ps3 and small claims court

Retr0gamer

Your consumer rights allow you a first a repair then a replacement and lastly a refund which could be you getting refunded what it's worth. So don't expect anything more than the price of a slimeline back because that's all you are entitled to.

L'prof

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Your consumer rights allow you a first a repair then a replacement and lastly a refund which could be you getting refunded what it's worth. So don't expect anything more than the price of a slimeline back because that's all you are entitled to.

Even if it was a launch model with backward compatibility? Surely since it can't be bought again you'd be entitled to more than that if it couldn't be repaired or replaced?

norrie rugger

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Your consumer rights allow you a first a repair then a replacement and lastly a refund which could be you getting refunded what it's worth. So don't expect anything more than the price of a slimeline back because that's all you are entitled to.

Repair, replace with similiar specifications, or full refund (at price you paid). So unless the replacement is a 60 gig model, he is entitled to ask for the refund, at the price he paid

whiterebel

norrie rugger wrote: »

Repair, replace with similiar specifications, or full refund (at price you paid). So unless the replacement is a 60 gig model, he is entitled to ask for the refund, at the price he paid

Correct as per Consumer Affairs.

Minstrel27

tommymc wrote: »

I wont settle for anything less than a full refund. €640.

Are you serious? Best of luck with that .

Elessar

Yeah good luck. It's good to see people standing up for their rights. You are not automatically entitled to a refund, in the end its the SCC judge who will decide. If you haven't given the retailer opportunity to rectify the problem (i.e. repair) you're unlikely to get a refund. If the console has been for repair and the same problem crops up, you're in a good position to seek replacement or refund. Considering the time since the PS3 first came out, I think the best you can hope for is a replacement unit. I could be wrong, but the SCC is independent and will consider both parties.

Retr0gamer

I'm proper screwed if mine goes tits up. Bought mine in Boston

noodler

A refurbed PS3 and a refurbed PS2. Easy.

You are not getting 640e back.

norrie rugger

Elessar wrote: »

Yeah good luck. It's good to see people standing up for their rights. You are not automatically entitled to a refund, in the end its the SCC judge who will decide. If you haven't given the retailer opportunity to rectify the problem (i.e. repair) you're unlikely to get a refund. If the console has been for repair and the same problem crops up, you're in a good position to seek replacement or refund. Considering the time since the PS3 first came out, I think the best you can hope for is a replacement unit. I could be wrong, but the SCC is independent and will consider both parties.

Indeed a replacement unit that has Backward Compatibility, Mem slots, Extra USB.
So if they offer that, as the replacement, then yeah.

Also, is there anything about them offering second hand replacements? I know that if you get say a pair of faulty shoes, they can not offer to replace them with shoes someone has worn

norrie rugger

noodler wrote: »

A refurbed PS3 and a refurbed PS2. Easy.

You are not getting 640e back.

No one in their right mind should accept that
a second piece of kit to now take up space, connection ports.

Why do Irish people not like to make a fuss, exercise their rights and stand up to "da man"?
Christ, it seems like we will take anything in this country and consider ourselves lucky

Kintarō Hattori

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm proper screwed if mine goes tits up. Bought mine in Boston

Ah you're alright, you never play yours. Not enough good games allegedly.

norrie rugger

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm proper screwed if mine goes tits up. Bought mine in Boston

That is always the risk you take, with getting stuff overseas.
Always something in my mind when buying in GB or up North; is the saving worth my while, if it breaks, and I have to return it?

noodler

norrie rugger wrote: »

No one in their right mind should accept that
a second piece of kit to now take up space, connection ports.

Why do Irish people not like to make a fuss, exercise their rights and stand up to "da man"?
Christ, it seems like we will take anything in this country and consider ourselves lucky

I think we are getting into serious nerdy splitting of hairs here.

However, if anybody reckons a judge will attach a value of 390e (640e-250e) for the loss of BC and a couple of memory card slots then go right ahead and do it.

norrie rugger

noodler wrote: »

I think we are getting into serious nerdy splitting of hairs here.

However, if anybody reckons a judge will attach a value of 390e (640e-250e) for the loss of BC and a couple of memory card slots then go right ahead and do it.

Nope, all he has to do is accept that there is a fault with the machine and that the poster paid €640 for it.

If he accepts that, then the replacement unit will have to match the specifications, of the original unit, or a full refund

noodler

norrie rugger wrote: »

Nope, all he has to do is accept that there is a fault with the machine and that the poster paid €640 for it.

