Apple/JB Hi-fi and the Consumers Guarantee/Sale of Goods acts for commercial use

Forums › Off topic › Apple/JB Hi-fi and the Consumers Guarantee/Sale of Goods acts for commercial use

1 | 2

richms

28172 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1200120 18-Dec-2014 19:25

I dont really see why 2 entities paying the same amount should get different levels of cover from places.

By all means exclude any business that pays a trade price with a discount from the full retail price after making them open an account or something, but to an entity off the street paying cash, the protections from failure should be the same business or personal IMO. The CGA is an arse in this way.

Richard rich.ms

nathan

5695 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1200158 18-Dec-2014 20:31

of course they will use any trick in the book to get out of paying, why wouldn't they. They don't care about you, they care about their shareholders.

You are a means to an end.

I had a recent problem with my home/contents insurance.

I (stupidly) left a personal $5000 laptop (17" i7, 3 SSDs, 32GB RAM etc) in the boot of my car parked outside my house as my hands were full and it was raining etc
Come back the next morning and my side window is smashed, and boot wide open

Told my insurance about the breakin, and the fact I was on the way to work when I found my car with the laptop and low and behold no pay-out since its not covered as I was driving to and from work with it

C'est la vie

nathan

5695 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1200159 18-Dec-2014 20:33

richms: I dont really see why 2 entities paying the same amount should get different levels of cover from places.

By all means exclude any business that pays a trade price with a discount from the full retail price after making them open an account or something, but to an entity off the street paying cash, the protections from failure should be the same business or personal IMO. The CGA is an arse in this way.

most countries don't have a CGA so you could look at it as a bonus

And obviously retailers need to build the CGA into the margin that they mark goods up by

In theory if there was no CGA stuff would be cheaper

tardtasticx

3075 posts

Uber Geek

#1200167 18-Dec-2014 20:46

If you did decide to take it up as an issue, go right to Apple. They give all Macs 24 month warranties for NZ and Aus (Possibly some EU countries too) because of consumer law. I doubt they care if you use it as a work machine.

mattwnz

20147 posts

Uber Geek

#1200194 18-Dec-2014 21:40

nathan:
richms: I dont really see why 2 entities paying the same amount should get different levels of cover from places.

By all means exclude any business that pays a trade price with a discount from the full retail price after making them open an account or something, but to an entity off the street paying cash, the protections from failure should be the same business or personal IMO. The CGA is an arse in this way.

most countries don't have a CGA so you could look at it as a bonus

And obviously retailers need to build the CGA into the margin that they mark goods up by

In theory if there was no CGA stuff would be cheaper

Certainly that is the case if you compare NZ prices to what they pay in the US, which can be significantly cheaper. But Australiai have similar consumer laws to NZ, and Australian prices can also be significantly cheaper than NZs. But if the margin people pay on goods in NZ is supposed to cover the CGA costs, then unless businesses are getting things at a significant cheaper trade rate, then it sounds like businesses are subsidizing consumers CGA claims.

nathan

5695 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1200256 18-Dec-2014 23:03

mattwnz:
nathan:
richms: I dont really see why 2 entities paying the same amount should get different levels of cover from places.

By all means exclude any business that pays a trade price with a discount from the full retail price after making them open an account or something, but to an entity off the street paying cash, the protections from failure should be the same business or personal IMO. The CGA is an arse in this way.

most countries don't have a CGA so you could look at it as a bonus

And obviously retailers need to build the CGA into the margin that they mark goods up by

In theory if there was no CGA stuff would be cheaper

Certainly that is the case if you compare NZ prices to what they pay in the US, which can be significantly cheaper. But Australiai have similar consumer laws to NZ, and Australian prices can also be significantly cheaper than NZs. But if the margin people pay on goods in NZ is supposed to cover the CGA costs, then unless businesses are getting things at a significant cheaper trade rate, then it sounds like businesses are subsidizing consumers CGA claims.

I put a lot of the difference between NZ & AU to GST of 10% vs our 15%

and the bulk purchasing/economies of scale that having 5x our population bring

Sydney has the entire population of NZ in one place

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1200263 18-Dec-2014 23:26

nathan:
richms: I dont really see why 2 entities paying the same amount should get different levels of cover from places.

By all means exclude any business that pays a trade price with a discount from the full retail price after making them open an account or something, but to an entity off the street paying cash, the protections from failure should be the same business or personal IMO. The CGA is an arse in this way.

most countries don't have a CGA so you could look at it as a bonus

And obviously retailers need to build the CGA into the margin that they mark goods up by

In theory if there was no CGA stuff would be cheaper

But most comparable countries have perfectly adequate consumer law that in some cases exceeds the CGA. For example, EU consumer laws are very tight. Things do not cost heaps there - because it is the manufacturer who must pay the cost of repair. In NZ, if many of the things I have read are true, the manufacturers seem content to leave the retailer to pay - not sure if that is how it works, but that is how it is portrayed. The retailers should just be collecting broken goods and sending them on to the manufacturer, surely? It is the manufacturer who warrants his work, after all.

We can be a bit behind on some things - we get an Unfair Contract Terms Act in 2015 - a good thing. Britain has had one since 1977. Why did it take NZ 38 years to see the sense in that, I wonder?

I think our legislation should be internationally benchmarked a bit more often, to be honest - and not just with Australia. We'd all benefit from that.

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

gregmcc

2147 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1200283 19-Dec-2014 06:24

Geektastic:
Fabian: Just dug up my old uni papers and books. This is a consumer guarantees act. Under section 2 a consumer is defines as:

consumer means a person who—

(a)acquires from a supplier goods or services of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic, or household use or consumption; and

(b)does not acquire the goods or services, or hold himself or herself out as acquiring the goods or services, for the purpose of—

(i)resupplying them in trade; or

(ii)consuming them in the course of a process of production or manufacture; or

(iii)in the case of goods, repairing or treating in trade other goods or fixtures on land

that is where the business catch is for businesses.

I would say a top of the line Macbook Pro is not intended to be something acquired for home use. It was defined and built as a professional tool. Even the name says so.

The test here how was it paid for,
a) out of your personal funds
b) from a company/business account

if a) the CGA applies, if b) it doesn't apply

1 | 2