Sony pulls 5 year guarantee

Murt10

Sony were giving a free 5 year parts and labour guarantee on some of their TV's including the 40" EX4/40 Bravia.

I went to buy oner today and was told by the store, Powercity Blanchardstown, the guarantee was withdrawn by Sony on Christmas Eve, and that there was no extension.

I looked to see if I could get the receipt (and guarantee) backdated to 24/12. No joy and the price is still the same as it was before Christmas - E499.

I feel sick. The TV is no longer the bargain that I thought it was. It's really sly and underhand. I expected a lot more from Sony. They could have at least waited until ther year end. Effectively putting up the price when the sales start.

Tarquin1970

Murt10 wrote: »

Sony were giving a free 5 year parts and labour guarantee on some of their TV's including the 40" EX4/40 Bravia.

I went to buy oner today and was told by the store, Powercity Blanchardstown, the guarantee was withdrawn by Sony on Christmas Eve, and that there was no extension.

I looked to see if I could get the receipt (and guarantee) backdated to 24/12. No joy and the price is still the same as it was before Christmas - E499.

I feel sick. The TV is no longer the bargain that I thought it was. It's really sly and underhand. I expected a lot more from Sony. They could have at least waited until ther year end. Effectively putting up the price when the sales start.

Go back to power city tomorrow and get 20% off Sony TVs above ex403 models..

Zonda999

Not quite 20% really. Have a look at the thread on the subject in the bargain alerts requests subforum

rob230te

Tv repair guy i know told me this would happen a few weeks ago. Expect other manufacturers to do similar. They're losing a fortune with these warranties. He reckons the warranties will extend again when sales start dropping in Feb/March.

Slick50

These exentended warranties don't matter. Under irish consumer law, "the sale of goods and supply of services act 1980" retailers are obliged to provide products or services that are of a merchantable quality. Therefore, fit for purpose, as described, and as durable as is reasonable to expect. If any television from a reputable manufacturer breaks down inside of five years you can bring it back to the retailer and demand that they either fix, replace it, or refund you the price of it.

Tony

Slick50 wrote: »

These exentended warranties don't matter. Under irish consumer law, "the sale of goods and supply of services act 1980"

Does it say 5 years in the act?

TheDoc

Slick50 wrote: »

These exentended warranties don't matter. Under irish consumer law, "the sale of goods and supply of services act 1980" retailers are obliged to provide products or services that are of a merchantable quality. Therefore, fit for purpose, as described, and as durable as is reasonable to expect. If any television from a reputable manufacturer breaks down inside of five years you can bring it back to the retailer and demand that they either fix, replace it, or refund you the price of it.

That is really nieve, and why so many people get shafted by retaielrs, because they just dont know the act and they dont know their rights

You are covered by the warranty provided by the product.

Most products are twelve months.

A retailer is obliged to provide a repair,replacement or refund for 12 months of that warranty.

Any further warranty is not honoured by the retailer, but the actual manafacturer.

The retailer has the say on wether it is a repair,replacement or refund offered.

Example A)

Your TV has a three year warranty and breaks two years in

The retailer is not obliged to do anything, you need to deal with the manafacturer

Example b)

Your Tv breaks after 2 months of its 12 month warranty. The retailer is obliged to repair, replace or refund. Them sending you off to the manafacturer asking for a refund DOES NOT COUNT AS THEM OFFERING A REPAIR

Example C)

Your TV breaks 14 months down the line. Your TV has a 12 month warranty. Your **** out of luck.



The amount of mis information and wrong or confused information on this forum really does spread so fast

Worked in retail for many a year, and now work in a technical support centre so see the other side, and there is nothing more embarassing when someone lashes at you with incorrect consumer rights

Slick50

Tony wrote: »

Does it say 5 years in the act?

