Dick Smiths Electronics> wont replace or refund

Forums › Off topic › Dick Smiths Electronics> wont replace or refund

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

1730 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#117677 19-Mar-2008 23:07

Multiple members here, some with retail experience, have told you that you have misunderstood the CGA. Even the post you have listed above sets out that the trader has the right to repair. If you don't believe us, don't waste anymore of your time posting, go through court and see how you go.

Sharesies

Affiliate link

Affiliate link: Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
74146 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#117678 19-Mar-2008 23:08

But please come back and post the results.

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

nzbnw

2369 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Spark NZ

#117679 19-Mar-2008 23:08

axcillznanny: OMG, c'mon guys, this is for those haters, like "he can read" guy/gal, here is the law:

Please keep in mind, we are not just saying what we are saying for the sake of it, what we are saying is correct. You have a minor problem (as pointed out by cokemaster). Just let DSE repair your phone, and then you can enjoy it once again.

nzbnw

rscole86

4541 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#117680 19-Mar-2008 23:10

http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/businessinfo/cga/goods.html

Rights and remedies

The rights of the customer to redress depend on the type of problem they have with the goods.

If the fault is minor or can be repaired

If the problem with the goods can be fixed the customer can ask you to put it right. You can choose to do this either by repairing the goods or by giving a replacement.

You must act within a reasonable time and provide the repair or replacement free of charge.

The customer must accept either the repair or replacement that you choose to offer.

If you refuse to do something about the faulty goods when it is possible for them to be put right or if you take more than a reasonable time to put it right the customer can choose to:

get their money back
get a replacement or
take the goods somewhere else to be fixed and claim the cost of the repair from you.

It is the customer's decision which of these option they choose.

marmel

1730 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#117682 19-Mar-2008 23:11

You could try and ask if they have a loan phone for you to use why yours is being repaired? Most electronics stores have the odd phone or two out the back which may be unsuitable for sale but could suit your needs in the meantime.

pebbles

741 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#117687 19-Mar-2008 23:20

Silly rscole... the way it's worded is wrong - the article states that if the retailer is unable to repair, replace or compensate within a reasonable amount of time then it is the consumers right to choose the course of action... clear it up a bit?

itxtme

1905 posts

Uber Geek

#117688 19-Mar-2008 23:20

Serious problems

If the problem is a serious one (the goods are unsafe, substantially do not meet acceptable quality, fitness for particular purpose, description or sample), you can choose to:
return (reject) the goods and get your money back, or
return the goods for a replacement of similar value and type (if the goods are reasonably available as part of the supplier's stock ), or
keep the goods and have the price reduced to make up for its drop in value.

Thats straight from the Ministry of consumer affairs website. I take that to mean the buyer has the right to choose. I find the first post harrd to understand however it appears the phone does not complete the purpose of its exsistence - this is a serious problem.

marmel

1730 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#117689 19-Mar-2008 23:22

rscole86:
http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/businessinfo/cga/goods.html

Rights and remedies
The rights of the customer to redress depend on the type of problem they have with the goods.
If the fault is minor or can be repaired
If the problem with the goods can be fixed the customer can ask you to put it right. You can choose to do this either by repairing the goods or by giving a replacement.
You must act within a reasonable time and provide the repair or replacement free of charge.
The customer must accept either the repair or replacement that you choose to offer.
If you refuse to do something about the faulty goods when it is possible for them to be put right or if you take more than a reasonable time to put it right the customer can choose to:
get their money back
get a replacement or
take the goods somewhere else to be fixed and claim the cost of the repair from you.
It is the customer's decision which of these option they choose.

Just to clarify this, it only becomes the customers decision after the trader has refused to repair, or has failed to repair in a timely manner. Only then does the consumer get to choose which form of redress they want.

rscole86

4541 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#117690 19-Mar-2008 23:26

itxtme
Sorry but based on that logic, all problems are serious problems! Read the examples on the website.

I would class serious more along the lines of items which you CANNOT live without. Ie TV does not count, but maybe a fridge does. Cellphone would not count in my mind, but maybe a landline would.

marmel
Correct, the consumer HAS to give the retailer a chance to remedy the problem. IF the consumer feels that the remedy is not suitable they can ask for their goods back, and inform them in writing of their intentions.

marmel

1730 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#117691 19-Mar-2008 23:30

itxtme: Serious problems

If the problem is a serious one (the goods are unsafe, substantially do not meet acceptable quality, fitness for particular purpose, description or sample), you can choose to:
return (reject) the goods and get your money back, or
return the goods for a replacement of similar value and type (if the goods are reasonably available as part of the supplier's stock ), or
keep the goods and have the price reduced to make up for its drop in value.

Thats straight from the Ministry of consumer affairs website. I take that to mean the buyer has the right to choose. I find the first post harrd to understand however it appears the phone does not complete the purpose of its exsistence - this is a serious problem.

I think you need to break this down to realise that this type of fault would not be classified as serious:

unsafe - No
acceptable quality - a single fault with a phone that has otherwise worked and has done so for 6 weeks, this would not be considered unacceptable. Now if this particular model had a known problem that had occurred numerous times with other phones then yes, unacceptable.
fit for a particular purpose - when sold it was. The fact that is currently has a fault which I assume could be repaired does not mean it is unfit. I think this would apply if someone sold a phone that did not work in NZ, then definately unfit.
description or sample - No

This is clearly a minor fault, it has been covered numerous times on fairgo/consumer magazine etc, you have to give the retailer a chance to repair it. Now I'm off to bed, a lot of people up late tonight?

