Tesco. no comeback with unsuitable DTT TV

St Senan

I was approached by a couple yesterday who are wanting to leave Chorus and get Freesat and Irish DTT they asked me why their Sanyo Tv that they bought in Tesco Wexford in August 2009 was only giving them Radio channels when they connected an Aerial to it. After a long explaination from me they decided to go back to Tesco with the Receipt. The manager their told them that their is nothing wrong with the Tv as long as the couple stay with Chorus or join Sky and that it is only a problem with the Tv if the couple decide to get a 1 off payment system installed. The couple did explain to this manager {what I said} that retailers were told about system requirements as far back as late 2008. This manager then said that Tesco were never informed about any System requirements.

STB

The simple fact in the matter is that Tescos have never stocked a suitable product deliberately. They stock products suitable for the UK market and Ireland is an afterthought and overflow (like many UK chains operating here - currency exchange profiteering).

Unfortunately these people have learned the hard way and effectively bought a monitor. The integrated digital tuner was never going to work and never will. Tesco cannot second guess what the end user will or wont connect to it. There is something wrong with the TV when the digital tuner wont work out of the box. Case is point - Tescos Artane Castle - All TVs - maybe 7 different TVs all "Freeview" labelled with claims of 40+ stations and digital tuner - which of course you wont receive here as Freeview is UK Digital system. And the Freeview tuners wont work for Irish DTT because they are all old MPEG2 tat - Cello and other muck. NOT ONE SIGN to say not suitable for Irish Digital Terrestrial Television.

Thats why food chains shouldnt sell TVs.

I suggest they get on Tesco head office and elevate their grievance. Perhaps they may get some joy. Look for a purchasing manager and ask why they are stocking these unsuitable products.

Loud voices normally gets peoples attention as well.

watty

Tesco need to read the law.

They sold these without a disclaimer saying the "digital tuner is incompatible" . The "freeview is not available in Ireland" disclaimer isn't relevant.

Unless it works via aerial socket it's not a TV.

Tesco has lost cases before. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/pricewatch/2010/0517/1224270540798.html

The description on the package is a contract and applies unless Tesco had printed disclaimer added saying it's a Analogue Only TV (which they can't do after Nov/Dec 2010 without selling it a Monitor and disclaimer that the TV will not be a TV by end 2012).

Sale of Goods Act 1980 applies. A TV should last more than two years. It should work as described (A TV labelled "Digital" sold in Ireland after March 2008 should work on Irish Digital or have label saying "Analogue Only"). Damages under act are for up to 6 years.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1980/en/act/pub/0016/print.html

http://www.saortv.info/2011/01/05/aso-in-less-than-two-years/

Small Claims Court
I'm confident that for ANY tv not compatible sold after Dec 2010 you win, unless a disclaimer that it's not a TV in writing on display and each package.

That for any TV with "Digital TV" on packaging sold at least after Nov 2008 and possibly March 2008, without a disclaimer that it's "Analogue Only", you would win.

Products must be "fit for purpose" and as Described. Without a disclaimer it's reasonable that any TV retailed in Ireland with "Digital TV" in description should work in Ireland.

After all in era of start of 625lines they could not sell German (PAL B/G) or French (Secam) 625 line TVs. Or USA NTSC 525 lines.

Tesco could have legitimately sold incompatible Digital TVs up till November 2010, if they had put "Analogue Only" labels over all mention of Digital and Freeview. Tesco only added the "no Freeview" notices in 2010, and those are the WRONG disclaimer and are not on the packaging anyway.

St Senan

This couple was told by the Manager in Tescos Wexford that the Tv does and has been receiveing Digital {from chorus} and it can and will receive digital through SKY and that their is no way that a Tv bought in August 2009 will be exchanged or refunded because these people now {Jan 2011} want to change from Chorus to a 1 off payment.

jdivision

It took them four months to ask?

watty

Aldi has been refunding 2009 sales.

St Senan

jdivision wrote: »

It took them four months to ask?

What do you mean ??. And It took who four months to ask.

The Cush

jdivision wrote: »

It took them four months to ask?

