I have a 2.5 year old Asus laptop that cost $700. It's developed a fault with the screen, in that when you move the screen it flashes up strange colors, which is getting worse. 2.5 years is within the 5 year expected life that consumer NZ expects for a laptop. 

I've used the local supplier for a decade, but I won't name them right now. They may even have staff who read these forums, so I would suggest that people who work for companies that sell computers best not reply to this thread in case it's the same company. The company been really good, tried to repair it, but can't. They've accepted liability, now we're talking about remedy - it's a relatively friendly, open discussion and I'll keep using them after this because they have been really good.

It was a consumer purchase, so consumer guarantees would seem to apply. I have however replaced the hard drive with an SSD, and they're claiming that this invalidated both the warranty (true) and the consumer guarantees act (I'm quite skeptical about this part). They've offered a $500 refund, which isn't too bad an offer, but if the CGA applies then they owe either a replacement or a full refund of $770. The $250 isn't a huge deal to me, but I'd rather it was in my pocket than someone else's.

You could say the hard drive replacement is unrelated to the screen problems, and so CGA applies. You could probably also argue that while I had the machine open I could've damaged something else, even a small wire or connector, which is possible. It's unlikely to be a problem I caused as the problems didn't start around the time of the hard drive replacement. I suspect it's just a physical failure of some component related to frequent opening and closing of the screen.

Interested in opinions around whether to push for a full refund / replacement or accept their offer. My wife's a lawyer and is leaning toward the lowest effort option.