Fossie

1240 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#117693 19-Mar-2008 23:35

Didn't they sell you a $250 phone?

OMG guys cmon stop being so anal. I mean shucks dang cleatus dse is clearly ripping you off...sending it away for repair?! Those.....

axcillznanny

14 posts

Geek

#117696 19-Mar-2008 23:48

For all those not sure here is some further information of the Govt website for business:

The Act says goods are of acceptable quality when the goods:

do what they are made to do
are fit for all the purposes that the goods are normally used for
do not have any small faults
are acceptable in appearance and finish
are safe to use
are durable.

The test for each of these points is:

Would a reasonable consumer, who is fully aware of the state of the goods including any hidden defects, find the goods acceptable?

When are goods not of acceptable quality?

A reasonable consumer would NOT consider these goods to be of acceptable quality
A new toaster has a faulty element and toasts only one side of the bread. It does not do what it is made to do.
An on/off light on a new CD player doesn't work. This is a minor fault but not acceptable quality for a new appliance.
A shirt has a mark on the back. It is unacceptable in appearance.
The locking mechanism on a baby stroller slips when the child wriggles about in the parked stroller. The stroller is not safe.
The motor in a new washing machine burns out after two years normal use. A reasonable consumer would consider this was not acceptable durability for a new appliance.
Computer software with a "bug" in it that continually causes the consumer’s computer to crash.
Electricity supply that is cut off to a street, so that work can be done on the lines, and no advance warning is given to consumers.
Water that is murky and tastes bad, because the water supplier failed to use skill and care when maintaining the pipes.

In deciding if goods are of acceptable quality the reasonable consumer must consider:

the nature of the goods
the price (where relevant)
any statements on labels or packaging
anything said about the goods by the seller or the manufacturer
any other relevant circumstances.

Examples

Nature of the goods

A reasonable consumer will have different expectations of goods depending on their nature.

If the fault is serious or cannot be repaired

The customer has three choices. They can:

get their money back
get a replacement
keep the goods but get some of their money back in compensation.

The customer chooses which of the three options they prefer.

Under the Act a serious problem is any case where:

a reasonable consumer would not have bought the goods if they had known) that the fault existed - eg, no-one would buy a washing machine if they knew the motor was going to burn out after three months
the goods are significantly different to a description given or to a sample or demonstration model - eg, a jersey is described as 100% wool but is 30% acrylic
the goods are substantially unfit for their normal purpose and they can't easily be made fit for the purpose or this can't be done within a reasonable time - eg, a video will not fast forward or rewind tapes and the fault cannot be found
the goods are substantially unfit for the particular purpose the consumer bought them for and they can't easily be made fit for the purpose or this can't be done within a reasonable time - eg, washable wallpaper that is not really washable at all
the goods are unsafe - eg, a bicycle has faulty brakes.

What if the problem is serious but can be fixed?

If the problem falls within one of the definitions given above the customer can choose to get their money back rather than have the goods repaired. The fact that the problem could be repaired does not change this.

As I said you I did not reasonably expect a $500 phones screen to go blank in less than 6 weeks. The sound goes just no pcture on screen. I had to consider whether this was substantial, well yes as I bought it especially for the 3g/way calling, the camera and video options, which it can not perform. More importantly it cannot do the simplest task, that is send a txt message.

It has been well cared for and still has original packaging.

I am pleased for the feedback though and I hope this can be helpful. Will post the results of my court case hope it helps.

Fossie

1240 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#117698 19-Mar-2008 23:53

"If the fault is serious or cannot be repaired"

Hello?

or CANNOT BE REPAIRED.

marmel

1730 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#117699 19-Mar-2008 23:56

I think the key here is the timeframe involved. I suspect that you will find that six weeks it too long for the phone to be treated as "new". In the text you posted you will note that the electronic items, toaster etc are referred to as "new". Most stores would replace an item if it failed in the first couple of weeks, any longer than that you would be looking at a repair I'm afraid. The chainstore I worked for, which at the time was the largest in the country, had a policy at that time of 1 week. Any longer and items were repaired.
There is also good reason for this policy. How would a store know that the phone was faulty as opposed to having been dropped or subjected to water damage? This type of damage if fairly regular with cellphones and quite often will leave no external signs. If they replaced a phone, then sent the other away only to find it had been dropped in the toilet, they would get stiffed with the bill.

This is also not completely controlled by the retail stores. For them to replace an item with another new one they need to be confident that their supplier will accept an RMA and credit them for the goods. Some suppliers could be pretty good in this regard from memory whilst some could be quite dificult.

Lots of variables to consider anyway.

You may also find that if DSE get summoned to appear at the small claims court they may just refund you anyway as it is normally more of a hassle for them to turn up than to just give you your money back so you may get there in the end.

axcillznanny

14 posts

Geek

#117700 20-Mar-2008 00:00

I got the phone half price as they had a 50% off sale on this model, just thought it was a damn good buy.

Back to my original post, I was wondering whether anyone had experienced similar problems with DSE of a similar nature, I didn't want to get into you can or you can't.

I could wait and get it repaired but I paid a decent amount in good faith that I was buying a super phone, I don't believe I gotta good deal. It should not go faulty after such a short time.

Will keep all posted on the outcome though, thanks.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5