Purchased Aug 2009 not 2010.

donegal11

The tv still works if it receives analogue which will be running till the end of 2012.Up till October last year there was no official service to receive so however you expect tesco to refund a tv bought in 2009 must be having a laugh, just because aldi do it does not mean there right to.

Whats the 1 off payment system they are required to install if they have an aerial? A walker/dtt box is hardly rocket science to install aerial in and scart or hdmi out to tv.

watty

If they sold it with a sticker saying Analogue Only, you are correct.
If they ONLY said "no freeview here" Then you are wrong, if the packaging says Digital. The Sale of Goods Act says that forms part of contract unless clearly negated.

If the TV has NO digital feature, then Tesco are in the clear.

St Senan

donegal11 wrote: »

Whats the 1 off payment system they are required to install if they have an aerial? A walker/dtt box is hardly rocket science to install aerial in and scart or hdmi out to tv.

The 1 off payment that this couple are wanting to leave {crappy mmds}Chorus for is a Humax pvr Freesat system with a Wideband aerial {for Irish DTT} to replace there ancient combined Vhf/Uhf aerial which is rotting away on the chimney. Along with getting away from another Monthly bill.

donegal11

watty wrote: »

Tesco need to read the law.

Unless it works via aerial socket it's not a TV.

Tesco has lost cases before. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/pricewatch/2010/0517/1224270540798.html

The tv will work with an aerial it'll get analogue for nearly 3 and a half years

I read the link It had nothing to do with digital tv, it was pointless unless there is some underlying point I don't get?? did you not read it or think no one would.

I also read the sale of goods act and seen nothing to do with "digital tv" "6 years" thou i could of missed it.

And it's not illegal to sell a non dtt tv. if we go back to 2008 as you say and an electrical shop had to stock soarview compatible tvs their storefront would be bear.

People should educate themselves when buying a tv, freeview is only available in the uk and people should know by common sense in the same way they don't expect to get french TNT here.In saying that if my parents who wouldn't know any better bought a non dtt mpeg 4 compliant tv today off course I would tell them to demand a refund, but if they bought it two years ago I could hardly justify the same course of action? and i highly doubt the small claims court would listen to me.

The 1 off payment that this couple are wanting to leave {crappy mmds}Chorus for is a Humax pvr Freesat system with a Wideband aerial {for Irish DTT}l

Sorry I misread and thought you meant the one payment system was a dtt box which didn't sound right, reading over it again to makes more sense. MMDS is pointless when compared to free to air satellite or on a pay basis to sky, they should of moved long ago.

The manager when answering the couple shouldn't of really mentioned sky or chorus, implying that you needed to pay to use the tv when they can currently receive analogue and he should of told them if they really wanted digital to buy a set top box and sent them out the door.

watty

Analogue now for LESS than 2 years.

Nothing wrong with selling an Analogue only set up till now, but we are talking about sets labelled digital.

Selling Analogue that has incompatible Digital going forward isn't illegal as long as you explain clearly with labelling that it will not work as a TV after 2012.

It's NOTHING to to do with Digital TVs per se. The "Sale of Goods Act" partially is to do with correctly describing goods.

TVs described as "Digital" when they are not and TVs sold that will stop receiving TV signals in less that two years, without clear labelling means that people CAN look for Refund, Repair or Replacement under the Act.

It's very SIMPLE.
In the past and going forward, ANY TV with "digital" in the labelling on package or display ought to have a disclaimer label saying Analogue only, Incompatible with Irish Digital. There would have been no difficulty for Distributors to label Sets appropriately since Q2 2008 at latest. They DID NOT HAVE to supply Compatible Digital. The Government warned them. If you are charitable the Distributors where lazy not slapping a disclaimer label on every TV that mentioned Digital TV and was incompatible.

All shops should now have labelling warning customers that TVs without compatible Digital (they don't have to be Saorview Certified) will not operate as TVs after 2012, that's less than two years. After then, they will only work as Monitors via SCART or HDMI.

This is really so simple. The Act doesn't need to Mention Analogue Switch off or Digital TVs. Things must be as they are Described.

