dejadeadnz: Lias was right that most reasonable people would not consider a TV that doesn't turn on or work as a TV to have a failure of a substantial character based on the s 21 test. The test is not, as Drastab and others would have it, about whether there is a failure of a technically substantial component, e.g. whether the failure to turn on is the result of a blown fuse or, say, the main circuit board. IMO, the OP is absolutely well within his rights to demand a refund given that he is entitled to reject the TV under s 22. Section 20, which acts as a bar to the exercise of a right to reject a good that has substantially failed, only applies if the OP fails to exercise his/her rights within reasonable time, that the goods were damaged after delivery (in a manner not relating to their original state at supply stage) etc. 

I should have read the whole thread before posting. This is what I tried to say only it is more concise.

dejadeadnz:

 

In practical terms, what the OP is up against is the profound ignorance of the CGA by most people...

 

I would go further and call it wilful ignorance.

I've had failures of near new goods where the retailer expected me to unquestionably accept a repair. I rejected the notion and required a replacement. Some got pissy but I simply didn't care - it's just business. I told them if they weren't prepared to replace or refund I would simply buy one elsewhere and recover my money through the Disputes Tribunal, if necessary. It never became necessary to go to the DT because deep down they knew I was right and they were just trying it on.

One even claimed "It'll be as good as new" to which I replied "So if you put it on the shelf at full price with a sign saying 'REPAIRED' do you think anyone would take it over a new one next to it?". They had no answer to that.