Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
Affiliate link
 
 
 

Affiliate link: NordVPN allows you to securely access the Internet, encrypt your connection and keep your browsing history private.
rscole86
4532 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #117739 20-Mar-2008 10:11
Send private message

Again the problem here is that the CGA is not concrete. It uses words like 'reasonable', and I think you are trying to dig yourself into a hole here.

You point out the serious cases, and yet once again your mobile does not fit.

The fault was not there when you bought the phone, and the manufacturer did not make the phone to die in 6 weeks.
They do match the description.
The goods are unfit, BUT they can be repaired and in a reasonable amount of time.
As above.
The goods are safe.

Based on those points, the fault is not serious. All I can say is good luck, but you will be going nowhere fast!

The fact that you got a $500 phone at 50% off makes no difference, you still consider the phone to be worth $500. I would love to know what a super phone is...

axcillznanny

14 posts

Geek


  #117846 21-Mar-2008 10:00
Send private message

Hi rsole

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
AND, a serious problem as defined in the law does not state what you can or cannot live without, Wot the.....

We don't know what the outcome will be yet, "nowhere fast" [removed].

And thanks itxtme, your post was useful, as that is what I had originally been advised by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, it does not complete the purpose of it's existence, ie cannot do the 3 way calling, cannot use the camera cannot txt or phone out.

Fossie...OR  is either/or...law does not say serious AND cannot be repaired

Anyway, as I said, I just wanted to hear from people who have experienced similar problems, not wheter I am right or wrong, the court will determine that.

Again, thanks to all the positives and helpful information. 

[Moderator edit (MF): Personal offence removed from post. No personal offences are allowed here. This is a warning]

freitasm
BDFL - Memuneh
73982 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator
ID Verified
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

#117848 21-Mar-2008 10:06
Send private message

axcillznanny:

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

AND, a serious problem as defined in the law does not state what you can or cannot live without, Wot the.....



I assume the bold is yours, not the law. I think the example is wrong.

"if they had known that the fault existed" sounds like a retailer selling a faulty good. This doesn't seem to apply to a perfectly good product, with no known faults in the series, no recalls issued by the manufacturer and that develops a problem six weeks after the sale.

It's not like Dick Smith sold you the phone knowing it had a fault at the moment of the sale, or knowing that this specific model stops working after six weeks.

They offered you a repair, which is within their right to do.

Let's see how this ends up, but regardless of what a court says I would still think you are in the wrong side here.


Oh, and no more personal comments, like the one I edited out from your previous post.





Are you happy with Geekzone? Consider subscribing or making a donation.

 

 

 

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure 

 

These links are referral codes: Sharesies | Mighty Ape | Norton 360 | Lenovo laptops | GoodsyncGeekzone Blockchain Project




axcillznanny

14 posts

Geek


  #117849 21-Mar-2008 10:09
Send private message

OOPs..apologies, mean't to read as that sounds dumb.

axcillznanny

14 posts

Geek


  #117852 21-Mar-2008 10:22
Send private message

Hi freitasm

NO your assumption is incorrect, certainly not my words in bold...all from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs website, just bold and underlined as a point.

And your post 117676 is also misguided. You posted:

Where the failure can be remedied, the consumer may—
  • (a) Require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time in accordance with section 19 of this Act:

  • (b) Where a supplier who has been required to remedy a failure refuses or neglects to do so, or does not succeed in doing so within a reasonable time,—

    • (i) Have the failure remedied elsewhere and obtain from the supplier all reasonable costs incurred in having the failure remedied; or

    • (ii) Subject to section 20 of this Act, reject the goods in accordance with section 22 of this Act.




So it means you can ask for a repair, and if this cannot be done or the retailer refuses then you can ask for a refund?

You have to give them a chance to repair first, surely?


You have posted clause  2 of that particular section if you read the complete section ie: clause 1 just prior, it states:

(1) Where a consumer has a right of redress against the supplier in accordance with this Part of this Act in respect of the failure of any goods to comply with a guarantee, the consumer may exercise the following remedies.

You see, so where the right of redress applies then clause 2.

You know the information on here should be correct, helpful and informative for people who may not be able to  afford /get to help so easily. That is why I came on.

I have got some very useful stuff, information from posts. The test will be in court for sure.

Thanks 















maverick
3594 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
WorldxChange

  #117872 21-Mar-2008 11:46
Send private message

This is interesting due to how people wish to interpret documenatation, I with most of the others here believe you will lose as I believe it states it has to be given a chance to be fixed if the problem is minor, I personally don't believe you are being resonable, but it's your choice of course , I would like to see a poll on this and then the outcome ,

My Vote would be you would lose sorry.




Yes I am a employee of WxC (My Profile) ... but I do have my own opinions as well Wink

             

https://www.facebook.com/wxccommunications

axcillznanny

14 posts

Geek


  #117879 21-Mar-2008 12:03
Send private message

Awwwwwwww....Hope not, you never know , I am going on the strength of info supplied by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, and the Law Centre.








nzbnw
2369 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Spark NZ

#117880 21-Mar-2008 12:05
Send private message

maverick: This is interesting due to how people wish to interpret documenatation, I with most of the others here believe you will lose as I believe it states it has to be given a chance to be fixed if the problem is minor, I personally don't believe you are being resonable, but it's your choice of course , I would like to see a poll on this and then the outcome ,

My Vote would be you would lose sorry.