At this stage it's baffling why they are not labelling correctly. One can only assume they hope to shift incompatible stock without people realising. Because there are plenty of compatible TVs.

matt-dublin

some of you seem to be opening a can of worms that people who bought CRT tvs in the last few years (yes, they were still on sale) that they'll be entitled to free upgrades to digital LCDs?

don't forget the sale of goods act covers all second hand sales, so joe who bought that tv last week for 200 out of the buy and sell would be covered on it as well?

the article at the start of the thread in reference to tesco having to replace a faulty tv, not one that won't work.

if the TV is not digital capable, i would suggest that at the time of purchase for the OP that this was't a requirement and was an oversight.Again, not really Tesco's problem.

still on freeview is there not a requirement for a set top box?

St Senan

matt-dublin wrote: »

OP can you tell me what exact model TV you bought is?

IMO i don't really think there's a case here to return it.

how are you connecting to the once off payment freeview?

satellite / ariel?

does your remote control have a button that says epg or guide?

It's not my TV.
I think you will have to read the thread again
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70140723&postcount=1
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70152904&postcount=11

Antenna

watty wrote: »

After then, they will only work as Monitors via SCART or HDMI.

and with RF via modulators too


what about DAB radios, should there be warnings with sets for sale that cannnot do "DAB+"
If DAB continues and expands in Ireland, DAB+ capability will be required to receive many independent radio stations digitally here (unless DAB get dumped for a completely different system, which could also happen).

davehey79

Lads i recently had issue with a Samsung Digital TV bought in Tescos around May/June 2009 and got refended.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056111669

watty

Yes. In fact it is mad that they did ordinary DAB at all.

But rollout stalled due to finance.

It's arguable that they should not have started DAB rollout. Maybe should have waited another 5 or 10 years. No existing independent broadcaster or ordinary public is really looking for Digital Radio.
See if DRM+, DAB+ or something else happens. Most countries have scalled back, cancelled or otherwise doing nothing with Digital Radio. Main exceptions is USA Satellite Radio (which has lost Millions) and UK DAB. UK DAB is much less popular than figures suggest as they count each FM + DAB radio as a DAB listener, include Web, DTT and Satellite Listening.

watty

Antenna wrote: »

and with RF via modulators too

I see you put a

kierank01

I don't understand why tesco don't sell freeviewHD tv sets. This would solve all the problems.

watty

They do




In N.I.






Which doesn't get "Freeview HD" till after 2012!

They also have a "Freesat HD" setbox.

Product Dumping? Why would anyone in UK buy the NON-"Freeview HD", "Freeview" only TVs, even if labelled "Full HD" as they will NEVER receive HD. They are SD TVs, and HD Monitors.

Skyuser

Tesco are not in the wrong here. They never advertised the tv as Saorview capable.

STB

Skyuser wrote: »

Tesco are not in the wrong here. They never advertised the tv as Saorview capable.

If Tescos stock products now with "MPEG2" Digital tuners and sell them without signs to say they will not work with DTT then they are mugging the customer. They may not even be aware that they are doing it ! All these Freeview only products are not suitable for here. Same way the non techie customer might actually believe the box that says 40+ Freeview Stations on it, only to go home and plug it and get sound only from the Irish DTT radio channels.

They must stock the right products and not second guess what the customers use will be. The basic tuner should work.

MPEG2 products do not work in this country.

Simple as that "Sky" user.

axer

watty wrote: »

Tesco need to read the law.

They sold these without a disclaimer saying the "digital tuner is incompatible" . The "freeview is not available in Ireland" disclaimer isn't relevant.

Nothing in law that says they have to do that.

watty wrote: »

Unless it works via aerial socket it's not a TV.

The TV will work unless faulty with an aerial socket. If there is no signal to pick up then thats not the sellers problem legally. Would be akin to someone purchasing a TV then driving to a place in Ireland that cannot pick up a signal and then demanding a refund.

watty wrote: »

Tesco has lost cases before. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/pricewatch/2010/0517/1224270540798.html

Yes, when the TV was FAULTY.

watty wrote: »

The description on the package is a contract and applies unless Tesco had printed disclaimer added saying it's a Analogue Only TV (which they can't do after Nov/Dec 2010 without selling it a Monitor and disclaimer that the TV will not be a TV by end 2012).

