Charges for Warranty Replacement

Forums › Off topic › Charges for Warranty Replacement

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3107864 25-Jul-2023 13:11

concordnz: Ironically the 'repair' itself has been provided to you free of charge already.

(it's just the travel and re-installing which has been charged for)

If you lived on the Chatham Islands, would you still expect the plumber to fly over there and back for free?

(you might get a discount for being polite in your communications with them, that is a Plus to your benefit.)

Everything you have said on this topic is hogswash. For a start, if the Chatham Islands are part of New Zealand, actually, yes you would expect them to fly over and back to perform the repairs at no charge to you if necessary. The manufacturer or retailer is responsible for covering the costs of meeting their legal obligation under Consumer Law. It is not a "plus to your benefit" to not pay charges you are legally not permitted to be charged.

concordnz

472 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

EMT (R)

#3107894 25-Jul-2023 14:49

MikeB4:
concordnz: Ironically the 'repair' itself has been provided to you free of charge already.

(it's just the travel and re-installing which has been charged for)

If you lived on the Chatham Islands, would you still expect the plumber to fly over there and back for free?

(you might get a discount for being polite in your communications with them, that is a Plus to your benefit.)

What an incredibly silly set of statements. They did not repair the item due to altruism, consumer law in Aotearoa requires it. As for the Chathams nonsense, that does not require any further discussion.

It is exactly a relivant point.

You may need need to brush up on your geography.

The Chathams is part of New Zealand territory and governed by NZ law....

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3107899 25-Jul-2023 15:00

concordnz:

It is exactly a relivant point.

You may need need to brush up on your geography.

The Chathams is part of New Zealand territory and governed by NZ law....

Yes, if the closest repair agent was on the New Zealand mainlands, then they would be required to travel to and from the Chatham Islands at no charge to the purchaser. Or, in your words, free. The Consumer Guarantees Act requires that the purchaser be put in the position they would have been if the fault had not occurred. Paying a labour invoice or travel invoice would put them in a worse position than if the fault had never occurred, which is not lawful. You really should just duck out of this topic.

MadEngineer

4271 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3107902 25-Jul-2023 15:04

Delphinus:
RunningMan:

@MadEngineer the plumber has nothing to do with this. The SUPPLIER was contacted and came out to repair, then sent the invoice.

Exactly. Some people in this thread have reading comprehension issues.

I need to stop reading these on small screens.

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3107906 25-Jul-2023 15:52

concordnz:

It is exactly a relivant point.

You may need need to brush up on your geography.

The Chathams is part of New Zealand territory and governed by NZ law....

I am very aware of where Wharekauri is and your statements are still irrelevant.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3107913 25-Jul-2023 15:59

concordnz: Pay it,
It's perfectly reasonable.

Only the physical parts are covered by warranty. (not the installation or removal etc)
- as any cowboy could do the installation and do it wrong. (this would be a separate 'insurance claim' against the installer.

Even if the Plumber had supplied and installed it - travel & labour are STILL chargable.

These are ALWAYS chargable - unless you purchase a 'comphrensive warranty stating travel & labour is covered (and these are normally limited to 30km from main city centres.) - comphrensive labour/travel warranties require you to use authorised installers to ensure its done right and often cost thousands of dollars.

Nope. This statement is totally wrong.

There’s the CGA obligations which mean costs related to to replacement need to be borne by the supplier.

If it was supplied and installed by a plumber then they would have had a 12 month defects liability period for the installation under the Construction Contracts Action in addition to the CGA obligations.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3107916 25-Jul-2023 16:04

boosacnoodle:
CGA covers consequential loss, which arguably having to get someone out to come and assess / re-install it is. I have had success with claiming back the cost from electronics retailers where something needed an electrician to visit before.

In this case, if I had called the plumber I would pay them and claim the cost back from the original retailer / manufacturer. If the manufacturer / retailer had organised the plumber, I would expect them to be paying the invoice directly.

This isn’t a consequential loss, this is a direct liability and is the suppliers obligation.

