CGA - defining "reasonable" with reference to other markets

Forums › Off topic › CGA - defining "reasonable" with reference to other markets

1 | 2

BlinkyBill

1443 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2308687 31-Aug-2019 08:02

Some people know, and some people think they know, stuff. A bus ticket is a contract - there are terms and conditions associated with travelling on a public bus and there is legislation involved as well.

But no negotiation is involved in terms of pricing or explanation of the terms and conditions; it is a very famous legal precedent that accepting the ticket implies acceptance of the contract and all of the terms and conditions.

Buying a pair of binoculars is also a contract between the involved parties. In NZ a purchase agreement cannot contract out of the CGA, but it is very clear that a warranty claim subject to the t’s and c’s of the contract is required for relief, as the first course of action. The CGA is a course of action subsequent where the purchase agreement has failed. ‘Purchase agreement’ = ‘contract’.

The OP asked if a foreign contract provision could be used to argue a warranty claim after the warranty has expired - the answer is ‘no’. That is the correct answer to the question. You would be hard-pressed to make a warranty claim 10 years after the warranty has expired; you need to seek relief some other way, of which a CGA claim is one option.

I think when answering questions it is useful to be accurate as far as possible. It is a bit irritating when people respond with assumed knowledge which is a long way from accurate.

weasel13

38 posts

Geek

#2308793 31-Aug-2019 13:57

BlinkyBill: Some people know, and some people think they know, stuff. A bus ticket is a contract - there are terms and conditions associated with travelling on a public bus and there is legislation involved as well.

But no negotiation is involved in terms of pricing or explanation of the terms and conditions; it is a very famous legal precedent that accepting the ticket implies acceptance of the contract and all of the terms and conditions.

Buying a pair of binoculars is also a contract between the involved parties. In NZ a purchase agreement cannot contract out of the CGA, but it is very clear that a warranty claim subject to the t’s and c’s of the contract is required for relief, as the first course of action. The CGA is a course of action subsequent where the purchase agreement has failed. ‘Purchase agreement’ = ‘contract’.

The OP asked if a foreign contract provision could be used to argue a warranty claim after the warranty has expired - the answer is ‘no’. That is the correct answer to the question. You would be hard-pressed to make a warranty claim 10 years after the warranty has expired; you need to seek relief some other way, of which a CGA claim is one option.

I think when answering questions it is useful to be accurate as far as possible. It is a bit irritating when people respond with assumed knowledge which is a long way from accurate.

Blinky bill you are neither correct nor helpful. Ok you are partially correct but you don’t in fact answer the op question. Which was :
I was musing on this.

I recently needed some binoculars. The three brands that I looked at were Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski. The warranty on all of them is 10 years.

However...in the USA, the warranty on the same (exactly the same) models is lifetime.

Hypothetically, if you had a problem in 20 years time and they refused repair under warranty in NZ, could you argue in the dispute resolution process that the companies clearly accepted that a lifetime warranty was "reasonable" because that was exactly what they offered on identical products in the USA?

As you can see they ask about a dispute resolution process and not a warranty claim. They even mention the cga in the topic. Blinky bill you might know some stuff but reading and comprehension is lacking on this occasion.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8769 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2308802 31-Aug-2019 15:08

BlinkyBill: Since the warranty is 10 years, you wouldn’t be able to submit a warranty claim in 20 years, so there is nothing to argue - the contract you entered into is for 10 years.

If the item failed in the 20 year timeframe and you took an action because you feel it shouldn’t have failed and therefore the manufacturer should repair at their cost, then yes it’s an argument that a lifetime warranty for the same product in a different market has a bearing.

But that argument wouldn’t have much weight in NZ - the contract you agreed to in NZ will have a much higher weighting in terms of the overall argument.

Surely the nub of all this is: Retailers in NZ cannot contract-out of the CGA - so the OP cannot be limited by the manufacturer’s 10-year term.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

BlinkyBill

1443 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2308834 31-Aug-2019 16:58

Weasel13, what is the dispute they want resolved? It is for a warranty claim. The OP is asking if the warranty should be ‘lifetime’ and mot 10 years, because it’s ‘lifetime’ in a foreign market.

I think that is pretty clear.

I deal with contracts and warranty every day professionally (albeit for services, not products) - I do understand this area. Whether my answer is helpful, I guess only to some - but it is correct.

BlinkyBill

1443 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2308836 31-Aug-2019 17:00

eracode:
BlinkyBill: Since the warranty is 10 years, you wouldn’t be able to submit a warranty claim in 20 years, so there is nothing to argue - the contract you entered into is for 10 years.

If the item failed in the 20 year timeframe and you took an action because you feel it shouldn’t have failed and therefore the manufacturer should repair at their cost, then yes it’s an argument that a lifetime warranty for the same product in a different market has a bearing.

But that argument wouldn’t have much weight in NZ - the contract you agreed to in NZ will have a much higher weighting in terms of the overall argument.

Surely the nub of all this is: Retailers in NZ cannot contract-out of the CGA - so the OP cannot be limited by the manufacturer’s 10-year term.

That is correct - but you and some others continue to miss the point that a CGA claim isn’t the same as a warranty claim, especially 10 years after the warranty has ended.

weasel13

38 posts

Geek

#2308858 31-Aug-2019 18:20

BlinkyBill:
eracode:
BlinkyBill: Since the warranty is 10 years, you wouldn’t be able to submit a warranty claim in 20 years, so there is nothing to argue - the contract you entered into is for 10 years.

If the item failed in the 20 year timeframe and you took an action because you feel it shouldn’t have failed and therefore the manufacturer should repair at their cost, then yes it’s an argument that a lifetime warranty for the same product in a different market has a bearing.

But that argument wouldn’t have much weight in NZ - the contract you agreed to in NZ will have a much higher weighting in terms of the overall argument.

Surely the nub of all this is: Retailers in NZ cannot contract-out of the CGA - so the OP cannot be limited by the manufacturer’s 10-year term.

That is correct - but you and some others continue to miss the point that a CGA claim isn’t the same as a warranty claim, especially 10 years after the warranty has ended.

Whilst it may not be worded as a warranty claim it is in effect a warranty claim. I think you are the one missing the point. The CGA is a legislated warranty that you need to enforce rather than a manufacture or store warranty that is much easier. Either way it is a warranty.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8769 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2308900 31-Aug-2019 21:31

BlinkyBill:
eracode:
BlinkyBill: Since the warranty is 10 years, you wouldn’t be able to submit a warranty claim in 20 years, so there is nothing to argue - the contract you entered into is for 10 years.

If the item failed in the 20 year timeframe and you took an action because you feel it shouldn’t have failed and therefore the manufacturer should repair at their cost, then yes it’s an argument that a lifetime warranty for the same product in a different market has a bearing.

But that argument wouldn’t have much weight in NZ - the contract you agreed to in NZ will have a much higher weighting in terms of the overall argument.

Surely the nub of all this is: Retailers in NZ cannot contract-out of the CGA - so the OP cannot be limited by the manufacturer’s 10-year term.

That is correct - but you and some others continue to miss the point that a CGA claim isn’t the same as a warranty claim, especially 10 years after the warranty has ended.

... but the ‘warranty’ hasn’t ended if CGA says the reasonable life is longer than 10 years. So who’s missing the point? If a CGA claim isn’t a warranty claim, what is it? Putting semantics aside.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

BlinkyBill

1443 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2308940 1-Sep-2019 06:24

Eracode, you might help yourself if you looked up the definition of warranty. And semantics.

1 | 2