Dick Smiths Electronics> wont replace or refund

Forums › Off topic › Dick Smiths Electronics> wont replace or refund

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

4999 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 462

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#117739 20-Mar-2008 10:11

Again the problem here is that the CGA is not concrete. It uses words like 'reasonable', and I think you are trying to dig yourself into a hole here.

You point out the serious cases, and yet once again your mobile does not fit.

The fault was not there when you bought the phone, and the manufacturer did not make the phone to die in 6 weeks.
They do match the description.
The goods are unfit, BUT they can be repaired and in a reasonable amount of time.
As above.
The goods are safe.

Based on those points, the fault is not serious. All I can say is good luck, but you will be going nowhere fast!

The fact that you got a $500 phone at 50% off makes no difference, you still consider the phone to be worth $500. I would love to know what a super phone is...

axcillznanny

14 posts

Geek

#117846 21-Mar-2008 10:00

Hi rsole

Under the Act a serious problem is any case where:

a reasonable consumer would not have bought the goods if they had known) that the fault existed - eg, no-one would buy a washing machine if they knew the motor was going to burn out after three months

AND, a serious problem as defined in the law does not state what you can or cannot live without, Wot the.....

We don't know what the outcome will be yet, "nowhere fast" [removed].

And thanks itxtme, your post was useful, as that is what I had originally been advised by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, it does not complete the purpose of it's existence, ie cannot do the 3 way calling, cannot use the camera cannot txt or phone out.

Fossie...OR is either/or...law does not say serious AND cannot be repaired

Anyway, as I said, I just wanted to hear from people who have experienced similar problems, not wheter I am right or wrong, the court will determine that.

Again, thanks to all the positives and helpful information.

[Moderator edit (MF): Personal offence removed from post. No personal offences are allowed here. This is a warning]

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41052

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#117848 21-Mar-2008 10:06

axcillznanny:

Under the Act a serious problem is any case where:
a reasonable consumer would not have bought the goods if they had known) that the fault existed - eg, no-one would buy a washing machine if they knew the motor was going to burn out after three months
AND, a serious problem as defined in the law does not state what you can or cannot live without, Wot the.....

I assume the bold is yours, not the law. I think the example is wrong.

"if they had known that the fault existed" sounds like a retailer selling a faulty good. This doesn't seem to apply to a perfectly good product, with no known faults in the series, no recalls issued by the manufacturer and that develops a problem six weeks after the sale.

It's not like Dick Smith sold you the phone knowing it had a fault at the moment of the sale, or knowing that this specific model stops working after six weeks.

They offered you a repair, which is within their right to do.

Let's see how this ends up, but regardless of what a court says I would still think you are in the wrong side here.

Oh, and no more personal comments, like the one I edited out from your previous post.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

axcillznanny

14 posts

Geek

#117849 21-Mar-2008 10:09

OOPs..apologies, mean't to read as that sounds dumb.

axcillznanny

14 posts

Geek

#117852 21-Mar-2008 10:22

Hi freitasm

NO your assumption is incorrect, certainly not my words in bold...all from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs website, just bold and underlined as a point.

And your post 117676 is also misguided. You posted:

Where the failure can be remedied, the consumer may—

(a) Require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time in accordance with section 19 of this Act:

(b) Where a supplier who has been required to remedy a failure refuses or neglects to do so, or does not succeed in doing so within a reasonable time,—
- (i) Have the failure remedied elsewhere and obtain from the supplier all reasonable costs incurred in having the failure remedied; or
- (ii) Subject to section 20 of this Act, reject the goods in accordance with section 22 of this Act.

So it means you can ask for a repair, and if this cannot be done or the retailer refuses then you can ask for a refund?

You have to give them a chance to repair first, surely?

You have posted clause 2 of that particular section if you read the complete section ie: clause 1 just prior, it states:

(1) Where a consumer has a right of redress against the supplier in accordance with this Part of this Act in respect of the failure of any goods to comply with a guarantee, the consumer may exercise the following remedies.

You see, so where the right of redress applies then clause 2.

You know the information on here should be correct, helpful and informative for people who may not be able to afford /get to help so easily. That is why I came on.

I have got some very useful stuff, information from posts. The test will be in court for sure.

Thanks

maverick

3594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 80

Trusted

WorldxChange

#117872 21-Mar-2008 11:46

This is interesting due to how people wish to interpret documenatation, I with most of the others here believe you will lose as I believe it states it has to be given a chance to be fixed if the problem is minor, I personally don't believe you are being resonable, but it's your choice of course , I would like to see a poll on this and then the outcome ,

My Vote would be you would lose sorry.