I'm sure the TV did not say it works with saorview or its compitable components.

watty wrote: »

Sale of Goods Act 1980 applies. A TV should last more than two years. It should work as described (A TV labelled "Digital" sold in Ireland after March 2008 should work on Irish Digital or have label saying "Analogue Only"). Damages under act are for up to 6 years.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1980/en/act/pub/0016/print.html

http://www.saortv.info/2011/01/05/aso-in-less-than-two-years/

Nothing in the sale of goods act about this. No judgements made on it either. This is just speculation backed with no evidence/facts.

watty wrote: »

Small Claims Court
I'm confident that for ANY tv not compatible sold after Dec 2010 you win, unless a disclaimer that it's not a TV in writing on display and each package.

That for any TV with "Digital TV" on packaging sold at least after Nov 2008 and possibly March 2008, without a disclaimer that it's "Analogue Only", you would win.

Products must be "fit for purpose" and as Described. Without a disclaimer it's reasonable that any TV retailed in Ireland with "Digital TV" in description should work in Ireland.

After all in era of start of 625lines they could not sell German (PAL B/G) or French (Secam) 625 line TVs. Or USA NTSC 525 lines.

You have no evidence of this - you speak like you have but in reality you don't - you just have speculation - you should make this clear in your posts.

watty wrote: »

Tesco could have legitimately sold incompatible Digital TVs up till November 2010, if they had put "Analogue Only" labels over all mention of Digital and Freeview. Tesco only added the "no Freeview" notices in 2010, and those are the WRONG disclaimer and are not on the packaging anyway.

I assume they are the correct disclaimer since freeview is technically not available in Ireland. There is no legal obligation (as opposed to moral obligation) for them to put "Analogue Only" labels on the tvs. Caveat emptor!

You might find that some big retailers may take TVs back but they are under no legal obligation to do so unless they claimed something was compatible and it was not. People should chance their arm to try and get refunds but just remember that there is no legal obligation to a refund from what I can see as it is not covered specifically by law - it is far from clear or black and white since the TVs work perfectly for what they are specified to do.

BTW I have submitted a query about this to the NCA but have not heard anything back yet as I would like to see proof that people are entitled to claim a remedy for their tvs not being saorview compatible and you do not seem to have any proof of such.

Pat Gleeson

watty wrote: »

One can only assume they hope to shift incompatible stock without people realising.

That's precisely what they are doing - and a lot lot of people won't realise.

Pat Gleeson

matt-dublin wrote: »

if the TV is not digital capable, i would suggest that at the time of purchase for the OP that this was't a requirement and was an oversight.Again, not really Tesco's problem.

That point is the TV's are clearly marked as Digital capable. Tesco's problem is they are not labelling the TV's to clearly say that they are not Irish Digital capable, thus many people may assume they will work here when they won't. It Tesco's "oversight" as such, and their problem.

watty

axer wrote: »

N
I assume they are the correct disclaimer since freeview is technically not available in Ireland. There is no legal obligation (as opposed to moral obligation) for them to put "Analogue Only" labels on the tvs. Caveat emptor!

Why?

Digital encompasses more than Freeview. The packaging text and logos encompasses Digital separately from freeview.
There ARE Freeview TVs that are entirely compatible.

The Tesco disclaimer is manifestly the wrong one. It's not even entirely accurate.

axer

watty wrote: »

Why?

Digital encompasses more than Freeview. The packaging text and logos encompasses Digital separately from freeview.
There ARE Freeview TVs that are entirely compatible.

The Tesco disclaimer is manifestly the wrong one. It's not even entirely accurate.

I thought the label was "no freeview" - my understanding is you cannot legally get freeview in the rep of Ireland?

Its like buying a digital music player that only plays mp3s but you only have wmas or buying a hd dvd player that plays high definition discs but doesnt play blueray. Maybe under hand to sell them but it aint illegal as long as no claims are made that are not true.

HappyHarry

Skyuser wrote: »

Tesco are not in the wrong here. They never advertised the tv as Saorview capable.

Of course they are. They advertised the TVs as digital ready, it doesn't matter if they specified which system.

