Consumer Guarantees Act + Harvey Norman + Nokia

Forums › Off topic › Consumer Guarantees Act + Harvey Norman + Nokia

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#433429 31-Jan-2011 21:48

BrentR: The $50 charge is standard across the mobile industry to cover an initial inspection fee should the handset be deemed a non warranty repair. In the past when this wasn't taken many customers on finding their handset would not be repaired under warranty the end user would simply not bother having the handset fixed leaving the store to foot the bill with the charge.

I'm very surprised that gets past the CGA.

BrentR: It is certainly the customers prerogative whether or not they want to pay this bond as such, but this may result in the store not be willing to have the handset sent away.

Store doesn't have to send stuff away if they have competent staff on hand to make warranty inspections. Again, I'm really quite surprised that gets past CGA.

Really must brush up on my copy of the act if I'm going to engage in to many more of these CGA threads on GZ.

BrentR: In regards to the device "Not being fit for the purpose it was sold for" if this was the case then I would expect a large amount more of the handsets coming through as they're all manufactured the same way as other 3120c handsets and go through the same stringent testing.

I wonder if you get what 'fit for purpose' means. It's not a test of the phone being fit to be a telephone per the claimed specification.

It's a test of items suitability. This is why washing machines are often stated as not warrantied for commerical use. While they will wash the load of cloths, they aren't designed for a commerical duty cycle. Lawn mowers are another personal favorite. While a flymo will mow a bit of lawn it's not fit for mowing a 4000sqm block once a week in spring.

In this case, the question is if the phone is up to the riggers of the given teenager.

Frankly I really wonder about this whole phone space and teenagers. Let's consider some tests... Is it likely that a teenager will drop an electronic device? Yes. Is it likely that many phones currently on the market won't survive a drop test? Yes. Considering these things I really don't understand how retailers are getting away with selling these products to customers when they know for well that they won't live up to the demands that the customer group is likely to put on them?

BrentR: I need to double check the handsets IMEI with our Care team tomorrow and will let you know how we'll proceed from there. :)

Holy crap what sort of double dutch techno world do we live in that the required info isn't on line and can't be just looked up?

I must just be getting old and grumpy.

D

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

richms

28199 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#433438 31-Jan-2011 22:07

If you have any doubt about what the phones will stand up to, have a look for the videos of nokia phone testing labs. Incredible amounts of tests done on them.

Richard rich.ms

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#433460 31-Jan-2011 22:33

richms: If you have any doubt about what the phones will stand up to, have a look for the videos of nokia phone testing labs. Incredible amounts of tests done on them.

Oh I agree. My last one got hammered and I'm taking much more care with this new Android because I really can't see it taking much of a beating.

I also think that some Nokia's may take more beating than others.

My point is that when selling anything you have to consider the user and if you don't then the CGA could well bite you.

My observation is that different sellers address their obligations in different ways. Kmart for example will just take anything back and give you your money back. Mr Brownly's position, last time I talked to him, was if a customer brings a 'dirty' nappy back, give them their money back. January is a fun time at Kmart with pallet loads of tents being returned. Most of the time there's nothing wrong with them, people have simply finished their holiday and just don't need/want the tent anymore and know they can get a credit just by claiming it leeks.

Other sellers, often smaller once, take far more time to understand the sale to be assured that product won't come back under CGA.

Kmart just build in the returns as a cost of doing business. It pays off for them. The customer good will far out weighs the cost of suspect claims.

In the case of the tents, sure I saw 3 pallet loads returned in one year. But I also saw 30+ pallet loads sold at a respectable margin and the truck loads of accessories that go out with them that generally don't come back at all.

In this thread it's my view that the vendor has made a total dick of his company and could have made a really positive representation of his brand and his retailer (HN in this case).

Nokia is a preimum brand in my view, unlike the Android I just purchased to replace my last failed Nokia. (Yes after spending $900+ on two brand new phones and having them both fail in less time than I can depreciate the things I am a bit bitter.)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10702593 - get the dam message. It's what you do at the service end that makes the real difference with this stuff just as much as what wiz bang you pump in to each new model!

