CGA.. Tricky Question

Forums › Off topic › CGA.. Tricky Question

LennonNZ

2459 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#191037 20-Jan-2016 22:39

I purchased a bit of hardware from a vendor a while ago with large promises of what it could do. Lets call it A. Bought for personal Use..I have no physical proof of what was said (as it was all sales in a store)

After a while I re-asked them if this functionality was still valid and they said yes (I asked specifically if function B would work). At the time there was no way of testing this functionality as there was no other devices in the market which could do it so I trusted them and they specifically checked for me.

I have this proof with the Manufacturer saying A will do B after I asked them.

I then purchased a bit of hardware C which was supposed to be compatible with the original device via Function B.

But the Functionality of B does not work on A.

Can I claim the CGA on A? I would not not purchased C if I knew function B would not work properly with C. There is nothing with the C as it works perfectly well with the devices similar with A. I cannot return C as there is no fault with it . The Problem is with A.

What I can find from research now is function B is missing from A and will not be added and the information I got (From the Manufacturer) was incorrect.

An example ...

Its not a car but say I bought a Car. I then emailed the place I got the car from and asked them can I get a tow bar installed on this model of car to tow a boat of a certain weight and size. They say yes you can get a towbar. I then got a boat on a certain size and weight and then the place I got the car from said.. Oh sorry.. you can't get a tow bar for that car. Someone made a mistake for whatever reason. I then have a car and boat and no way of using the boat as I can't tow it.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

3075 posts

Uber Geek

#1475781 20-Jan-2016 23:01

So based entirely off your example of the car, tow bar and boat, I would say you have no grounds.

The sale has completed already, anything said/promised after the sale isn't relevant. Timing is very key.

If however you purchased A and was told before purchasing that function B would be present, then yes you'd have a leg to stand on as that's a false representation of the product. However as you said you have no proof of what was said pre-sale so it'd be very difficult to prove.

You mentioned you have proof of the manufacturer saying function B should be on product A, so perhaps you could use that as some evidence to back your claim up since they were backing up the facts given by the store.

Have you spoken to the store about this yet?

see: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0091/latest/DLM312809.html

yitz

2082 posts

Uber Geek

#1475782 20-Jan-2016 23:05

Is the actual problem a physical one like your example or software/protocol/platform version interoperability one?

LennonNZ

2459 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1475792 21-Jan-2016 00:10

yitz:

Is the actual problem a physical one like your example or software/protocol/platform version interoperability one?

Its a interop problem. When I asked they said it did V2.2 (already) when asked so I got something else which does V2.2 but the 1st unit (I've found out now) does not do V2.2. You can probably work out what I am talking about now. The 2nd unit I bought is a brick as the functionality promised does not exist on the 1st.

It could be seen as the service was me asking a question and them giving me a answer as well. The Answer was wrong (and quite wrong) and thus caused me direct loss of money.

mattwnz

20165 posts

Uber Geek

#1475796 21-Jan-2016 00:22

I am a little confused. Did you ask if function B was compatible with A, before buying A? If not, then I don't think you have any grounds for a CGA claim. If they told you afterwards that it could be, then you still probably have no claim, as you had already purchased A, and B wasn't a factor at that stage. I think you only have a potential claim if they told you before you purchased A, that B is compatible with A. But as it is verbal, very difficult to prove either way.

yitz

2082 posts

Uber Geek

#1475800 21-Jan-2016 00:52

Yeah I'm confused too...

Say there is the application of audio streaming using a fictitious proprietary technology called Bluetooth...
You buy a laptop with Bluetooth V1 that is advertised as being able to stream audio to a receiver.
A year or two later you buy Bluetooth speakers that can receive Bluetooth V2.
But it doesn't work because Bluetooth V1 audio streaming uses MP2 codec while Bluetooth V2 audio streaming uses HE-AAC codec. Bluetooth V2 audio streaming is not backwards compatible with V1. No Bluetooth V1 speakers exist on the market anymore.

Are you saying you were told in this case the laptop was Bluetooth V2 capable but turned out to only be compatible with V1?

Or that you expected the "audio streaming" application to be backwards compatible between versions?

PS. haven't been able to work out what "V2.2" is in reference to. :P

floydbloke

3523 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1475850 21-Jan-2016 08:08

Can you not just tell the community what the products are and what you're trying to achieve, rather than cryptic algebra.

I expect you'll get more sound advice that way.