Agreed, I think it's time for the CGA to received a major overhaul.

nzbnw








sbiddle
30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  #117881 21-Mar-2008 12:09
Send private message

axcillznanny:
I have got some very useful stuff, information from posts. The test will be in court for sure.



What exactly have you done? Filed a claim in the disputes tribunal against DSE?

One thing I haven't actually established reading the thread is whether the phone does actually work. You said it froze - does it actually work now or is it completely dead?


Just be prepared for the JP or court referee hearing the case to simply follow the CGA and require DSE to repair the phone. The fact you have already stopped them doing this may not be have done you any favours. I'd put money on it that they will simply rule that they be allowed to send the handsay away for examination and/or repair before any ruling would be given in favour of a full refund.

Make sure you are prepared for the hearing and write down everything first of all. You can also write a letter to the JP or referee hearing the case outlining your side of the story which they will read before the hearing. This can be a good idea as it saves you missing things out if you're anxious during the meeting.


axcillznanny

14 posts

Geek


  #117886 21-Mar-2008 12:27
Send private message

sbiddle

Yes it has been filed.

And, yes I have done what you have said, lodged my story with disputes.

Have got written documentation so it will be interesting, wish someone would post whether they have had similar experience.

That was really what I was after.

Everyone is guessing the outcome but who has actually pushed this in court, or something similar.

scottjpalmer
5828 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator
ID Verified
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #117889 21-Mar-2008 12:41
Send private message

As someone else said, my vote is that DSE have bigger fish to fry than ANGUS little people so will probably put an end to it before it gets to court.

I don't for a minute doubt that the correct solution is a speedy repair attempt. But I am still not convinced there is even a fault as from what I can see the screen has blanked out once - like a blue screen on a PC. How often does that result in legal action against the retailer or even any reaction at all other than a hit of the reset button?

Jama
1420 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#117891 21-Mar-2008 12:53
Send private message

Flog it on TradeMe, who knows you might make a profit.

RedJungle
Phil Gale
1108 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Red Jungle
Subscriber

  #117892 21-Mar-2008 12:58
Send private message

maverick: This is interesting due to how people wish to interpret documenatation, I with most of the others here believe you will lose as I believe it states it has to be given a chance to be fixed if the problem is minor, I personally don't believe you are being resonable, but it's your choice of course , I would like to see a poll on this and then the outcome ,

My Vote would be you would lose sorry.


Bang on.




Red Jungle: we make fantastic software

RSS  Twitter  Facebook  Skype

rscole86
4532 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #117898 21-Mar-2008 13:35
Send private message

axcillznanny: Hi rsole

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
Yes that is correct, but as I said before DSE or the manufacturer are not in the business of selling faulty goods.

AND, a serious problem as defined in the law does not state what you can or cannot live without, Wot the.....


No it doesn't, if you read what I had said it was a personal statement, and was what I would expect as a consumer.

We don't know what the outcome will be yet, "nowhere fast" [removed].


Ahh so we are resorting to personal attacks, a true sign of someone getting flustered and realising they are loosing their argument.

rscole86
4532 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #117900 21-Mar-2008 13:42
Send private message

axcillznanny: 
You know the information on here should be correct, helpful and informative for people who may not be able to  afford /get to help so easily. That is why I came on.

I have got some very useful stuff, information from posts. The test will be in court for sure.


And yet you seem to be ignoring the law at the same time. The information that people have been giving you is correct, as it has been taken directly from the CGA.

The underlying problem I see here is that you are a consumer, and always have been. You have never owned/run a business and have therefore never had to protect yourself, or look at the CGA from a retailers point of view. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. But i you were to become a Store Manager/Owner then you will begin to understand the CGA more and how it protects BOTH parties. And in your case it will protect the retailer.

But as others have said, DSE may in this case just replace or refund, the phone for you, as they will not have the time to bother dealing with you.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic





News and reviews »

D-Link G415 4G Smart Router Review
Posted 27-Jun-2022 17:24


New Zealand Video Game Sales Reaches $540 Million
Posted 26-Jun-2022 14:49


Github Copilot Generally Available to All Developers
Posted 26-Jun-2022 14:37


Logitech G Introduces the New Astro A10 Headset
Posted 26-Jun-2022 14:20


Fitbit introduces Sleep Profiles
Posted 26-Jun-2022 14:11


Synology Introduces FlashStation FS3410
Posted 26-Jun-2022 14:04


Intel Arc A380 Graphics First Available in China
Posted 15-Jun-2022 17:08


JBL Introduces PartyBox Encore Essential Speaker
Posted 15-Jun-2022 17:05


New TVNZ+ streaming brand launches
Posted 13-Jun-2022 08:35


Chromecast With Google TV Review
Posted 10-Jun-2022 17:10


Xbox Gaming on Your Samsung Smart TV No Console Required
Posted 10-Jun-2022 00:01


Xbox Cloud Gaming Now Available in New Zealand
Posted 10-Jun-2022 00:01


HP Envy Inspire 7900e Review
Posted 9-Jun-2022 20:31


Philips Hue Starter Kit Review
Posted 4-Jun-2022 11:10


Sony Expands Its Wireless Speaker X-series Range
Posted 4-Jun-2022 10:25









Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.