D

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

samsam

167 posts

Master Geek

#433473 31-Jan-2011 23:31

I am not sure if this is correct but I would think fit for purpose would be that it was advertised for and so a mobile phone would need to call and text plus any other features and unless it said or it was made clear to the sellar that dropping it or not looking after it would void the warranty. I would think it would be up to the buyer to not assume and ask if the product meet there requirements.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#433503 1-Feb-2011 07:10

An extract from the 3120 user guide

" C a r e a n d m a i n t e n a n c e70• Do not drop, knock, or shake the device. Rough handling can break internal circuit boards and fine mechanics.• Do not use harsh chemicals, cleaning solvents, or strong detergents to clean the device.• Do not paint the device. Paint can clog the moving parts and prevent proper operation.• Use a soft, clean, dry cloth to clean any lenses, such as camera, proximity sensor, and light sensor lenses.• Use only the supplied or an approved replacement antenna. Unauthorised antennas, modifications, or attachments could damage the device and may violate regulations governing radio devices.• Use chargers indoors.• Always create a backup of data you want to keep, such as contacts and calendar notes.• To reset the device from time to time for optimum performance, power off the device and remove the battery.These suggestions apply equally to your device, battery, charger, or any enhancement. If any device is not working properly, take it to the nearest authorised service facility for service."

The following is from the Nokia warranty...

.2. This Limited Warranty does not cover a) normal wear and tear (including, without limitation, wear and tear of camera lenses, batteries or displays), b) transport costs, c) defects caused by rough handling (including, without limitation, defects caused by sharp items, by bending, compressing or dropping, etc.), d) defects or damage caused by misuse of the Product, including use that is contrary to the instructions provided by Nokia (e.g. as set out in the Product's user guide)

Given this and the state of the phone this is a case for the dispute tribunal to decide was it user "misuse" that caused the fault or a manufacturing fault.

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#433516 1-Feb-2011 08:39

KiwiNZ: The following is from the Nokia warranty...

.2. This Limited Warranty does not cover a) normal wear and tear (including, without limitation, wear and tear of camera lenses, batteries or displays), b) transport costs, c) defects caused by rough handling (including, without limitation, defects caused by sharp items, by bending, compressing or dropping, etc.), d) defects or damage caused by misuse of the Product, including use that is contrary to the instructions provided by Nokia (e.g. as set out in the Product's user guide)

Top skills Kiwi! If that's the standard Nokia warranty on all phones then I wouldn't sell a Nokia to a teenager ever. It's very clear that the manufacture will not back up the retailer on common use issues such as simply dropping the phone out of your pocket.

"defects caused by sharp items" - I would class keys as a sharp item. So having this phone in a pocket with keys would be unacceptable.

Having your phone in your pocket with keys is something I wouldn't give a second thought to doing, and do often.

Now I won't assume that a consumer should be aware of what's in the phone warranty before they buy it. However I do think a seller should have a good over view of content such as this.

Clearly in my mind this phone was not fit for the purpose. More than ok for my wife, who treats phones with kid gloves, but not ok for your average teenager who has little respect typically for anything electronic.

Epic fail on the part of the retailer for selling this product to this consumer.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

BiDi

62 posts

Master Geek

#433528 1-Feb-2011 09:12

DonGould:
KiwiNZ: The following is from the Nokia warranty...

.2. This Limited Warranty does not cover a) normal wear and tear (including, without limitation, wear and tear of camera lenses, batteries or displays), b) transport costs, c) defects caused by rough handling (including, without limitation, defects caused by sharp items, by bending, compressing or dropping, etc.), d) defects or damage caused by misuse of the Product, including use that is contrary to the instructions provided by Nokia (e.g. as set out in the Product's user guide)

Top skills Kiwi! If that's the standard Nokia warranty on all phones then I wouldn't sell a Nokia to a teenager ever. It's very clear that the manufacture will not back up the retailer on common use issues such as simply dropping the phone out of your pocket.

Not withstanding the more general discussion that is going on, ...