No, it states as durable as is reaonable to expect. Anybody would expect to get more than five years service from a modern television.

fish fingers

I sold tvs for years and if anything happened within 12 months the shop looked after it and the customer wouldn't pay. Outside of 12 months the customer payed. This was before brands were giving 5 year guarantees

nightster1

Slick50 wrote: »

No, it states as durable as is reaonable to expect. Anybody would expect to get more than five years service from a modern television.

there's always the small claims court if you run out of luck with the people who took your money and are unreasonable with repairs or refunds

Tony

Some people might reasonably think that ten years is a reasonable period, this does not mean it has a ten year warannty. The time period you mention is subjective, consumer law is usually little bit more certain.

Slick50 wrote: »

No, it states as durable as is reaonable to expect. Anybody would expect to get more than five years service from a modern television.

whiterebel

TheDoc wrote: »

That is really nieve, and why so many people get shafted by retaielrs, because they just dont know the act and they dont know their rights

You are covered by the warranty provided by the product.

Most products are twelve months.

A retailer is obliged to provide a repair,replacement or refund for 12 months of that warranty.

Any further warranty is not honoured by the retailer, but the actual manafacturer.

The retailer has the say on wether it is a repair,replacement or refund offered.

Example A)

Your TV has a three year warranty and breaks two years in

The retailer is not obliged to do anything, you need to deal with the manafacturer

Example b)

Your Tv breaks after 2 months of its 12 month warranty. The retailer is obliged to repair, replace or refund. Them sending you off to the manafacturer asking for a refund DOES NOT COUNT AS THEM OFFERING A REPAIR

Example C)

Your TV breaks 14 months down the line. Your TV has a 12 month warranty. Your **** out of luck.



The amount of mis information and wrong or confused information on this forum really does spread so fast

Worked in retail for many a year, and now work in a technical support centre so see the other side, and there is nothing more embarassing when someone lashes at you with incorrect consumer rights

And you're a prime example of the wrong information being bandied about.
Try consumerconect.ie, the National Consumer Agency or look up the law yourself before you spread around the incorrect retailer version.

Kensington

Tony wrote:

Does it say 5 years in the act?

Statute of Limitations in Irish contract law gives you six years in which you may take a case. So you have six years from date of purchase where you may take a case against a retailer, as a consumer, for a faulty product under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980.

TheDoc wrote:

You are covered by the warranty provided by the product.
Most products are twelve months.
A retailer is obliged to provide a repair,replacement or refund for 12 months of that warranty.
Any further warranty is not honoured by the retailer, but the actual manafacturer.
The retailer has the say on wether it is a repair,replacement or refund offered.

Warranties are an addition to your legal rights - but do not succeed them under any circumstances. It's normal alright to deal with the manufacturer in the case of extended warranties, simply because it is easiest for all involved - manufacturer, retailer and consumer - since it's normally an in-home call out service they provide. No need to lug the TV back to the shop!

However, even if your warranty is only 1 year in total, you can take a case against the retailer for up to six years from the date of purchase. The courts will examine the case, decide an outcome and it is then up to the retailer (not the manufacturer) to carry out the courts ruling. They face heavy penalties if they fail to do so. Of course, the courts may rule completely in the favour of the retailer, the consumer is not guaranteed to win.

Also, the act does not specify who gets to choose which of the three R's are chosen. Normally, the retailer would offer one of the three, but the consumer is perfectly entitled to challenge that offer in the courts if they wish to do so.

psicic

I know how much the mods here love it when a BA alert turns to a Consumer Issues thread, but I will add just a quick comment:

Retailers policies can't change the law which, as Slick50 says, gives quite generous protection to the consumer. The statute bar on the Sale of Goods Act is 6 years. You can technically argue for repair/replacement/refund for up to those 6 years. You may have to prove that the fault wasn't down to misuse.

A lot of retailers don't realise/honour this - and make sure their ground-staff don't realise this - so the consumer is always going to have difficulty arguing their side. A lot of the misinformation out there comes from people who have worked selling items who maybe haven't got the full story from their employers.

As a rule of thumb, for the first two years of life for an electronic item like a television, you're on pretty safe grounds in seeking a refund/repair. You just have to know your rights and not go in making a complete tool of yourself.