They are selling the product they are supposed to be the experts, you can't expect you average Joe to understand all of the technicalities. They trusted Tesco to sell them a TV fit for purpose. If the packaging said receives Digital TV then it should receive it in the area that it was sold!

Tesco were fully aware of the situation with Irish DTT and choose to dump products in the Irish market and choose not inform the consumers that the claims made on the signs and packaging do not apply in the location where the set were being sold.

I wouldn't see Tesco winning this battle in court, it will cost them a packet and proper order. Perhaps they'll think twice about doing this again.

axer

HappyHarry wrote: »

Of course they are. They advertised the TVs as digital ready, it doesn't matter if they specified which system.

Legally they are not wrong. Morally/ethically they are.

HappyHarry wrote: »

They are selling the product they are supposed to be the experts, you can't expect you average Joe to understand all of the technicalities. They trusted Tesco to sell them a TV fit for purpose. If the packaging said receives Digital TV then it should receive it in the area that it was sold!

The tvs also work with analogue which works here perfectly and will work with digital with a set top box - so they are televisions.

HappyHarry wrote: »

Tesco were fully aware of the situation with Irish DTT and choose to dump products in the Irish market and choose not inform the consumers that the claims made on the signs and packaging do not apply in the location where the set were being sold.

I wouldn't see Tesco winning this battle in court, it will cost them a packet and proper order. Perhaps they'll think twice about doing this again.

Its not very clear nor is it black and white. There have been no judgements on this and there appears to be nothing clear in the law about it. Technically the tv works perfectly - There is nothing in the law that says that the TV should be fit for purpose for a specified length of time, the law says the item should be of merchantable quality and fit for purpose at the time of purchase which those tvs are.

watty

axer wrote: »

I thought the label was "no freeview" - my understanding is you cannot legally get freeview in the rep of Ireland?

Its like buying a digital music player that only plays mp3s but you only have wmas or buying a hd dvd player that plays high definition discs but doesnt play blueray. Maybe under hand to sell them but it aint illegal as long as no claims are made that are not true.

Exactly. The packaging ALSO says Digital TV. It's sold in Ireland, thus it's reasonable to assume, that the notice is saying you won't get Freeview channels. The notice doesn't say the Digital feature doesn't work.

Some of the "Freeview" TVs sold by Tesco do work here.

Do you work for Tesco? Your argument would only be valid for mail order / online sales from outside Ireland.

If it's Digital TV sold IN Ireland and won't work on Irish Digital, and has Digital TV plastered all over packaging then it needs a lable saying Incompatible with Irish Digital.
Freeview disclaimer is irrelevant to this. You can't get French TNT here, some of those sets work. You can't get "Freeview HD" here either. But all "Freeview HD" set will do Audio, video and MHEG5. A few will not display EBU teletext on TG4 and TV3 (traditional Teletext), otherwise compatible.

No one is arguing the TVs should get Freeview here.

An HD-DVD player plays DVDs, It has no BluRay logo. It's not advertised as a BluRay Player. The "freeview" Tvs ALSO have DVB logos and Digital TV logos. Some work and some do not work. The duty of the shops was to label the ones that don't work as Incompatible Analogue Only. Pointing out you can't get Freeview is a separate issue and very worthy, but NOTHING to do with whether a TV is compatible here or not for Digital.

axer

watty wrote: »

Exactly. The packaging ALSO says Digital TV. It's sold in Ireland, thus it's reasonable to assume, that the notice is saying you won't get Freeview channels. The notice doesn't say the Digital feature doesn't work.

My point was the "no Freeview"

watty wrote: »

Some of the "Freeview" TVs sold by Tesco do work here.

Do you work for Tesco?

Why? because I say they are morally and ethically wrong to sell the tvs but that there is nothing in law stopping them? There should be a law like apparently in France but the fact is there isn't one. Instead of filling people with the wrong info regarding the law (or at least info that is not backed up in anyway legally other than speculation and unqualified opinion) people should be encouraged to contact their TDs to get a law implemented and educated on what to look for. Filling people with a very unclear law (one that does not back up your assertations) will make them look like idiots straight away.

