Help me argue the CGA

Forums › Off topic › Help me argue the CGA

1 | 2 | 3

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#545479 15-Nov-2011 09:26

catjones:
tchart: Guys,

After some help/advice, here ths situation;

Late?last year bought a Vodafone 845 Android phone. A month or so back the screen goes on the fritz and everything is in green/purple (seems a common problem looking on the internets). I havent located the receipt just yet but happened to be at?Noel Leeming?yesterday?to buy something else so I had them reprint my invoice. I explained the situation about the phone but they said it is 10 days outside the 1 year warranty - so tough luck basically. I know this is BS but...

As I wasnt at the store I purchased the phone from (different location) I didnt bother bringing the CGA up as I figured I would have better luck at the original store.

So, really Im after some?advice links about how to argue my case with the store I purchased from.

Any help appreciated :)

For instance I am aware of this but am curious how to argue this for a good outcome...I?bought a washing machine with a three-year warranty. One week after the warranty expired, the gearbox seized up. The shop says it's too bad. Is that right?No. Suppliers' warranties are in addition to those in the Act. If you have used your washing machine in a normal fashion, it should not have a major breakdown after just three years, so you may still have redress under the CGA. The dealer should repair the machine free of charge.

Many shops regard this as unfair - after all, you've had three years' good use out of the washer. But the fact is, you paid for a new machine and didn't expect after just three years to face major costs or end up with an inferior one.

If they refuse to accept this, you could have the machine repaired elsewhere and attempt to recover the cost from the dealer.

?

I am just being the devil's advocate here, but can't NL argue that a 1 year warranty period is reasonable for a low-middle range mobile phone that costs 200 bucks?

If I were NL, I would take you to the tribunal, no harm anyway, since the other alternative is to repair your phone for free and replacing the screen sounds costly.

If I were you, I would talk to them about the CGA and see what they say. If they shake their heads, then I would get a quote on the cost of repairing the phone. If it costs less then going to the tribunal, I would just repair it. But if it costs more, then I would just go to the tribunal and give it a shot.

At the end of the day, it is just a 200 dollar phone.

It would be cheaper going to the Tribunal period! ($30 filing fee)

That's less than the fee to send the phone away to be looked at.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#545529 15-Nov-2011 10:47

I am just being the devil's advocate here, but can't NL argue that a 1 year warranty period is reasonable for a low-middle range mobile phone that costs 200 bucks?

If I were NL, I would take you to the tribunal, no harm anyway, since the other alternative is to repair your phone for free and replacing the screen sounds costly.

If I were you, I would talk to them about the CGA and see what they say. If they shake their heads, then I would get a quote on the cost of repairing the phone. If it costs less then going to the tribunal, I would just repair it. But if it costs more, then I would just go to the tribunal and give it a shot.

At the end of the day, it is just a 200 dollar phone.

The tribunal is stacked massively in favour of the consumer (not that that is necessarily a bad thing).

The situation would have to be extremely egregious for NL to win. E.g. the phone was bought 10 years ago, or had been dropped in a glass of water or something like that.

For NL to go to tribunal they would have to be dead sure of a win. Even then it is still probably cheaper for them to give you a new phone ($200) than to pay for their barrister to represent them for a couple of hours ($thousands) the tribunal will not (maybe even cannot?) award costs to NL.

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#545539 15-Nov-2011 11:03

NonprayingMantis:
I am just being the devil's advocate here, but can't NL argue that a 1 year warranty period is reasonable for a low-middle range mobile phone that costs 200 bucks?

If I were NL, I would take you to the tribunal, no harm anyway, since the other alternative is to repair your phone for free and replacing the screen sounds costly.

If I were you, I would talk to them about the CGA and see what they say. If they shake their heads, then I would get a quote on the cost of repairing the phone. If it costs less then going to the tribunal, I would just repair it. But if it costs more, then I would just go to the tribunal and give it a shot.

At the end of the day, it is just a 200 dollar phone.

The tribunal is stacked massively in favour of the consumer (not that that is necessarily a bad thing).

The situation would have to be extremely egregious for NL to win. E.g. the phone was bought 10 years ago, or had been dropped in a glass of water or something like that.

For NL to go to tribunal they would have to be dead sure of a win. Even then it is still probably cheaper for them to give you a new phone ($200) than to pay for their barrister to represent them for a couple of hours ($thousands) the tribunal will not (maybe even cannot?) award costs to NL.

No lawyers allow in tribunal - must be only the affected parties :) (ETA and you are allowed a support person, but the affected parties are the primary people there)

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#545547 15-Nov-2011 11:14

keewee01:
NonprayingMantis:
I am just being the devil's advocate here, but can't NL argue that a 1 year warranty period is reasonable for a low-middle range mobile phone that costs 200 bucks?