I would like to point out that it is the on-off button that has failed. IMO, the well-worn front face of the phone is irrelevant: look at the end view, there is not sign of damage.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

minimoke

750 posts

Ultimate Geek

#433530 1-Feb-2011 09:14

Theres a couple of simple issues here.
- The manufacturers warranty is meaningless in domestic sales - the CGA overrides it -unless the guarantee provides more than the CGA and I can't think of any that do.

- The relationship is between the buyer and Harvey Norman - not the buyer and Nokia.

- HN have to sell something that a reasonable person would see as fit for purpose. Basically the on/off switch has to work for a reasonable period. Whats a reasonable period - I reckon 2 - 3 years use. Reasonable is probably the number of cycles and wear and tear. Given its a hand held device reasonable would also include the ability to withstand some shock from a drop. A drop from the hand to the kitchen floor might be reasonable. A drop from a 10 story building probably isn't. Remembering of course that this is private use and not commercial use. I reckon my work phone should last me two years - but then thats not covered by the CGA.

- If the buyer thinks the phone has a "fault" (like the on-off switch doesn't work) he simply just has to ask HN to fix it. HN have to fix it - not get it assessed for fixing but fix it. Simple really. Fixing means replacing; getting your money back or repairing at HN's cost. What arrangements HN has with Nokia is purely up to them.

- HN are of course within their rights to refuse to fix - their assessment of the product they sold may lead them to believe the phone is "damaged" rather than faulty". It's their assessment - its their cost. They can get their sales staff to make the assessment or an expert - its up to HN how it is assessed but HN make the decision.

- If HN say it is "broken and the CGA doesn't apply. The buyer can then look to see what the Guarantee covers and can also get damage repaired or follow their rights to get the fault fixed. The buyer is making the claim - so it is up to the buyer to provide proof it is not "damaged" and indeed "faulty".

- If Nokia charge HN a fee then thats an issues between those tow parties., No doubt HN have considered that fee in their supply arrangements.

As an aside I wonder if the HN "Bond" is more about cash flow. 100 items on assessment on any one day is $5,000 off the bank overdraft. Whats the margin on phones - thats a few less phones they have to sell each day to make budget.

BiDi

62 posts

Master Geek

#433534 1-Feb-2011 09:18

DonGould:
BrentR: The $50 charge is standard across the mobile industry to cover an initial inspection fee should the handset be deemed a non warranty repair. In the past when this wasn't taken many customers on finding their handset would not be repaired under warranty the end user would simply not bother having the handset fixed leaving the store to foot the bill with the charge.

I'm very surprised that gets past the CGA.

BrentR: It is certainly the customers prerogative whether or not they want to pay this bond as such, but this may result in the store not be willing to have the handset sent away.

Store doesn't have to send stuff away if they have competent staff on hand to make warranty inspections. Again, I'm really quite surprised that gets past CGA.

Really must brush up on my copy of the act if I'm going to engage in to many more of these CGA threads on GZ.

This is getting to the nub of it from my point of view.

I suspect that Brent is quite correct, it is standard to ask for the $50. I noticed in all the paper work we got from a Dick Smith purchase after Christmas that THEY do say up front that this charge will be made if the product is returned for service. Hence THEY do seem to comply with the CGA, at least in terms of what the Consumer Affairs says (see: http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/for-consumers/goods/warranties)

Your rights with warranties
What are your rights with warranties and the Consumer Guarantees Act?

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.

However, HN did not do this.

minimoke

750 posts

Ultimate Geek

#433546 1-Feb-2011 09:37

This is getting to the nub of it from my point of view.

I suspect that Brent is quite correct, it is standard to ask for the $50. I noticed in all the paper work we got from a Dick Smith purchase after Christmas that THEY do say up front that this charge will be made if the product is returned for service. Hence THEY do seem to comply with the CGA, at least in terms of what the Consumer Affairs says (see: http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/for-consumers/goods/warranties)

Your rights with warranties
What are your rights with warranties and the Consumer Guarantees Act?

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.

However, HN did not do this.

The "Bond" or Fee is a condition of sale and needs to be made clear at the time of the purchase. That means big print in the contract - not little print on the back of a label. If its not a condition of sale that the buyer has agreed to the seller cannot impose it at a later date.