If you are so sure about the law being so clear on this then why not purchase one of the TVs and then bring the seller to the small claims court for a refund or even get an organisation like the NCA to issue a statement on the matter - while not a court judgement it would still be something but at present you just have speculation and unqualified opinion.

watty

What part don't you get that "Freeview" notices were referring to inability to receive Freeview channels in Ireland and implied NOTHING about the Digital Compatibility.

I can't purchase one last year. So your example is flawed.

Also in every case I know there has been no need to go to court. The Retailer has refunded or replaced.

I HAVE NEVER EVER said that it was illegal to sell incompatible TVs. But the Sale of Goods act is clear, the packaging claims form part of the contract between Retailer and Customer.

Why did they not put labels saying "Analogue only, Incompatible with Irish TV"? They could easily have been doing this since summer 2008. Or even "Sold as Analogue TV, May not be compatible with Irish TV", on Every TV package that had Digital on it.

EVERY post you are misrepresenting what the Shop's Disclaimer was and what I'm saying. Why?

axer

watty wrote: »

What part don't you get that "Freeview" notices were referring to inability to receive Freeview channels in Ireland and implied NOTHING about the Digital Compatibility.

Exactly so the notices are correct, the tv's cannot pick up freeview here. That was all my point was - you said the stickers were inaccurate - maybe you meant that they did not go far enough.

watty wrote: »

I can't purchase one last year. So your example is flawed.

can't buy one what?

watty wrote: »

Also in every case I know there has been no need to go to court. The Retailer has refunded or replaced.

Just because it the retailer refunded does not mean that they legally had to refund. I think they should morally/ethically refund if they misled in any way but I don't see legally why they would have to refund. My problem with your posts is that you are quoting law to back you up that does not seem to have any relevance nor has even been tested to back up your claims which are just speculation and unqualified opinion.

Turbulent Bill

Good debate folks (for the most part!). I had a look at the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 (Section 10), part of which states:

"13.—(1) Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that the goods shall correspond with the description; and if the sale be by sample as well as by description, it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods corresponds with the sample if the goods do not also correspond with the description.

(2) A sale of goods shall not be prevented from being a sale by description by reason only that, being exposed for sale, they are selected by the buyer.

(3) A reference to goods on a label or other descriptive matter accompanying goods exposed for sale may constitute or form part of a description."

The key phrase as I see it is "implied condition", and whether a judge would interpret the "Digital" labelling (of whatever form) as implying Irish DTT compatability. This seems to be a gray area - Tesco aren't strictly liable as Saorview isn't mentioned, but neither are they off the hook for advertising the TVs as "digital". I think it would come down to the judge's take on case(s), if they even got to court.

As a disclaimer, I've no legal background, just my 2c.

The Cush

Two more recent pieces of legislation may also apply here, the 1999 EU Directive and the 2003 SI which gave effect to the Directive in Irish Law.

watty

From The Cush http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/si/0011.html

(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), these Regulations are in addition to, and not in substitution for, any other enactment relating to the sale of goods or the terms of contracts concluded with consumers, and in particular —


(a) the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Acts 1893 and 1980,


and


(b) the European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulations 1995 ( S.I. No. 27 of 1995 ).


(2) In particular, Regulation 4 is in addition to, and not in substitution for, a provision of any other enactment that provides that a consumer shall not be deprived, by virtue of a choice of the kind mentioned in that Regulation, of the protection afforded by any enactment.

axer

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

The key phrase as I see it is "implied condition", and whether a judge would interpret the "Digital" labelling (of whatever form) as implying Irish DTT compatability. This seems to be a gray area - Tesco aren't strictly liable as Saorview isn't mentioned, but neither are they off the hook for advertising the TVs as "digital". I think it would come down to the judge's take on case(s), if they even got to court.

As a disclaimer, I've no legal background, just my 2c.

Yes, a very gray area indeed. The TVs are digital but the the TV does not support the compression and other technologies that saorview uses. It is far from clear imo and would be a tough fight for any consumer to win.

watty

axer wrote: »

Yes, a very gray area indeed. The TVs are digital but the the TV does not support the compression and other technologies that saorview uses. It is far from clear imo and would be a tough fight for any consumer to win.