If he accepts that, then the replacement unit will have to match the specifications, of the original unit, or a full refund

You will have to explain why a refurbished non-bc sku will be insiffucient as a replacement first.

Anyway, when it happens, lets see if anybody gets 640e.

Hell, you want to be fair? Lets deduct 3 years rent of a PS3 from the 640e that was spent on it.

norrie rugger wrote: »

No one in their right mind should accept that
a second piece of kit to now take up space, connection ports.

Why do Irish people not like to make a fuss, exercise their rights and stand up to "da man"?
Christ, it seems like we will take anything in this country and consider ourselves lucky

I always find it hilarious when people resort to sterotypes in an argument. It is so general as to not make any valid point whatsoever.

whiterebel

norrie rugger wrote: »

Nope, all he has to do is accept that there is a fault with the machine and that the poster paid €640 for it.

If he accepts that, then the replacement unit will have to match the specifications, of the original unit, or a full refund

Again, as Consumer affairs had radio adverts running for the last couple of months, if it is faulty, you are entitled to the full price to be refunded. If Sony are selling these and there is a fault with them from the outset, what should they be refunding? What they think is fair? Machine was bought at a high cost because Sony said it was BC. If Sony can't make it fit for the purpose intended, it is entirely reasonable to expect your money back.

"My Bugatti Veyron has a fault from the outset which will blow its €500K engine"
"Yes, here have a VW Polo instead, its very similar in as far as it has doors, an engine, wheels etc. Slightly lower value, but hey what do you expect....."

norrie rugger

noodler wrote: »

You will have to explain why a refurbished non-bc sku will be insiffucient as a replacement first.

Anyway, when it happens, lets see if anybody gets 640e.

Hell, you want to be fair? Lets deduct 3 years rent of a PS3 from the 640e that was spent on it.

OK please go and read the counsmer website, hell even listen to the radio ads that they have been running recently.
You do not have to accept a credit note or a reduced refund. The refund has to be the price you pay, or the difference in prices
Edit: any replacement also has to match the product that you bought

http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Hot_Topics/Guides-to-Consumer-Law/Shopping/faults.html

noodler wrote: »

I always find it hilarious when people resort to sterotypes in an argument. It is so general as to not make any valid point whatsoever.

I gave my opinion, based on my observations, being Irish and observing people in this country.
I always find it hilarious when people try to make light of anothers opinion and using this "hilarity" to try to move away from a losing standpoint

noodler

norrie rugger wrote: »

OK please go and read the counsmer website, hell even listen to the radio ads that they have been running recently.
You do not have to accept a credit note or a reduced refund. The refund has to be the price you pay, or the difference in prices

http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Hot_Topics/Guides-to-Consumer-Law/Shopping/faults.html



I gave my opinion, based on my observations, being Irish and observing people in this country.
I always find it hilarious when people try to make light of anothers opinion and using this "hilarity" to try to move away from a losing standpoint

There is no losing argument here pal, I thouroughly believe that what the original poster in this argument suggested is a totally outside of the spirit of the law. Namely using the product perfectly for 3 years and then expecting 2007 prices because a refurbed ps3 and ps2 isn't as nice as and compact as an all-in-one BC ps3.

Again, all you are doing is spouting laws and consumer guidlines which are certainly not intended for purpose suggested here. Until you or someone you know has successfully done this without the judge telling them they are taking the piss then you are just another person piping in with adivce which you have no idea if it will work in court as you suggest.

Resorting to something silly like "omg Irish people this or Irish people that" is a little silly. Keep your general observations about Irish society out of this I reckon.

Seriously, is there no price put on three years of using the system with no problems?

All this is moot though, if Sony had 640e as a likely punishment in court I am sure they would find a refurbed BC ps3 somewhere.

norrie rugger

noodler wrote: »

There is no losing argument here pal, I thouroughly believe that what the original poster in this argument suggested is a totally outside of the spirit of the law. Namely using the product perfectly for 3 years and then expecting 2007 prices because a refurbed ps3 and ps2 isn't as nice as and compact as an all-in-one BC ps3.

Again, all you are doing is spouting laws and consumer guidlines which are certainly not intended for purpose suggested here. Until you or someone you know has successfully done this without the judge telling them they are taking the piss then you are just another person piping in with adivce which you have no idea if it will work in court as you suggest.

Resorting to something silly like "omg Irish people this or Irish people that" is a little silly. Keep your general observations about Irish society out of this I reckon.

Seriously, is there no price put on three years of using the system with no problems?

All this is moot though, if Sony had 640e as a likely punishment in court I am sure they would find a refurbed BC ps3 somewhere.