I'm pathetic at going into shops and arguing, but I bought a TV that went faulty after 3 years - got a replacement set (much nicer!!!). That was because I knew my rights and where to put the blame (manufacturing fault).

And nightster1 is right - the threat of the small claims court (only costs the consumer €15) - can often wake up a unhelpful retailer to the reality that they can't pick and chose a consumers rights.

slave1

And you're a prime example of the wrong information being bandied about.

+1, so much misinformation in that post, your contract is where you purchased the product not the manufacturer....this thread is doomed as not a BA

ricman

Under eu law you have 2 years gaurantee on anything you buy ,AND 499 is a very good price for a sony tv.Powercity have cheaper models,if you just wanna buy on price.I dont see how they make a profit giving 5 year gaurantees, on a 499 tv.

whiterebel

ricman wrote: »

Under eu law you have 2 years gaurantee on anything you buy ,AND 499 is a very good price for a sony tv.Powercity have cheaper models,if you just wanna buy on price.I dont see how they make a profit giving 5 year gaurantees, on a 499 tv.

More mis-information. The 2 year guarantee part of the EU directive was never implemented in Ireland.

kirving

That's where reasonable time comes into it IMO. If I buy a TV for €300, I can't reasonably expect that it will last 7 years, whereas the TV for €4,000 really should. It's porously left ambiguous so as to allow all circumstances to be taken into account.

Tony

Kensington wrote: »

Statute of Limitations in Irish contract law gives you six years in which you may take a case. So you have six years from date of purchase where you may take a case against a retailer, as a consumer, for a faulty product under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980.

I dont disagree but its not quite the same as saying thres a blanket 5 year period of warranty.

Tony

whiterebel wrote: »

More mis-information. The 2 year guarantee part of the EU directive was never implemented in Ireland.

Which is a shame in my opinion as it would give retailers certainty when dealing with wholesalers/manufactuers who currently insist on their obligation to be one year only.

Apologies for off topic posts

Kensington

Tony wrote: »

I dont disagree but its not quite the same as saying thres a blanket 5 year period of warranty.

Of course. In no way does it entitle anyone to automatic redress under the act. It's entirely up to the courts to decide - they could easily throw a case out on grounds of it being unreasonable or unrealistic even if brought well before the six year statute expires.

As for the manufacturers and suppliers, that's really something that the retailers need to work on, from the consumers point of view they shouldn't need to worry about that. Easier said than done, I know, particularly for the smaller outlets, but if a supplier is not being reasonable with faulty products then surely the retailers contract with the supplier is not being fulfilled.

Tony

Again I agree for the most part but for smaller retailers its extremely difficult as theres little leverage (with regard to suppliers) with small volume.

Kensington wrote: »

Of course. In no way does it entitle anyone to automatic redress under the act. It's entirely up to the courts to decide - they could easily throw a case out on grounds of it being unreasonable or unrealistic even if brought well before the six year statute expires.

As for the manufacturers and suppliers, that's really something that the retailers need to work on, from the consumers point of view they shouldn't need to worry about that. Easier said than done, I know, particularly for the smaller outlets, but if a supplier is not being reasonable with faulty products then surely the retailers contract with the supplier is not being fulfilled.

Kensington

Tony wrote: »

Again I agree for the most part but for smaller retailers its extremely difficult as theres little leverage (with regard to suppliers) with small volume.

That's true. It's something that probably should be looked at more, might make it easier for retailers to be more upfront about consumer rights.

Anyway, sorry mods for off topic

OP, powercity are doing 20% off Sony TVs tomorrow (27th) only so you could still grab yourself a bargain while knowing your consumer rights are there to back you up should something go wrong! Can't imagine you will have any problems, Sony have always tended to be reliable.

Davy

Not a BA, so moved to CI

Slick50

Tony wrote: »

Some people might reasonably think that ten years is a reasonable period, this does not mean it has a ten year warannty. The time period you mention is subjective, consumer law is usually little bit more certain.