Wrong. A tough fight for Retailer to win. Government warned them in 2008 exactly about this. They could easily and cheaply added simple, clear additional labels.

Why did they not?

axer

The Cush wrote: »

Two more recent pieces of legislation may also apply here, the 1999 EU Directive and the 2003 SI which gave effect to the Directive in Irish Law.

Yes but they don't really add anything since the issue really comes down to the description of the TV and the formation of the sales contract. The TV is described as digital which it is and supports freeview which it does. Was there an implied condition as to the need for saorview compatibility? A TV that can pick up television signals is a TV whether there are signals to be picked up or not and at the moment the tv has signal to pick up - so it cannot be argued that it is not a TV. It will be tough for consumers to prove that there was an implied condition of their sales contract with the seller that it would support saorview since the TV can pick up signals no problem at the time of sale and for a fairly long period afterwards until a third party stopped sending the signals.

Pat Gleeson

axer wrote: »

It is far from clear imo and would be a tough fight for any consumer to win.

They almost certainly would win, believe me. Consumer law is very clear and strict about misrepresentation and how descriptions are implied.

There are grey areas in consumer law for sure. Let me give you an example: TV manufacturer's 1 year warranties have no bearing in a dispute between a retailer and a consumer. The contract is between those two parties, and the length of time a TV should work is not by any means set in stone - a 'reasonable time' is what consumer affairs state. The same agency are aware of the current situation you can be sure.

The key point here is TV's are being sold as Irish Digital ready when they are not - IMO consumer affairs will proceed on that basis.

axer

watty wrote: »

Wrong. A tough fight for Retailer to win. Government warned them in 2008 exactly about this. They could easily and cheaply added simple, clear additional labels.

A warning has no legal standing. The government should have legislated with regards this if they wanted conformity.

watty wrote: »

Why did they not?

Probably for underhand reasons but underhand does not mean something is actually illegal.

You see I am not disputing that it is immoral or unethical - all I am saying is there is no compelling evidence that it is illegal and until there is a judgement one way or another we cannot speculate that the law is clear on this matter when it is far from so.

It will ultimately come down to a judge to decide and I would be surprised if they decided that after 2 years of usage that the consumer should be entitled to a refund or even an exchange just because a third party changed their system. People will, in my opinion, be just told to purchase a set top box. Anyone know how much these retail for?

I think the most guilty party here is RTE for there bad supply of information. Ever since the specifications were finalised they should have had constant advertisements on TV warning people that there are only specific models certified to work with saorview and that freeview etc tvs will not necessarily work with their new system.

axer

Pat Gleeson wrote: »

They almost certainly would win, believe me. Consumer law is very clear and strict about misrepresentation and how descriptions are implied.

But the descriptions on those tvs are correct - it is the consumer's ignorance of what description they need for saorview that is the issue. Consumer law is far from clear and strict about this since it is not a typical scenario i.e. where a TV can pick up signal because signal is available and then 2 years later a third party turns off the signal thus the TV no longer can pick it up even though it has the capability to do so and it is not faulty. Far from clear in law.

Pat Gleeson wrote: »

There are grey areas in consumer law for sure. Let me give you an example: TV manufacturer's 1 year warranties have no bearing in a dispute between a retailer and a consumer.

That is a black and white area in consumer law

Pat Gleeson wrote: »

The contract is between those two parties

That is black and white foundational contract law.

Pat Gleeson wrote: »

and the length of time a TV should work is not by any means set in stone - a 'reasonable time' is what consumer affairs state.

This is a gray area alright that ultimately comes down to a judge if negotiations between consumer and seller fail.

Pat Gleeson wrote: »

The key point here is TV's are being sold as Irish Digital ready when they are not - IMO consumer affairs will proceed on that basis.

But they are not being sold as Irish Digital ready - if they were then then a consumer would have the right to rescind the contract instantly for breach of a condition. The TVs have "Freeview" or "Digital" - my understanding is none of them say "Irish digital ready". If they did, and I have not checked every possible tv on sale in every shop, then the consumer would have complete right to redress.

watty

What TV ever had "Irish Colour Ready" or Irish Analogue Compatible. People mostly didn't sell incompatible TVs. You assumed if the TV was in a Retail Shop it did what it said on the box.