If I were NL, I would take you to the tribunal, no harm anyway, since the other alternative is to repair your phone for free and replacing the screen sounds costly.

If I were you, I would talk to them about the CGA and see what they say. If they shake their heads, then I would get a quote on the cost of repairing the phone. If it costs less then going to the tribunal, I would just repair it. But if it costs more, then I would just go to the tribunal and give it a shot.

At the end of the day, it is just a 200 dollar phone.

The tribunal is stacked massively in favour of the consumer (not that that is necessarily a bad thing).

The situation would have to be extremely egregious for NL to win. E.g. the phone was bought 10 years ago, or had been dropped in a glass of water or something like that.

For NL to go to tribunal they would have to be dead sure of a win. Even then it is still probably cheaper for them to give you a new phone ($200) than to pay for their barrister to represent them for a couple of hours ($thousands) the tribunal will not (maybe even cannot?) award costs to NL.

No lawyers allow in tribunal - must be only the affected parties :) (ETA and you are allowed a support person, but the affected parties are the primary people there)

Fair enough, but they would still be spending lots on legal advice prior to the tribunal. If it costs $1000 just to check whether you will win or lose, but only $200 to make the issue go away now, then payig $200 seems the smart option

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#545561 15-Nov-2011 11:36

NonprayingMantis:
keewee01:
NonprayingMantis:
I am just being the devil's advocate here, but can't NL argue that a 1 year warranty period is reasonable for a low-middle range mobile phone that costs 200 bucks?

If I were NL, I would take you to the tribunal, no harm anyway, since the other alternative is to repair your phone for free and replacing the screen sounds costly.

If I were you, I would talk to them about the CGA and see what they say. If they shake their heads, then I would get a quote on the cost of repairing the phone. If it costs less then going to the tribunal, I would just repair it. But if it costs more, then I would just go to the tribunal and give it a shot.

At the end of the day, it is just a 200 dollar phone.

The tribunal is stacked massively in favour of the consumer (not that that is necessarily a bad thing).

The situation would have to be extremely egregious for NL to win. E.g. the phone was bought 10 years ago, or had been dropped in a glass of water or something like that.

For NL to go to tribunal they would have to be dead sure of a win. Even then it is still probably cheaper for them to give you a new phone ($200) than to pay for their barrister to represent them for a couple of hours ($thousands) the tribunal will not (maybe even cannot?) award costs to NL.

No lawyers allow in tribunal - must be only the affected parties :) (ETA and you are allowed a support person, but the affected parties are the primary people there)

Fair enough, but they would still be spending lots on legal advice prior to the tribunal. If it costs $1000 just to check whether you will win or lose, but only $200 to make the issue go away now, then payig $200 seems the smart option

Oh, I agree. It is likely you'd have to have the store manager tied up with having to go to the tribunal, plus the time getting advice, etc prior. It's just not worth the stores time and effort to defend it.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#545563 15-Nov-2011 11:39

NL nor in fact any large company is going to go to tribunal over something like that so no point in theorizing they will.

Look there are some less than helpful comments coming out on here I suggest you go to consumer.org and read what they have to say as it is clearly laid out with downloadable doc's you can use, otherwise this thread will continue to go off on a variety of tangents

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

Boeingflyer

643 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#545571 15-Nov-2011 11:52

Also if NL do decide to go to court and lose, then the Judgment stands for anyone else who has a similar situation which can open up a huge can of worms for them.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#545576 15-Nov-2011 12:02

Fabian: Also if NL do decide to go to court and lose, then the Judgment stands for anyone else who has a similar situation which can open up a huge can of worms for them.

Please note that people here are talking about the Disputes Tribunal, which although it comes under the New Zealand Courts Service (?), it is completely different to going to court or taking someone to court.

The outcomes from the Disputes Tribunal are not made public.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#545589 15-Nov-2011 12:53

From the Consumer Website: http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/for-consumers/goods/warranties

Can the trader charge me to check the goods?Sometimes the trader may ask for a deposit to cover the cost of checking the goods. If the problem is the fault of the goods then they should refund the deposit and give you a remedy under the Consumer Guarantees Act. The trader should have told you about this policy when they sold you the goods. Otherwise you can tell them you won’t pay it.

In my experience, the general sales people will try to fob you off and sell you a "repair". I agree with the previous posters advice to go into the store and ask to see the manager. Calmly explain the situation and be prepared to leave the store without resolution - of course only after taking down the managers name and his managers name.