The time period is subjective, but that is the way it is written, not by me. You will probably get ten years service from a TV, but is it reasonable to expect someone to repair replace it for you if it doesn't? I think it is reasonable to expect at least five years from one, and I believe a judge would be of the same opinion.

psicic wrote:

You may have to prove that the fault wasn't down to misuse.

Under the "consumer information act 1978" the onus of proof as to why the product failed is on the retailer. They have to show "on the balance of probability" that any claim they make regarding a product, service or price to be true.

Tony wrote: »

I dont disagree but its not quite the same as saying thres a blanket 5 year period of warranty.

I didn't say there is a blanket 5 year warranty. But I believe there should be, and that it is reasonable to expect five years service from modern televisions, and other modern elecrical goods.

Tony

Yes but in your original post you portrayed the time period as being part of the act (at least thats the impression I took which is why i asked the question) and how exactly do you know what a judge might think?
Why 5 years , why not 4 1/2 or 6?

This is conjecture surely its better to stick to known facts.

In reality there are few of the major big volume retailers that would stand by a product after 5 years

Slick50 wrote: »

The time period is subjective, but that is the way it is written, not by me. You will probably get ten years service from a TV, but is it reasonable to expect someone to repair replace it for you if it doesn't? I think it is reasonable to expect at least five years from one, and I believe a judge would be of the same opinion.

whiterebel

whiterebel wrote: »

More mis-information. The 2 year guarantee part of the EU directive was never implemented in Ireland.

Tony wrote: »

Which is a shame in my opinion as it would give retailers certainty when dealing with wholesalers/manufactuers who currently insist on their obligation to be one year only.

Apologies, as I may be wrong, but isn't the reason it wasn't implemented here, because we already are covered for 3 years?

psicic

Slick50 wrote: »

Under the "consumer information act 1978" the onus of proof as to why the product failed is on the retailer. They have to show "on the balance of probability" that any claim they make regarding a product, service or price to be true.

Not to get into semantics, but the CI Act 1978 was repealed in 2007, and I'm personally not sure of the applicability of that legislation (s.20 I presume) in relation to returning a faulty item(though I don't dispute the possibility).

It's a bit academic: you are right that the retailer does have to prove the misuse/abuse. This is because they are not allowed to assume you as a consumer are acting in 'bad faith' and trying to scam them. They have to prove the existence of misuse/abuse. Everyone who's party to a consumer contract (trader/consumer) has to be assumed to be acting in good faith unless there is proof to the contrary. (I can't recall offhand if Sale of Goods makes a reference to how the consumer treats the goods as well, but there may well be.)

'Prove' was probably the wrong word for me to use in my post. What I probably should have said is that you need to state that any malfunction was not down to misuse. (Your statement as a consumer is what I meant as 'proof'.)

If a fault develops due to a manufacturing issue (e.g. too flimsy to stand up to normal wear and tear, not fit for the purpose intended etc...) then you can reasonably look for redress of some sort. Some retailers will try the old 'that only happened because you abused the product' line - ala the mobile phone shops and 'water damage'. All the consumer needs to do is stick to their guns and don't start second guessing themselves, and state their case clearly and concisely. For example, if the retailer says an item stopped working because it got wet, you need to be resolute in saying 'no it didn't' - not trying to remember that day six months ago when you put clothes on the radiator in the same room and wondering if that counts for water damage.

Deleted User wrote: »

Apologies, as I may be wrong, but isn't the reason it wasn't implemented here, because we already are covered for 3 years?

As to why the EU legislation referring to 2 years for the purchase of electronic items that some people mentioned wasn't specifically transposed (in full) into Irish legislation: (The Irish transposition is SI 11/2003, the EU legislation is EC Directive 1999/44/EC) The EU legislation specifically said that if Member States had better protections than provided for in the Directive, then they could opt not to transpose those specific parts of the Directive. Because it was considered that Irish legislation provided better protection - that the 'reasonability' in Sale of Goods already covered the automatic right to two years and then some - that part was never transposed.

There's a whole lot of other principles at play in relation to that legislation, but it's safe enough to assume the two years minimum for items like consoles, TVs etc....