Your view is very narrow.

It was SIMPLE to stick a label going forward from Summer 2008 saying
"Analogue only, Incompatible with Irish Digital TV". Or even "Sold as Analogue TV, May not be compatible with Irish Digital TV", on Every TV package that had Digital on it.

Why are you not answering this, axer?

The Government advised Retailers in March 2008 to do this.

Pat Gleeson

axer wrote: »

my understanding is none of them say "Irish digital ready".

They don't say they're not Irish digital TV ready either - that's the point.

BTW, why did you break up my quote ? The grey area point of my post was at the end of the example: 'a reasonable time'.

axer

watty wrote: »

What TV ever had "Irish Colour Ready" or Irish Analogue Compatible. People mostly didn't sell incompatible TVs. You assumed if the TV was in a Retail Shop it did what it said on the box.

It usually says on tvs that they can receive uhf/vhf etc. The TVs are fully compatible with with current Irish Television broadcasting system.

watty wrote: »

Your view is very narrow.

I am taking my view on the law, you are taking it on morals/ethics and then throwing in the law on top when it at best is far from clear on the situation.

axer

watty wrote: »

It was SIMPLE to stick a label going forward from Summer 2008 saying
"Analogue only, Incompatible with Irish TV". Or even "Sold as Analogue TV, May not be compatible with Irish TV", on Every TV package that had Digital on it.

Why are you not answering this, axer?

The Government advised Retailers in March 2008 to do this.

It is simple but my point has been that there was no legal obligation to do. Any government warning has no legal implications.

Why do you keep arguing on the side of morals like the sticker thing above when you know there was no legal obligation on them to put stickers on it. I agree from a moral/ethical point of view - I have always made this clear, I am just disagreeing (or at best saying the law is far from clear on this issue and my unqualified opinion is there is no evidence that consumers are legally entitled to redress when their TV no longer has an analogue signal to pick up) from a legal point of view.

axer

Pat Gleeson wrote: »

They don't say they're not Irish digital TV ready either - that's the point.

So you are saying lack of information is the same as giving the incorrect information? The TVs can pick up digital signals - there no denying that thus they are labeled digital. They also have no problem picking up RTE et al when purchased and at least for a significant period of time afterwards.

Pat Gleeson wrote: »

BTW, why did you break up my quote ? The grey area point of my post was at the end of the example: 'a reasonable time'.

a reasonable time does not apply to the parts above it. You are trying to lump all those things together e.g. guarantees etc along with that there are no time definitions and saying they are all grey areas just because the last part of your point is so I broke it down to highlight that the ONLY part that is a grey area the the part about how long something should last. The rest is black and white in consumer and contractual law.

Turbulent Bill

axer wrote: »

But the descriptions on those tvs are correct - it is the consumer's ignorance of what description they need for saorview that is the issue. Consumer law is far from clear and strict about this since it is not a typical scenario i.e. where a TV can pick up signal because signal is available and then 2 years later a third party turns off the signal thus the TV no longer can pick it up even though it has the capability to do so and it is not faulty. Far from clear in law.

As UK products their descriptions are correct, but in an Irish context it's not clear at all what their value is, and the onus is/was on Tesco Ireland to advertise it correctly for the market it's sold in. I think any judge would take a dim view of a large retailer selling a "digital" TV (and presumably highlighting it as superior to the analogue alternatives) to Joe Soap without fully disclosing its limitations. The introduction of Saorview should have been common knowledge to retailers even in 2009.

That said, the longer someone goes without looking for a refund/replacement, the worse their case.

watty

CEDA was specifically warned by Governemt in March 2008!

Pat Gleeson

axer wrote: »

a reasonable time does not apply to the parts above it. You are trying to lump all those things together.

I'm not trying to lump anything together. It was simply one example of a dispute that happens every day, and a grey area of consumer law - and grey area or no, how powerful that law is to consumers - if they use it.

It will be interesting to see how this develops over that next few months as people become more aware of DTT when officially launched. We can agree to disagree anyway can't we ? :-)