dejadeadnz: Lias was right that most reasonable people would not consider a TV that doesn't turn on or work as a TV to have a failure of a substantial character based on the s 21 test. The test is not, as Drastab and others would have it, about whether there is a failure of a technically substantial component, e.g. whether the failure to turn on is the result of a blown fuse or, say, the main circuit board. IMO, the OP is absolutely well within his rights to demand a refund given that he is entitled to reject the TV under s 22. Section 20, which acts as a bar to the exercise of a right to reject a good that has substantially failed, only applies if the OP fails to exercise his/her rights within reasonable time, that the goods were damaged after delivery (in a manner not relating to their original state at supply stage) etc.
I should have read the whole thread before posting. This is what I tried to say only it is more concise.
In practical terms, what the OP is up against is the profound ignorance of the CGA by most people...
I would go further and call it wilful ignorance.
I've had failures of near new goods where the retailer expected me to unquestionably accept a repair. I rejected the notion and required a replacement. Some got pissy but I simply didn't care - it's just business. I told them if they weren't prepared to replace or refund I would simply buy one elsewhere and recover my money through the Disputes Tribunal, if necessary. It never became necessary to go to the DT because deep down they knew I was right and they were just trying it on.
One even claimed "It'll be as good as new" to which I replied "So if you put it on the shelf at full price with a sign saying 'REPAIRED' do you think anyone would take it over a new one next to it?". They had no answer to that.
I have read the whole thread and am amazed at why some people start screaming and shouting about invoking the CGA for the fault with this TV.
The supplier has arranged to pick up the TV and check it out. Once they have assessed the cause of the fault, they will make a call as to whether to repair or replace the TV. They are honouring the terms of their warranty and the CGA.
I see no "screaming and shouting" just some people saying the OP is entitled to assert their rights. Why would anyone except a shonky retailer have a problem with that?
And once again, in this case, the choice on repair/replace/refund is the consumer's, not the retailer's. The retailer can repair the TV and do whatever they like with it, but the consumer is entitled to require a refund or replacement.