As a matter of interest, has anyone here every gone back 5 or six years after buying a product and got a full/partial refund or replacement? What type of product was it? Was this with or without the warranty?

delllat

Kevin Irving wrote: »

That's where reasonable time comes into it IMO. If I buy a TV for €300, I can't reasonably expect that it will last 7 years, whereas the TV for €4,000 really should. It's porously left ambiguous so as to allow all circumstances to be taken into account.

7 years is a long time to "guarantee" anything ,technology is moving so fast that whatever breaks you nearly always get a free upgrade to what the current model is

happened me when my laptop died after almost 3 years ,manufacturer just told me that my laptop went out of production 2 generations ago so the best they could do was give something equivalent

im sure this doesnt happen in every case but i ended up with a new laptop and was about 4 times as powerful/better than the old one

that was on a 3 yr warranty ,imagine i had a 7 year warranty for the same item ,its not cost effective and i doubt they could stay in business constantly replacing items for 7 years if everyone decided their electrical apppliances should last at least 7 years regardless of price

whiterebel

delllat wrote: »

7 years is a long time to "guarantee" anything ,technology is moving so fast that whatever breaks you nearly always get a free upgrade to what the current model is

happened me when my laptop died after almost 3 years ,manufacturer just told me that my laptop went out of production 2 generations ago so the best they could do was give something equivalent

im sure this doesnt happen in every case but i ended up with a new laptop and was about 4 times as powerful/better than the old one

that was on a 3 yr warranty ,imagine i had a 7 year warranty for the same item ,its not cost effective and i doubt they could stay in business constantly replacing items for 7 years if everyone decided their electrical apppliances should last at least 7 years regardless of price

Thats a manufacturer's problem not mine. if I spend big money on a fridge, washing machine, TV or PS3 I expect it to last.

P. Breathnach

whiterebel wrote: »

Thats a manufacturer's problem not mine. if I spend big money on a fridge, washing machine, TV or PS3 I expect it to last.

What you expect and what you are entitled to might not be the same thing. You should not even think in terms of anything being the manufacturer's problem. If it is somebody else's problem, it is the retailer's one, because your contract is with the person who sold you the goods, not with the person who made them.

Both parties to a contract, the seller and the buyer, are expected to be reasonable in dealing with the other. That is generally not set down precisely in legislation, mainly because reasonable behaviour is so difficult to define in exact terms.

A seller can not impose a time limit on the customer's rights that is unreasonably short when account is taken of the nature of the product and the price paid for it (if you buy a high-price item with a superior specification, a reasonable period might be longer than if you buy a cheapie).

On the other side, a buyer is not entitled to be covered for normal wear and tear, or for treating an item in a rough or inappropriate manner. If I bought an expensive washing machine and five years later the door lock failed, I would not even think of expecting that the retailer cover the cost of repair: it falls within the scope of normal wear and tear.

upandcumming

Hi everyone.
If a Bravia was bought, lets say a month ago, with the 5 year Warranty, are you ok?

Slick50

Tony wrote: »

Yes but in your original post you portrayed the time period as being part of the act (at least thats the impression I took which is why i asked the question) and how exactly do you know what a judge might think?

In my origional post I quoted the sale of goods act, which states " as durable as is reasonable to expect". I never claimed to know what a judge might think, I used the term "I believe".

Tony wrote: »

Why 5 years , why not 4 1/2 or 6? This is conjecture surely its better to stick to known facts.

5 years because that was the time of the warranty that was withdrawn, also because I think that is a reasonable period to expect to get from a
modern piece of electronic equipment. As I already said, most electrical, electronic equipment like tv dvd players etc. will run 10 or more years without problems. I don't think it is reasonable to expect a manufacturer to stand over them for that time though.

Tony wrote: »

In reality there are few of the major big volume retailers that would stand by a product after 5 years

This is exactly why we have consumer laws. Just to clarify, I don't expect them to stand over their products after five years either, but up to.

slimjimmc

Deleted User wrote: »

Apologies, as I may be wrong, but isn't the reason it wasn't implemented here, because we already are covered for 3 years?

