CGA vs Warranty - Air Fryer purchased September 2023 is dead

Forums › Off topic › CGA vs Warranty - Air Fryer purchased September 2023 is dead

1 | 2

ArcticSilver

729 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3318963 10-Dec-2024 21:19

Handle9:

The replacement is covered by the original cga coverage. It's not an endlessly restarting loop.

This is actually incorrect. No where in the CGA does it say this, it actually implies the opposite.

Remember the CGA is not a warranty, its consumer law, there's a big difference.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3318970 10-Dec-2024 21:28

ArcticSilver:

Handle9:

The replacement is covered by the original cga coverage. It's not an endlessly restarting loop.

This is actually incorrect. No where in the CGA does it say this, it actually implies the opposite.

Remember the CGA is not a warranty, its consumer law, there's a big difference.

I'd love to see the clause or case law that implies that the reasonable expectation of durability is from when the replacement is made rather than the original transaction.

It's entirely reasonable for a fridge to last 10 years. If it is replaced after 7 years and then the replacement has failed after 7 further years the consumer would be drawing a very long bow to try and claim that the 14 year service period for the goods was not reasonable.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, if that right exists then I'm sure you can show me.

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3318982 10-Dec-2024 22:20

A second failure is more an indication that the product line is faulty and not just the 1 item so should proceed to the refund stage IMO.

Richard rich.ms

Goosey

2829 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3319006 11-Dec-2024 06:41

If it fails again, you would have to ensure you are following correct operating processes as explained in the manual.

(this would be the first questions asked).

e.g. are you appropriately venting the unit as per the manufacturers instructions?

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8846 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3319012 11-Dec-2024 07:08

rscole86:

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, what does the receipt show?

If it was replaced under warranty, you wouldn't normally get a receipt showing a refund and new purchase. Certainly wouldn't expect a refund of the difference just because it's on sale a year later.

Does the receipt state it's a warranty replacement?

@johno1234 Did you get a bog-standard receipt for the new item, showing the price and without any special references? Was there a credit issued for the price of the old unit?

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

johno1234

2793 posts

Uber Geek

#3319013 11-Dec-2024 07:16

Got a credit note which is like a negative receipt. They also credited the price difference onto my credit card.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8846 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3319015 11-Dec-2024 07:20

johno1234: Got a credit note which is like a negative receipt. They also credited the price difference onto my credit card.

I'm guessing the new receipt did not have any special references?

If that's the case, unless the retailer kept a note in their system, what is to stop @johno1234 going back for another round of CGA if the second unit craps out? And even if a note was kept, he's effectively got a fresh purchase.

Edit: Good to see this confirmed in the very next post.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

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.

ArcticSilver

729 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3319017 11-Dec-2024 07:32

Handle9:
I'd love to see the clause or case law that implies that the reasonable expectation of durability is from when the replacement is made rather than the original transaction.

It's entirely reasonable for a fridge to last 10 years. If it is replaced after 7 years and then the replacement has failed after 7 further years the consumer would be drawing a very long bow to try and claim that the 14 year service period for the goods was not reasonable.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, if that right exists then I'm sure you can show me.

I’m not so keen to go reading through each section of the act again to articulate exactly why you’re incorrect, but maybe this summary from the consumer website will convince you?

Comsumer:
Replacement models are covered
When a faulty product is replaced, any manufacturer’s warranty on the product usually runs only from the original purchase date.

So, if a 6-month-old washing machine is replaced because it is faulty, and there was originally a 12-month manufacturer’s warranty on it, then this warranty will have 6 months to run on the new machine.

However, the Consumer Guarantees Act applies to the replacement, so you will still have all the rights you’re entitled to when buying a new machine.

https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/consumer-guarantees-act

Remember, the CGA is NOT a warranty, it’s about the goods being of acceptable quality and this applies to the replacement version. There is nothing that says this is applied from the original purchase date for replacements. Maybe you could show me where that is in the act if you’re so sure about it?

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3319019 11-Dec-2024 07:43

ArcticSilver:
Handle9:

I'd love to see the clause or case law that implies that the reasonable expectation of durability is from when the replacement is made rather than the original transaction.

It's entirely reasonable for a fridge to last 10 years. If it is replaced after 7 years and then the replacement has failed after 7 further years the consumer would be drawing a very long bow to try and claim that the 14 year service period for the goods was not reasonable.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, if that right exists then I'm sure you can show me.