A consequential loss is if the failure caused further loss. An example of this would be if a fridge failed and all the contents were ruined. The direct liability is to repair the fridge. The consequential loss would be the loss of the contents of the fridge.

Regardless the supplier has to make the consumer whole.

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.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3107922 25-Jul-2023 16:22

concordnz: And nowhere in the Consumer Gurantees Act does it mention 'travel' or 'labour'. (hint try searching these words in the act and see what you come up with = a big fat zero)

Section 18 of the CGA says:

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:

(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, reject the goods in accordance with section 22.

This covers travel and labour as that is a reasonable cost incurred in having the failure remedied. You need to stop. You don't know what you are talking about.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3107968 25-Jul-2023 16:28

Kyanar:

concordnz: Ironically the 'repair' itself has been provided to you free of charge already.

(it's just the travel and re-installing which has been charged for)

If you lived on the Chatham Islands, would you still expect the plumber to fly over there and back for free?

(you might get a discount for being polite in your communications with them, that is a Plus to your benefit.)

Everything you have said on this topic is hogswash. For a start, if the Chatham Islands are part of New Zealand, actually, yes you would expect them to fly over and back to perform the repairs at no charge to you if necessary. The manufacturer or retailer is responsible for covering the costs of meeting their legal obligation under Consumer Law. It is not a "plus to your benefit" to not pay charges you are legally not permitted to be charged.

Yup.

I find these threads frustrating. There is so much disinformation posted about legal topics that is so demonstrably false.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3108098 25-Jul-2023 21:48

Handle9:

Yup.

I find these threads frustrating. There is so much disinformation posted about legal topics that is so demonstrably false.

It frustrates me and I am not a lawyer, and do not play one on TV. However, I do read laws, and try to understand them. I'd probably study a law degree if it weren't a terrible idea.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3108099 25-Jul-2023 21:54

Kyanar:

Handle9:

Yup.

I find these threads frustrating. There is so much disinformation posted about legal topics that is so demonstrably false.

It frustrates me and I am not a lawyer, and do not play one on TV. However, I do read laws, and try to understand them. I'd probably study a law degree if it weren't a terrible idea.

I'm not a lawyer either. I have had to work in a relatively litigious field (construction).

This stuff is relatively straightforward but usual practice seems to spout whatever "common sense" you like first and read the legislation or government guidance second.

concordnz

472 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

EMT (R)

#3108141 26-Jul-2023 08:53

Handle9:

concordnz: And nowhere in the Consumer Gurantees Act does it mention 'travel' or 'labour'. (hint try searching these words in the act and see what you come up with = a big fat zero)

Section 18 of the CGA says:

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:

(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, reject the goods in accordance with section 22.

This covers travel and labour as that is a reasonable cost incurred in having the failure remedied. You need to stop. You don't know what you are talking about.

On the contrary, travel and labour is NOT necessarily a 'reasonable cost'.
If it's a $100 device and an authority finds that any competent user could have reasonably removed and reinstalled the device themselves, then the only 'reasonable cost' the plumber/supplier would incur would be $40 courier costs.

[Mod edit (MF): remove empty lines to make it compact]

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3108187 26-Jul-2023 10:59

concordnz:

On the contrary, travel and labour is NOT necessarily a 'reasonable cost'.
If it's a $100 device and an authority finds that any competent user could have reasonably removed and reinstalled the device themselves, then the only 'reasonable cost' the plumber/supplier would incur would be $40 courier costs.

I don't understand why you persist in double, triple, quadruple, and quintupling down on being wrong.

concordnz

472 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

EMT (R)

#3108236 26-Jul-2023 12:11

Perhaps that's because I'm not the one who's wrong,
But the [user's who disagree with me] here will never accept that.

Mod edit.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3108237 26-Jul-2023 12:13

concordnz: Perhaps that's because I'm not the one who's wrong,
But the [user] here will never accept that.

Insulting the members, good grief. You might want to refresh your knowledge of the FUG

1 | 2 | 3 | 4