Exactly, spouting laws and consumer guidlines is precisely what he needs to do, in front of the judge.
There is NO charge put on the the use of an item, if the judge accepts that there was a fault in the item

also, if Sony get this decision against them it will set a precedent for all suffers of faulty consoles. How many BC refurbs do they have? Also the judge might have something to say about giving someone a second hand item, as a replacement.

My Irish comment about our rights, is based on looking at this thread and all others regarding YLOD.
People here are calling the OP a fool to think that he will get anything for this, even though he is just exploring his rights. Of all the people that I have seen here, and on other fora, complaining about the YLOD, this is the first person willing to take things to a judicial review. Everyone else has accepted Sony's line about paying for a repair or refurb

noodler

tommymc wrote: »

Good stuff, Just remember that has to be a permanent fix/repair, If that one breaks down within an unreasonable time, back you go.

Looks like Im heading to the small claims myself, My Launch model suffered ylod last week and my retailer just laughed in my face. I wont settle for anything less than a full refund. €640. Then I will buy a slim. Ive sent my ps3 to an engineer for a report to see if it is a manafacturing problem. Since mine is a Launch model I expect to see a flood of people come forward in the next few months.

This the post causing the recent upsurge in posts. Nothing wrong with the OP's reasoning, he just wants a replacement PS3.

It is the above which I think is outside the spirit of the laws being touted and, since these things are based on what a judge says, I reckon he will judge accordingly over the 640e.

norrie rugger

noodler wrote: »

This the post causing the recent upsurge in posts. Nothing wrong with the OP's reasoning, he just wants a replacement PS3.

It is the above which I think is outside the spirit of the laws being touted and, since these things are based on what a judge says, I reckon he will judge accordingly over the 640e.

And the thing is that it is actually with in his rights to ask for a permenant repair/Replacement of something of the same quality,price/full refund


Now if they repair, then fine.
He could argue against having to accept a second hand replacement, for something that he bought new, but even a ruling of a free replacement would seriously weaken Sony's position. He could also inform the judge that the current models are of a lower specification, to the model that he bought.
Refund, this is actually the easiest of the three. The contract was for X amount. That is what the refund price is


Of course this all depends on how the judge sees it but the judge will consult the law before ruling, so it is a great place to start from, knowing the law around this

noodler

norrie rugger wrote: »

And the thing is that it is actually with in his rights to ask for a permenant repair/Replacement of something of the same quality,price/full refund


Now if they repair, then fine.
He could argue against having to accept a second hand replacement, for something that he bought new, but even ruling that a free replacement would seriously weaken Sony's position. He could also inform the judge that the current models are of a lower specification, to the model that he bought.
Refund, this is actually the easiest of the three. The contract was for X amount. That is what the refund price is


Of course this all depends on how the judge sees it but the judge will consult the law before ruling, so it is a great place to start from, knowing the law around this

Or Sony could counter by saying slims are even more reliable, have the option for bitsream audio etc.

Or he could establish an acceptable period of time that such a good should be in good working order. Lets say we establish five years.

Then three years of your 'contract' were fulfilled and two were not. So what is a fair sum for refund? Perhaps 2/5 of 640e?

I am not taking the company's side here and defo feel these things should fail alot less but electronics don't last forever and we have no definite rule on how long they should last. From my perspective, wanting 640e back when you got three years of service is a little OTT.

norrie rugger

noodler wrote: »

Or Sony could counter by saying slims are even more reliable, have the option for bitsream audio etc.

Reliability will not matter, if the BC is gone.
Extra features are not a matter also, as the customer may have no need/want for them

noodler wrote: »

Or he could establish an acceptable period of time that such a good should be in good working order. Lets say we establish five years.
Then three years of your 'contract' were fulfilled and two were not. So what is a fair sum for refund? Perhaps 2/5 of 640e?

The assumption of effective use is the one that I am awaiting. This could be interesting. If it does get stated at 5 years, then it does not matter how long you had it. You ARE entitiled to a full refund. This AFAIK is one of the basic thrusts of the Conusmer Agency's latest adverts. No partial refund, no credit notes in place, no replacements of a lower value. 100% of what you paid

noodler wrote: »

I am not taking the company's side here and defo feel these things should fail alot less but electronics don't last forever and we have no definite rule on how long they should last. From my perspective, wanting 640e back when you got three years of service is a little OTT.

