CGA. Is it fair?

Forums › Off topic › CGA. Is it fair?

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

mattwnz

20147 posts

Uber Geek

#1114857 24-Aug-2014 22:28

richms: Businesses shouldnt be subsidizing the CGA as they should be buying from a supplier on a trade account, which basically has in the terms and conditions that it is purchase for use of a business for use of the business so not liable for CGA and sold at a reduced cost. That is why so many places operate a trade showroom and only sell to people identifying themselves as being professionals.

True to a point but would depend on what was being purchased. Businesses also often have to signup to a trade account first and may have to buy a minimum amount. Many businesses will usually instead buy one off things from normal retail stores, and normal retail stores can sometime undercut the price of trade stores, as they may have better buying power. Some of these trade suppliers can be very expensive.

richms

28172 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1114859 24-Aug-2014 22:33

Then normal stores should start to operate the same way, and have a sales manager that deals with the trade customers to allow them to ensure that all goods are sold under the correct understanding on where they stand as far as CGA

Richard rich.ms

mattwnz

20147 posts

Uber Geek

#1114867 24-Aug-2014 22:41

richms: Then normal stores should start to operate the same way, and have a sales manager that deals with the trade customers to allow them to ensure that all goods are sold under the correct understanding on where they stand as far as CGA

Not sure if they would offer a bigger discount though, because the CGA costs are usually covered by the manufacturer, and not the retailer, apart from admin costs involved. But admin costs in dealing with CGA claims for retailers would be mainly just staff time, as any other costs they should be able to claim back from the manufacturer under the CGA. Potentially the retailer would have to arrange a better deal with their supplier for business purchased goods.

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1114886 24-Aug-2014 23:18

bazzer:
Geektastic:
bazzer:
Geektastic: The CGA enhances this in one way. The EU enhanced it another by making it a legal requirement that electronics (for example) must have a MINIMUM of 2 years and warranty must be provided anywhere in the EU regardless of the state in which purchase took place. (i.e. if I buy a Sony TV in Germany and take it home to the UK where it breaks, Sony in the UK must honour the warranty and not require me to return the TV to Germany).

What happens outside the 2 year warranty period?

AFAIK that is your lot, unless (a) you bought a warranty extension (b) the manufacturer offered more than 2 years when you bought the item or (c) the manufacturers decide to accept the issue as a warranty issue regardless.

Here is Apple's EU consumer warranty as an example - which appears to suggest it extends to 2 years minimum and 5 years in Scotland and 6 years in the remainder of the UK. This provision does not appear to make Apple products more expensive in the UK than they are in NZ.

But it does make them more expensive than they would be if they didn't have to offer a warranty at all.

You can't make such a simple comparison between NZ and the UK in that way because there are far more factors at play.

What factors?

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1115003 25-Aug-2014 11:23

mattwnz: There was an article in one of the papers about extended warranties over the weeked, and some of them are very expensive, upto 25% of the product price. The difference between them and the CGA they claim, was that they would replace the item if it had a problem, rather than repair if it was the CGA. But I believe under the CGA, if the fault is substantial, then the consumer has the right to request a refund or replacement anyway.

So who has the cost responsibility? The manufacturer or the retailer (i.e. does the retailer claim costs back from the manufacturer).

If I buy say a Leatherman in NZ it still has Leatherman USA's 25 year warranty. If it breaks I can send it to Leatherman who will repair/replace. Under the CGA I can take it to the shop who presumably have to do the same and have to accept that 25 years is 'reasonable' in this case because the maker said so. Do they then claim a credit for a replacement next time they order, or take it on the chin? And if it breaks in year 23 and the shop in NZ I bought it from has packed up trading, who is responsible for my rights then?

And since Leatherman have built in the cost of a 25 year warranty at $120 US, why does the same thing cost $240 NZ? Certainly not GST or the CGA, is it?

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