BiDi

62 posts

Master Geek

#433549 1-Feb-2011 09:41

In the DS purchase, it was definitely in the fine print. The stuff that usually gets put aside without a careful look. AND, they said nothing at the time of sale. Does that mean it is not really a 'condition of sale'?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#433555 1-Feb-2011 09:48

BiDi:
DonGould:
KiwiNZ: The following is from the Nokia warranty...

.2. This Limited Warranty does not cover a) normal wear and tear (including, without limitation, wear and tear of camera lenses, batteries or displays), b) transport costs, c) defects caused by rough handling (including, without limitation, defects caused by sharp items, by bending, compressing or dropping, etc.), d) defects or damage caused by misuse of the Product, including use that is contrary to the instructions provided by Nokia (e.g. as set out in the Product's user guide)

Top skills Kiwi! If that's the standard Nokia warranty on all phones then I wouldn't sell a Nokia to a teenager ever. It's very clear that the manufacture will not back up the retailer on common use issues such as simply dropping the phone out of your pocket.

Not withstanding the more general discussion that is going on, ...

I would like to point out that it is the on-off button that has failed. IMO, the well-worn front face of the phone is irrelevant: look at the end view, there is not sign of damage.

As I have said in previous posts the internals of these devices are delicate due to the demand by consumers for smaller lighter phones. Therefore impact to the device and cause failure at any point on the device due to transmission of shock force.

minimoke

750 posts

Ultimate Geek

#433571 1-Feb-2011 10:08

BiDi: In the DS purchase, it was definitely in the fine print. The stuff that usually gets put aside without a careful look. AND, they said nothing at the time of sale. Does that mean it is not really a 'condition of sale'?

Fine print terms and conditions are broadly known as an Adhesion Contract. Thats something drafted by the seller where the buyer isn't given much opportunity to understand or negotiate. Courts generally don't look too favorably on them - the benefit of the doubt goes to the buyer.

The Fair Trading Act also makes it clear that the seller has to be up front with the buyer.That means no hiding stuff that might cause a person to alter their purchase decision.

So if HN or DSE were being up front they should say. "We'll sell you this thing but if it goes wrong then you will need to pay $50 to get it checked. If its faulty you get your money back but this may take 6 weeks, if its damaged we get to keep the $50 and you get to decide if you want to repair."

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#433603 1-Feb-2011 11:03

minimoke:
BiDi: In the DS purchase, it was definitely in the fine print. The stuff that usually gets put aside without a careful look. AND, they said nothing at the time of sale. Does that mean it is not really a 'condition of sale'?

Fine print terms and conditions are broadly known as an Adhesion Contract. Thats something drafted by the seller where the buyer isn't given much opportunity to understand or negotiate. Courts generally don't look too favorably on them - the benefit of the doubt goes to the buyer.

The Fair Trading Act also makes it clear that the seller has to be up front with the buyer.That means no hiding stuff that might cause a person to alter their purchase decision.

So if HN or DSE were being up front they should say. "We'll sell you this thing but if it goes wrong then you will need to pay $50 to get it checked. If its faulty you get your money back but this may take 6 weeks, if its damaged we get to keep the $50 and you get to decide if you want to repair."

DSE have it detailed on their Web site http://www.dse.co.nz/dse.shop/4d47303303757c2a273fc0a87f3b0689/Export/catalogs/INS0000017

I have not checked HN

minimoke

750 posts

Ultimate Geek

#433616 1-Feb-2011 11:22

DSE have it detailed on their Web site http://www.dse.co.nz/dse.shop/4d47303303757c2a273fc0a87f3b0689/Export/catalogs/INS0000017

I have not checked HN

Having it on the website is not necessarily any help to DSE - the terms and condition's need to be made known to the buyer at the time the contract is negotiated - that being the time of the trade. They cannot point a buyer to the website or in store terms once the sale is complete. As for their 90 day warranty - what a nonsense - how many products (other than FMCG) does a consumer expect to last just 90 days.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8