Yes I am a employee of WxC (My Profile) ... but I do have my own opinions as well

https://www.facebook.com/wxccommunications

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

axcillznanny

14 posts

Geek

#117879 21-Mar-2008 12:03

Awwwwwwww....Hope not, you never know , I am going on the strength of info supplied by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, and the Law Centre.

nzbnw

2374 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 22

Trusted

Spark NZ

#117880 21-Mar-2008 12:05

maverick: This is interesting due to how people wish to interpret documenatation, I with most of the others here believe you will lose as I believe it states it has to be given a chance to be fixed if the problem is minor, I personally don't believe you are being resonable, but it's your choice of course , I would like to see a poll on this and then the outcome ,

My Vote would be you would lose sorry.

Agreed, I think it's time for the CGA to received a major overhaul.

nzbnw

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#117881 21-Mar-2008 12:09

axcillznanny:
I have got some very useful stuff, information from posts. The test will be in court for sure.

What exactly have you done? Filed a claim in the disputes tribunal against DSE?

One thing I haven't actually established reading the thread is whether the phone does actually work. You said it froze - does it actually work now or is it completely dead?

Just be prepared for the JP or court referee hearing the case to simply follow the CGA and require DSE to repair the phone. The fact you have already stopped them doing this may not be have done you any favours. I'd put money on it that they will simply rule that they be allowed to send the handsay away for examination and/or repair before any ruling would be given in favour of a full refund.

Make sure you are prepared for the hearing and write down everything first of all. You can also write a letter to the JP or referee hearing the case outlining your side of the story which they will read before the hearing. This can be a good idea as it saves you missing things out if you're anxious during the meeting.

axcillznanny

14 posts

Geek

#117886 21-Mar-2008 12:27

sbiddle

Yes it has been filed.

And, yes I have done what you have said, lodged my story with disputes.

Have got written documentation so it will be interesting, wish someone would post whether they have had similar experience.

That was really what I was after.

Everyone is guessing the outcome but who has actually pushed this in court, or something similar.

scottjpalmer

6032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 790

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#117889 21-Mar-2008 12:41

As someone else said, my vote is that DSE have bigger fish to fry than ANGUS little people so will probably put an end to it before it gets to court.

I don't for a minute doubt that the correct solution is a speedy repair attempt. But I am still not convinced there is even a fault as from what I can see the screen has blanked out once - like a blue screen on a PC. How often does that result in legal action against the retailer or even any reaction at all other than a hit of the reset button?

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

Jama

1420 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1

Trusted

#117891 21-Mar-2008 12:53

Flog it on TradeMe, who knows you might make a profit.

RedJungle

Phil Gale
1108 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 46

Trusted

Red Jungle

Subscriber

#117892 21-Mar-2008 12:58

maverick: This is interesting due to how people wish to interpret documenatation, I with most of the others here believe you will lose as I believe it states it has to be given a chance to be fixed if the problem is minor, I personally don't believe you are being resonable, but it's your choice of course , I would like to see a poll on this and then the outcome ,

My Vote would be you would lose sorry.

Bang on.

rscole86

4999 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 462

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#117898 21-Mar-2008 13:35

axcillznanny: Hi rsole

Under the Act a serious problem is any case where:
a reasonable consumer would not have bought the goods if they had known) that the fault existed - eg, no-one would buy a washing machine if they knew the motor was going to burn out after three months

Yes that is correct, but as I said before DSE or the manufacturer are not in the business of selling faulty goods.

AND, a serious problem as defined in the law does not state what you can or cannot live without, Wot the.....

No it doesn't, if you read what I had said it was a personal statement, and was what I would expect as a consumer.

We don't know what the outcome will be yet, "nowhere fast" [removed].

Ahh so we are resorting to personal attacks, a true sign of someone getting flustered and realising they are loosing their argument.

rscole86

4999 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 462

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#117900 21-Mar-2008 13:42

axcillznanny:
You know the information on here should be correct, helpful and informative for people who may not be able to afford /get to help so easily. That is why I came on.

I have got some very useful stuff, information from posts. The test will be in court for sure.

And yet you seem to be ignoring the law at the same time. The information that people have been giving you is correct, as it has been taken directly from the CGA.

The underlying problem I see here is that you are a consumer, and always have been. You have never owned/run a business and have therefore never had to protect yourself, or look at the CGA from a retailers point of view. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. But i you were to become a Store Manager/Owner then you will begin to understand the CGA more and how it protects BOTH parties. And in your case it will protect the retailer.

But as others have said, DSE may in this case just replace or refund, the phone for you, as they will not have the time to bother dealing with you.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5