Faulty at Time of Purchase

Forums › Off topic › Faulty at Time of Purchase - CGA

1 | 2 | 3

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1212972 13-Jan-2015 09:34

tdgeek:
JarrodM: you should have rejected the PS4 when the problem first occurred and pressed for a replacement harder as per your rights. This is the key

They probably should have classified it as DOA, and just given you a replacement. But then I haven't seen any reports of this problem so it seems rare so I don't think it's unreasonable that they wanted to send it away for inspection.

As for your options now I think having to send it away for inspection and/or repair is reasonable as the retailer does have the option of either repair or replacement. It's reasonable as you had the option of rejecting the PS4 as not being fit for purpose but you didn't so it can't be too unfit for purpose if you kept playing it.

In fact, the OP, while criticising the retailer, is actually criticising the CGA. I feel its fair to say that the CGA is a very good, and fair process.

Unfortunately its let down by the disputes tribunal which is overseen by muppets.

To OP, the sooner you send it off for repair the sooner you get it back. Take a 2 week gaming break and enjoy the nice summer weather outdoors. Complaining and not doing anything only adds more time onto the 2 week window.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1212977 13-Jan-2015 09:49

You've got all the information you need in earlier posts to have it confirmed that JB have operated within the law; your unwillingness to act in the period where they were offering something beyond what they are required to do was your choice, so I agree with the general tenor of the earlier posts - let JB send it to Sony for an inspection (let them decide whether it's appropriate to repair or replace), or just get over it and live with the problem.

I find this forum is generally supportive when a clear wrong has occurred;the responses here demonstrate there's no such sentiment.You may have not got the support you sought, but I suggest this is good evidence of your weak case for insisting on a replacement.

sxz

761 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1213050 13-Jan-2015 10:37

They refused to provide an adequate solution.

Law: If it can be fixed the vendor must repair or replace the product within a reasonable time, or provide a full refund. If a remedy is not timely, if the failure is of a substantial nature or if the product is not fit for its stated purpose (or not fit for the purpose you specifically discussed with the salesperson) then you may be entitled to reject the product and require a full refund, replacement, or obtain damages in compensation from the vendor. See here: http://brlegal.co.nz/img/BRL_2013_(4)_-_Nov_to_Jan.pdf

They sound like they are meeting their obligations under the CGA. Just because you are not happy with their approach does not mean you can require them to go above and beyond unfortunately...

MikeAqua

7769 posts

Uber Geek

#1213053 13-Jan-2015 10:45

If the retailer refuses to fix the problem or takes more than a reasonable time to do so, you can

return the goods and ask for your money back, or
ask for a replacement, if the same type of goods are reasonably available to the retailer, or
take the goods elsewhere to be fixed and ask the retailer to pay the cost of repair.

The above bold bit is your only option for argument as I see it. If two weeks is unreasonable then you are entitled to a refund. It's hard to see two weeks as being an unreasonable period of time to be without an entertainment device.

Mike

Oddball

65 posts

Master Geek

#1213109 13-Jan-2015 12:41

A lot of you are missing critical points. The fault is not intermittent, there is a minor steady latency on top of the intermittent fault. The store lied to me about my rights (to refuse it within the 2 weeks) making it clear that the only option I had was to let them repair.

And some of you are saying to test it with another unit if I can get one, where I've already stated I've done that with my flatmate's one in the same location. There is no local interference.

They weren't willing to provide a solution that doesn't push every bit of the inconvenience caused onto me when it's Sony's fault, which has nothing to do with me.

I emailed them and told them to replace or I'd go to the tribunal with evidence that they lied about my rights under the CGA - the call is recorded with our VOIP provider so I have evidence and I told them that. Now they're willing to replace.

So, yeah, thanks anyway. So much for multiple people telling me what my 'only option' was.

lxsw20

3512 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1213118 13-Jan-2015 12:54

Yeah more people should have said have a big moan until you get your own way. Talk about first world problems.

riahon

946 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1213124 13-Jan-2015 13:02

Sounds like JB have decided you are not worth arguing with. WE all know JB are right but sometimes the noisy child gets their way.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1213132 13-Jan-2015 13:15

Oddball: The store lied to me about my rights (to refuse it within the 2 weeks) making it clear that the only option I had was to let them repair.

There is nothing in the CGA that makes any mention of a 14 day period. They did not mislead you.

If a store choses to offer a 14 day right of return that's up to them, and is above and beyond the CGA offering.

myndlyz

472 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1213136 13-Jan-2015 13:27

Oddball: A lot of you are missing critical points. The fault is not intermittent, there is a minor steady latency on top of the intermittent fault. The store lied to me about my rights (to refuse it within the 2 weeks) making it clear that the only option I had was to let them repair.

And some of you are saying to test it with another unit if I can get one, where I've already stated I've done that with my flatmate's one in the same location. There is no local interference.

They weren't willing to provide a solution that doesn't push every bit of the inconvenience caused onto me when it's Sony's fault, which has nothing to do with me.

I emailed them and told them to replace or I'd go to the tribunal with evidence that they lied about my rights under the CGA - the call is recorded with our VOIP provider so I have evidence and I told them that. Now they're willing to replace.

So, yeah, thanks anyway. So much for multiple people telling me what my 'only option' was.

i would have just given you your money back and told you to piss off

(good thing i am not a manager of a retail store)

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1213138 13-Jan-2015 13:36

riahon: Sounds like JB have decided you are not worth arguing with. WE all know JB are right but sometimes the noisy child gets their way.

Pretty much.

The next time there is a thread bemoaning the fact that Kiwis get stung with high prices on goods (completely disproportionate to exchange rate differences) come back and read this thread.

Not content with arguably the most comprehensive consumer protection legislation in the world, we're quite happy to go off our nut threatening legal proceedings if we are not provided with even more than said law stipulates.

You asked about your legal rights under the CGA. You would have (almost certainly) been unsuccessful had you taken this matter to the tribunal.

1 | 2 | 3