaelmurfy: @surfisup1000 yes I was being serious. These are the guidelines that have been given to retailers regarding mobile devices but there are always people who think their phones should last a lifetime. Spark in this case are adhering to their portion of the CGA no matter how you argue it. The CGA is there to also help protect retailers. I would agree with let's say a laptop or large appliance but I've worked for retail with mobile in the past, I know what kind of crap some phones go through and yet the customer still expects them to be let's say run over by a lawnmower.

Not kidding. I've seen some horrific "CGA claims". This one to be honest isn't CGA as I said. It is simply with Apple especially if it is a known defect.

People are quick on pointing out what benefits them while ignoring what is there for the retailer.

I am sorry but you really need to stop making stuff up and posting blatantly wrong legal advice. At the risk of alienating the usual crowd here, I very much doubt that (1) you're a lawyer; (2) that you have held senior risk/legislative compliance roles with multiple listed companies, and (3) have advised both retailers and consumers on the Consumer Guarantees Act. I have done all three.

There is no legally enforceable, definitive "guidelines" (these wouldn't be called guidelines if they were authoritative) that says a mobile phone need only last 2 years to meet the CGA. As I said to Steve Bibble here, when it comes to these outrageous claims that are easily proved or disproved, action speaks a lot louder than words. He never found the Commerce Commission's supposed guidelines because they don't exist. What some retailer publishes also doesn't matter.

More importantly, your assertion that "It is simply with Apple especially if it is a known defect" is outrageously wrong. The Consumer Guarantees Act is absolutely clear on this - this is basic, elementary knowledge of responsible citizenship given how widely available this information is. Section 16 sets out the circumstances under which consumers have a right of redress against suppliers. These circumstances include failing to meet the tests for acceptable quality under s 6. Supplier is then defined under s 2 as follows:

supplier—

(a)
means a person who, in trade,—
(i)
supplies goods to a consumer by—
(a)
transferring the ownership or the possession of the goods under a contract of sale, exchange, lease, hire, or hire purchase to which that person is a party; ...

On what planet would "a known defect" somehow not give the OP a claim against Spark but provide him with a viable claim against Apple? Being a mod shouldn't exempt you from doing the right thing by other posters, especially the less sophisticated ones who might take your words far too seriously (they would be foolish to, however, given what my simple analysis shows regarding your level of understanding of the CGA. You really should withdraw your post, especially given the vehemence with which you have asserted that the other posters are wrong and the implication that their beliefs and demands are excessive or frivolous.

+1 to you.. I so wanted to reply but was on mobile and did not make the effort. You have summed it up very nicely.

johny99

495 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 61
Inactive user

#1814088 6-Jul-2017 19:39

Cant say for sure but would be certainly confident that all the major NZ retailers and the three teir one telco's know their position on the CGA.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1814090 6-Jul-2017 19:43

johny99: Cant say for sure but would be certainly confident that all the major NZ retailers and the three teir one telco's know their position on the CGA.

Examples abound on here to show that that these telcos don't. Heck, look at my posting history to see a few free CGA and law lessons I doled out to a few telco reps on here.

Anyone who has ever worked in compliance roles will tell you that your average staff members in most corporates are legally clueless. I can tolerate people not understanding the law but I have zero tolerance for anyone strongly asserting legal positions unless they have a basis for them. In fact, I wouldn't mind it for there to be a law that makes deliberately or recklessly misleading a consumer about his/her CGA rights a criminal offence. It will teach quite a few of people in retail a lesson or two to see one or two of these BSers sent to jail or given hours of community work for this kind of outrageous conduct.