Did Eric Clapton really think she looked wonderful...or was it after the 15th outfit she tried on and he just wanted to get to the party and get a drink?

evnafets

537 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1475863 21-Jan-2016 08:27

When you bought the "car" if you had known that you couldn't have put a "towbar" on it would that have stopped you buying it?

I presume the "car" drives well enough, just can't have a "towbar"

Sharesies

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

Oriphix

523 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1475870 21-Jan-2016 08:38

floydbloke:

Can you not just tell the community what the products are and what you're trying to achieve, rather than cryptic algebra.

I expect you'll get more sound advice that way.

Agreed.

Inphinity

2780 posts

Uber Geek

#1475882 21-Jan-2016 08:59

This sounds to me like one of the cases where the relatively undefined nature of the CGA leaves it open to going either way. If, prior to purchase, you were advised Product A could do a certain thing, and later found it could not, that's relatively straight forward in my view as being substantially unfit for purpose. If the problem is more than A can do this certain thing, but isn't compatible with Product B in doing so, then that's more difficult to clarify.

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek

#1475894 21-Jan-2016 09:13

Is there any particular reason you can't use the actual example?

networkn

Networkn
32358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1475899 21-Jan-2016 09:24

My question is whether you have approached said company for redress already. A lot of companies don't need to be threatened to do the right thing, contrary to geek zone belief. Usually if you can find a manager and explain calmly the situation, there is some chance you may not even need this entire discussion.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1475905 21-Jan-2016 09:30

LennonNZ:

I purchased a bit of hardware from a vendor a while ago with large promises of what it could do. Lets call it A. Bought for personal Use..I have no physical proof of what was said (as it was all sales in a store)

After a while I re-asked them if this functionality was still valid and they said yes (I asked specifically if function B would work). At the time there was no way of testing this functionality as there was no other devices in the market which could do it so I trusted them and they specifically checked for me.

I have this proof with the Manufacturer saying A will do B after I asked them.

I then purchased a bit of hardware C which was supposed to be compatible with the original device via Function B.

But the Functionality of B does not work on A.

Can I claim the CGA on A? I would not not purchased C if I knew function B would not work properly with C. There is nothing with the C as it works perfectly well with the devices similar with A. I cannot return C as there is no fault with it . The Problem is with A.

What I can find from research now is function B is missing from A and will not be added and the information I got (From the Manufacturer) was incorrect.

An example ...

Its not a car but say I bought a Car. I then emailed the place I got the car from and asked them can I get a tow bar installed on this model of car to tow a boat of a certain weight and size. They say yes you can get a towbar. I then got a boat on a certain size and weight and then the place I got the car from said.. Oh sorry.. you can't get a tow bar for that car. Someone made a mistake for whatever reason. I then have a car and boat and no way of using the boat as I can't tow it.

Is A B and C from the same manufacturer and supplier or is C after market or from a different manufacturer.

In my very layman opinion using the car example, one purchases a Nissan, a month or two later purchases a boat but does not buy a Nissan towbar but gets it from an after market supplier. Nissan cannot be responsible

for the towing or operation of that towbar and any subsequent damages, faults etc as a result of the after market towbar installation or operation.

yitz

2082 posts

Uber Geek

#1475961 21-Jan-2016 10:35

So I'm guessing this is a about the HDMI interface of device A and the problem feature/function is HDCP 2.2 ?

LennonNZ

2459 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1476196 21-Jan-2016 15:07

Yes.

I got a tv which has hdmi 2.0 support but only does hdcp2.0 not 2.2 .

When asked the manufacturer said yes it does dhcp 2.2 so bought device which need 2.2 to play protected videos (drm) and it's a door stop as the manufacturer gave me wrong information.

Can subsequential loss be claimed due to wrong information given?

networkn

Networkn
32358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1476199 21-Jan-2016 15:11

LennonNZ: Yes.

I got a tv which has hdmi 2.0 support but only does hdcp2.0 not 2.2 .

When asked the manufacturer said yes it does dhcp 2.2 so bought device which need 2.2 to play protected videos (drm) and it's a door stop as the manufacturer gave me wrong information.

Can subsequential loss be claimed due to wrong information given?

Sony are talking about being able to software upgrade some of their TV's from HDCP 2.0 to 2.2, and I read an article over CES which stated that other manufacturers may follow suit.

Have you looked into that? Have you approached the manufacturer/Retailer as yet?

Obviously, this may not help you RIGHT now, but if it's a pending software update, and it's going to happen in a reasonable timeframe, then I'd imagine you'd have less recourse under the CGA, but it would largely depend on the he said she said scenario.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4