Write to NL (or whichever store) - email or snail mail using registered post - get them to explain why they believe it is not covered. Request a response within a specific period of time (be reasonable) otherwise you will take a lack of response as a refusal of their obligations. Then be prepared to take them to tribunal for $30.

In honesty, speak and reason with the manager - at the end of the day, they don't want to argue either and most will understand and assist. Best advise - be calm and factual. As soon as either of you become emotional or aggressive it's time to walk away.

catjones: At the end of the day, it is just a 200 dollar phone.

I hope I've not taken your comment the wrong way - but $200 is not "just" $200. Those on a budget $200 is quite significant and not something to just throw away.

Good luck

Procrastination eventually pays off.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#545615 15-Nov-2011 13:51

An interesting article from another GZ topic (http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=48&topicid=93085) going on at the moment. Here is someone who took a manufacturer to tribunal after the fridge freezer died after only 7 years - and won :) - love it.

http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZDispT/2009/94.html

Procrastination eventually pays off.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#545618 15-Nov-2011 14:00

StarBlazer: but $200 is not "just" $200.? Those on a budget $200 is quite significant and not something to just throw away.

Good luck

$200 is closer to $300 of earnings before tax, so it is quite a bit. My suggestion is to do everything in writing, so you have got evidence of who said what etc.

I don't agree that the disputes tribunal is more weighted to the consumer. They only follow the law, and the CGA is clear where it says that a product must last a reasonable period of time, based on it's value etc. I have seen people both win and lose, and it can be subjective based on the person doing it on the day.

catjones

21 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#545812 15-Nov-2011 23:51

NonprayingMantis:
I am just being the devil's advocate here, but can't NL argue that a 1 year warranty period is reasonable for a low-middle range mobile phone that costs 200 bucks?

If I were NL, I would take you to the tribunal, no harm anyway, since the other alternative is to repair your phone for free and replacing the screen sounds costly.

If I were you, I would talk to them about the CGA and see what they say. If they shake their heads, then I would get a quote on the cost of repairing the phone. If it costs less then going to the tribunal, I would just repair it. But if it costs more, then I would just go to the tribunal and give it a shot.

At the end of the day, it is just a 200 dollar phone.

The tribunal is stacked massively in favour of the consumer (not that that is necessarily a bad thing).

The situation would have to be extremely egregious for NL to win. ?E.g. the phone was bought 10 years ago, or had been dropped in a glass of water or something like that.

For NL to go to tribunal they would have to be dead sure of a win. Even then it is still probably cheaper for them to give you a new phone ($200) than to pay for their barrister to represent them for a couple of hours ($thousands)? the tribunal will not (maybe even cannot?) award costs to NL.

Well not really, going to the tribunal is just that. The worst that can happen is they are made to compensate you for your phone, which I doubt will be over $200 since that is the cost of an entire new phone. You don't need a solicitor to do such simple things.

Mobile phones, you drop them quite easily, so it is a product that is very prone to daily wear and tear.

I personally do feel that 1 year warranty is reasonable for a low-middle range phone that costs only $200, especially when the consumer was alerted prior to buying (with signed warranty contracts to boot) that warranty period is only 1 year.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#545907 16-Nov-2011 10:27

We are talking about warranty against faulty product or workmanship not for anything done by the purchaser therefore it is entirely reasonable to expect it to last a lot longer than that. In this case the purchaser has done thier homework on the internet and has identified thiers is not an isolated case.

Lets get this straight the warranty offered by manufacturer is in addition to the CGA not instead of.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

joff_nz

446 posts

Ultimate Geek

#546210 16-Nov-2011 21:26

Yes but IMO a stated 12 month warranty on a $200 phone with the same or similar features to some $500 sets an expectation of how long it might last, say compared to said $500 phone.

If a phone has high features and a low price, then something has to give, in this case it seems it is build quality. Just like If I buy a $500 couch from the warehouse, I wouldn't expect it to last as long as a $1250 couch from Farmers.

What I'm saying, that taking into account the price of the phone compared to the market, I don't think a year is unreasonable.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#546282 17-Nov-2011 08:40

The cheaper phone usually has less features as in processor, screen resolution, memory etc but as in android similar software which is entirely differant to being of a lesser quality as you suggest. If you are happy to purchase an item knowing it will only last a year then fine however I would think this is unsatisfactory to most consumers.

I think you have missed my point as to warranty, it is only against manufacturing or labour faults and has nothing to do with how long it should last, I think some people confuse this.

The manufacturers warranty has too much focus on it and is really only a marketing tool, most people don't actually understand this nor thier rights under the CGA, this is evident in how many extended warranties are sold by retailers.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

1 | 2 | 3