No, 3 years or any other time limit is not mentioned under Irish consumer legislation afaik. However the Statute of Limitations does restrict the time you have to make a claim under contract law to 6 years.

whiterebel

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What you expect and what you are entitled to might not be the same thing. You should not even think in terms of anything being the manufacturer's problem. If it is somebody else's problem, it is the retailer's one, because your contract is with the person who sold you the goods, not with the person who made them.

If we were to get our rights upheld, manufacturers would have to make more of an effort to build longevity into their products. Whether that goes through the retailer or not is immaterial (to me. I understand about the legal aspects of who is responsible)

P. Breathnach

whiterebel wrote: »

If we were to get our rights upheld, manufacturers would have to make more of an effort to build longevity into their products....

That's a bit of a tricky one. If consumers are more interested in low prices than in high quality, then a manufacturer might be justified in compromising on quality in order to meet consumer expectations -- for example, using lower-spec components.

whiterebel

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's a bit of a tricky one. If consumers are more interested in low prices than in high quality, then a manufacturer might be justified in compromising on quality in order to meet consumer expectations -- for example, using lower-spec components.

True, thats why I don't usually go for the cheapest. However, on the likes of a PS3, X-Box, iPhone etc they have a captive audience.

cast_iron

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's a bit of a tricky one. If consumers are more interested in low prices than in high quality, then a manufacturer might be justified in compromising on quality in order to meet consumer expectations -- for example, using lower-spec components.

But that's the point. You can't really expect the 32" tv for €200 to last as long as the same one that sells for €800. That's where it boils down to a judge to decide if that's "reasonable" or not.

The law is written to give protection to the consumer against the dodgy components used in the €800 version that breaks down 2 months after the 12 month warranty.

The incentive is there for the manufacturer to provide a product that has a reasonable lifespan for its worth. If full consumer rights were always enforced....the manufacturer would not be long realising replacing/repairing all these units that break down far too quickly for their worth is not viable, and better products would be the result.

delllat

whiterebel wrote: »

If we were to get our rights upheld, manufacturers would have to make more of an effort to build longevity into their products. Whether that goes through the retailer or not is immaterial (to me. I understand about the legal aspects of who is responsible)

people want longevity ,they ALSO want the latest and greatest technology at the lowest prices

which means constant updates in product models and specification

if we all still used our laptops ,mobile phones and other gadgets we had 10 years ago wed be "prehistoric"

technology has a life cycle and the products of yesterday are not what people necessarily want tomorrow

a hammer will still be a hammer in 100 years ,same goes for a screwdriver


a compromise has to be made somewhere ,you just cant have both

whiterebel

delllat wrote: »

people want longevity ,they ALSO want the latest and greatest technology at the lowest prices

which means constant updates in product models and specification

if we all still used our laptops ,mobile phones and other gadgets we had 10 years ago wed be "prehistoric"

technology has a life cycle and the products of yesterday are not what people necessarily want tomorrow

a hammer will still be a hammer in 100 years ,same goes for a screwdriver


a compromise has to be made somewhere ,you just cant have both

I don't want to get the "latest greatest" in washing machines, fridges, hoovers, etc, so whats the excuse there? If I pay more money for a "premium" brand, I expect it to last, whether it is 19" or 47" TV. If the "lesser brands" that Lidl and Aldi sell can give 3 year warranties on all electronic products, its hard to see why the big boys can't.
A lot of people are quite happy with what they have, until a new "must have" product comes out - must have because their advertising says so. Look at the 3D TV sales falling flat on their face.

Slick50

upandcumming wrote: »

Hi everyone.
If a Bravia was bought, lets say a month ago, with the 5 year Warranty, are you ok?

If you bought while the five year warranty was part of the deal, then that stands as it formed part of the contract entered into when the sale was completed. It cannot be withdrawn retrospectively. Make sure you keep your receipt and the five year warranty somewhere safe, that you can put your hands on them if the need should arise in the future.