I’m not so keen to go reading through each section of the act again to articulate exactly why you’re incorrect, but maybe this summary from the consumer website will convince you?

Comsumer:
Replacement models are covered
When a faulty product is replaced, any manufacturer’s warranty on the product usually runs only from the original purchase date.

So, if a 6-month-old washing machine is replaced because it is faulty, and there was originally a 12-month manufacturer’s warranty on it, then this warranty will have 6 months to run on the new machine.

However, the Consumer Guarantees Act applies to the replacement, so you will still have all the rights you’re entitled to when buying a new machine.

https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/consumer-guarantees-act

Remember, the CGA is NOT a warranty, it’s about the goods being of acceptable quality and this applies to the replacement version. There is nothing that says this is applied from the original purchase date for replacements. Maybe you could show me where that is in the act if you’re so sure about it?

I never claimed it was a warranty. I claimed that goods must be reasonably durable and that related to the original transaction.

You made a claim I was wrong, and some quite specific claims. I'm interested in understanding your claims but if you don't want to justify them then I see no reason to change my position.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8846 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3319022 11-Dec-2024 07:53

Handle9:

ArcticSilver:

Handle9:

The replacement is covered by the original cga coverage. It's not an endlessly restarting loop.

This is actually incorrect. No where in the CGA does it say this, it actually implies the opposite.

Remember the CGA is not a warranty, its consumer law, there's a big difference.

I'd love to see the clause or case law that implies that the reasonable expectation of durability is from when the replacement is made rather than the original transaction.

It's entirely reasonable for a fridge to last 10 years. If it is replaced after 7 years and then the replacement has failed after 7 further years the consumer would be drawing a very long bow to try and claim that the 14 year service period for the goods was not reasonable.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, if that right exists then I'm sure you can show me.

Isn't this exactly what @ArcticSilver has shown by quoting from Consumer NZ?

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3319026 11-Dec-2024 07:57

eracode:

Handle9:

ArcticSilver:

This is actually incorrect. No where in the CGA does it say this, it actually implies the opposite.

Remember the CGA is not a warranty, its consumer law, there's a big difference.

I'd love to see the clause or case law that implies that the reasonable expectation of durability is from when the replacement is made rather than the original transaction.

It's entirely reasonable for a fridge to last 10 years. If it is replaced after 7 years and then the replacement has failed after 7 further years the consumer would be drawing a very long bow to try and claim that the 14 year service period for the goods was not reasonable.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, if that right exists then I'm sure you can show me.

Isn't this exactly what @ArcticSilver has shown by quoting from Consumer NZ?

Was Consumer NZ the clause or case law?

It is not exactly what I was asking for. I was asking for that because I am interested in the legal basis for this claim.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8846 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3319028 11-Dec-2024 08:00

Handle9:

Was Consumer NZ the clause or case law?

It is not exactly what I was asking for. I was asking for that because I am interested in the legal basis for this claim.

So you're saying that Consumer NZ is not a credible and authoritative source of info on the Consumer Guarantees Act?

You said you would be happy to be proved wrong but it seems that's not the case.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3319030 11-Dec-2024 08:08

eracode:

Handle9:

Was Consumer NZ the clause or case law?

It is not exactly what I was asking for. I was asking for that because I am interested in the legal basis for this claim.

So you're saying that Consumer NZ is not a credible and authoritative source of info on the Consumer Guarantees Act?

You said you would be happy to be proved wrong but it seems that's not the case.

I am interested in seeing the legal basis for this. I find the consumer interpretation inconsistent with my reading of the act, which I understand pretty well. I would like to understand this by seeing the actual legal basis for this. In my view that would be proving me wrong.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8846 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3319046 11-Dec-2024 08:53

Handle9:

eracode:

Handle9:

Was Consumer NZ the clause or case law?

It is not exactly what I was asking for. I was asking for that because I am interested in the legal basis for this claim.

So you're saying that Consumer NZ is not a credible and authoritative source of info on the Consumer Guarantees Act?

You said you would be happy to be proved wrong but it seems that's not the case.

I am interested in seeing the legal basis for this. I find the consumer interpretation inconsistent with my reading of the act, which I understand pretty well. I would like to understand this by seeing the actual legal basis for this. In my view that would be proving me wrong.

Under the circumstances, maybe you should quote the Act to prove your point - rather than requiring others to quote it to prove you wrong. I would really like to know the correct answer to this but at this stage I'm prepared to accept CNZ's word. I think it's highly unlikely they're wrong.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

1 | 2