I know that you are not taking the company's side here but from what I gather, the law is the law, and you are entitiled to your original contract sum back

Elessar

Exactly. If a refund is awarded, it will be for the original contract price (the price he paid as stated on the receipt). It doesn't matter how long he has had it. If a refund is awarded he will get what he originally paid.

Considering the time involved though and the amount of time he has had a working console, I would imagine he would not get a refund. I would see a replacement as more reasonable. Then again I'm not a judge. He would have to make damn sure he has given the retailer good opportunity to rectify the problem though.

norrie rugger

Elessar wrote: »

Exactly. If a refund is awarded, it will be for the original contract price (the price he paid as stated on the receipt). It doesn't matter how long he has had it. If a refund is awarded he will get what he originally paid.

Considering the time involved though and the amount of time he has had a working console, I would imagine he would not get a refund. I would see a replacement as more reasonable. Then again I'm not a judge. He would have to make damn sure he has given the retailer good opportunity to rectify the problem though.

I would imagine that they would be happy with a replacement, of a 60 gig model.

The thing is the precedent that this would set. A possibility that Sony are forced to admit there is a problem (or have that decision made for them) and how many 60 gig refurbs can they have, as I can not see people happy with getting a non BC, nonLinux, no memory slots console in place of their original

Retr0gamer

It might be difficult arguing with a judge that has no technical knowledge that a PS3 slimline is not a valid replacement for a BC PS3. Also Sony could argue that they aren't manufacturing 60GB PS3's anymore. I'd say at the very least you will come out of it with a slimline PS3 replacement but there's no harm in arguing for the full price refund although don't be surprised if you don't get it.

Anyway we have someone here who one in court and even has given the case number. If anyone takes this to court for a PS3 or 360 and uses this case number to support their cause I'd be very surprised if you don't walk away with a repair or replacement at the very least.

Now I've got to look for my 360 receipt in case the worst comes to the worst. I'm amazed it's lasted so long

norrie rugger

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It might be difficult arguing with a judge that has no technical knowledge that a PS3 slimline is not a valid replacement for a BC PS3. Also Sony could argue that they aren't manufacturing 60GB PS3's anymore. I'd say at the very least you will come out of it with a slimline PS3 replacement but there's no harm in arguing for the full price refund although don't be surprised if you don't get it.

Anyway we have someone here who one in court and even has given the case number. If anyone takes this to court for a PS3 or 360 and uses this case number to support their cause I'd be very surprised if you don't walk away with a repair or replacement at the very least.

Now I've got to look for my 360 receipt in case the worst comes to the worst. I'm amazed it's lasted so long

I would actually argue it Like whiterebel did earlier but instead of changing car completely using different specs with in a model.

eg: the difference in the PS3 models is like buying a top of the range (say 2.0L Passat TDi red) Passat TDi, VW have found a fault in this model and are now only offering me a replacement of a 1.6L Petrol Base model, with no leather interior, air con or traction conrtol. They both get me A-B but I bought a better spec model with more functionallity. Just like my 60Gig PS3

Slick50

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Anyway we have someone here who one in court and even has given the case number. If anyone takes this to court for a PS3 or 360 and uses this case number to support their cause I'd be very surprised if you don't walk away with a repair or replacement at the very least.

I must have missed something, I know messi19 got a result, but I didn't see any case no's, though that would be very useful.
I don't know why anyone is arguing against people expecting reasonable service from an expensive piece of equipment. The sale of goods act is for exactly this kind of situation, few if any retailers are willing to accept that these machines have an inherant fault. They should be standing up for their customers, and refering the problem back to sony, who the retailer must have some way of redress from.
The sale of goods act provides for repair, replace or refund, at the consumers discretion. The judge in the small claims court decides if you have a case, but you have to decide what you are claiming for in your initial submission. Wether you want a refurbished unit, replacement of some other kind, or a refund of whatever ammount This may influence the judges decision as to wether you are being reasonable or not.
I have been told by sony that they will "only offer a refurbished unit at my expense". The retailer I bought from so far won't even respond to my e-mails, and their customer support line is on a premium rate number, which I won't be ringing. They are effectively giving me the finger. So if I haven't had a response by next tuesday evening I'll be going to the SCC and looking for a full refund too.

knuth

Congratulations Messi, well done mate. Stiicky for his efforts?!

Sisko

Messi19 wrote: »

Just to update. I have just received a call to inform me that a refurbished ps3 was waiting to be collected. The retailer was most likely not willing to take the risk of going to court so I guess that it has been a success in the end. Hope anybody else with the same trouble has the same sort of success. Thanks for all the good luck's and other helpful info.

Fair play man, fair play.