Consumer rights

ssmith6287

Hi

Can someone please highlight the exact line where it says people are entitled to these massive warranties on products. Some of the things on this forum really pi55es me off. "Oh my tv is 5 years old and stopped working, oh thats the shops fault.." Would love to just see the hard copy of where it gives these remarks that shops and manufacturers are to blaim the whole time

jor el

It doesn't, as is constantly pointed out here. All products must be fit for the purpose they are sold for, and last a reasonable time. No specific time limits are mentioned for any product.

dudara

There isn't a hard copy to that effect. What you do know is this...

(a) Your contract of purchase is with the retailer. Therefore, that's where you go first.

(b) The law states that

• Goods must be of merchantable quality – goods should be of reasonable quality taking into account what they are meant to do, their durability and their price
• Goods must be fit for their purpose – they must do what they are reasonably expected to do
• Goods must be as described - the buyer must not be mislead into buying something by the description of goods or services given orally by a salesperson or an advertisement.

Now note the first two comments - they reference durability and what the item can be reasonably expected to do. There is no precise timeframe set out because you can't cover everything. Every case has to be assessed on it's own merits.

So, let's say it's 5 years after I purchase a TV - the question to be asked is "Is it reasonable that this TV should fail after 5 years? (assuming no unusual treatment i.e. normal usage).

ssmith6287

Yeah but thats your opinion. Unless a manufacturer states otherwise do you not have a 12 month warranty?

dudara

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Yeah but thats your opinion.

What exactly is my opinion? That statement is a bit vague to me.

Unless a manufacturer states otherwise do you not have a 12 month warranty?

The warranty is offered by the manufacturer. It will vary from product to product. It is in addition to your statutory rights and does not supercede them.

NWPat

The offer of a warranty does not remove your statutory rights.

axer

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Yeah but thats your opinion. Unless a manufacturer states otherwise do you not have a 12 month warranty?

What you are talking about is a manufacturers guarantee.

This is dealty with under the sale of goods act... 1980
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1980/en/act/pub/0016/print.html#sec18
Where it states that the guarantee cannot exclude or limit the rights of the buyer.

ssmith6287

Its your opinion as to what is the amount of time?

I love the statitory rights, they're so vague!! The manufacturer has given you a warranty of 12 months, most places will give you the option to buy an extended warranty. Now what gives you the right to a new tv, if you are outside the warranty period, you were silly enough to not purchase extra cover, and now you're cribbing that a part has become faulty. Surely thats a case of tough sh1t.

Now I'm not sticking up for retailers but I have seen some ridiculous cases were a customer would come in with something that has developed a fault, they were talking to "the guy for the rights place" (this magic man) who has told them well you should expect to get x amount of years and you have a 6 year warranty, when in fact you don't.

I bought a laptop from dell for €600, it broke down after 2 years, Its not covered by warranty, accept it. I was sick i dint buy their extended warranty, but hey I learned a lesson and now buy it with evrything within reason, and its worth evry cent.

I just don't like the word "entitled", most people are clueless and basically take the pi55

axer

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Its your opinion as to what is the amount of time?

The buyer and seller can try and negotiate first but if that fails then its ultimately a judge's decision.

ssmith6287 wrote: »

I love the statitory rights, they're so vague!! The manufacturer has given you a warranty of 12 months, most places will give you the option to buy an extended warranty. Now what gives you the right to a new tv, if you are outside the warranty period, you were silly enough to not purchase extra cover, and now you're cribbing that a part has become faulty. Surely thats a case of tough sh1t.

Under law its not tough sh!t so thats all that matters no matter what people's opinions are. Basically people should expect things to be of proper quality (taking into account price and other relevant factors). If its not of that quality then its only fair for the seller to remedy the situation. You dont need insurance to guarantee you get what you paid for.

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Now I'm not sticking up for retailers but I have seen some ridiculous cases were a customer would come in with something that has developed a fault, they were talking to "the guy for the rights place" (this magic man) who has told them well you should expect to get x amount of years and you have a 6 year warranty, when in fact you don't.

Many people think this is a blanket 6 year warranty which is incorrect. Misuse/abuse of a product means it would be very difficult to make a claim. It also depends on the price and other factors such as comparing to similiar goods etc. as to how long a product should last. The reason why there are no hard fast time lines is because every situation is completely different.

ssmith6287 wrote: »

I bought a laptop from dell for €600, it broke down after 2 years, Its not covered by warranty, accept it. I was sick i dint buy their extended warranty, but hey I learned a lesson and now buy it with evrything within reason, and its worth evry cent.

If the reason it broke was due to a faulty part then you should have looked for a remedy under law but that is your choice. The law is there to protect consumers - it is reasonable and fair but nobody if forced to use it.

ssmith6287 wrote: »

I just don't like the word "entitled", most people are clueless and basically take the pi55

People are entitled to redress if they meet the conditions laid out by law.

jor el

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Its your opinion as to what is the amount of time?

It's up to the consumer and seller to come to an agreement between them as to what is reasonable, for any particular product or case. If they can't, the case can be referred to a judge in the Small Claims Court, and the judge will make the decision. Either party is free to argue what is the reasonable time, in their opinion. There is no time limit or guarantee in law. The 6 year limit comes from the statute of limitations in a contract, which means that after 6 years you would have no legal recourse. It does not mean that you have recourse for 6 years though.

ssmith6287 wrote: »

I bought a laptop from dell for €600, it broke down after 2 years, Its not covered by warranty, accept it. I was sick i dint buy their extended warranty, but hey I learned a lesson and now buy it with evrything within reason, and its worth evry cent.

Generally speaking, extended warranties (more often than not are actually an insurance policy, not a warranty) are not worth the money paid for them. It depends on the type of policy being bought, and what is covered. This varies from supplier to supplier, but in now way can you say they are all worth every cent.

ssmith6287 wrote: »

I just don't like the word "entitled", most people are clueless and basically take the pi55

Statutory entitlements may entitle you to more than the manufacturer's warranty, or it may not. Most people probably aren't aware that they have any entitlements beyond the manufacturer's warranty, and those that do are often confused as to what entitlements they have. In the majority of cases that I've ever heard of, the manufacturer and retailer deny all claims of entitlement that go beyond the warranty.

Each product and case must be looked at individually, and in some cases an extended warranty may well be a good move. Extended warranties give specific time frames, and specific details of what is and isn't covered. The law does not do this, and with good reason.

ssmith6287

So what your saying is I should basically have a 10 year warranty on my €600 tv but not on my €300.... now thats ridiculous.

Good for one not for the other. The 6 year rule is the manufacturer must stock parts if somethiing fails, they don't have to repair, replace, or refund.

These "rights" are to grey. The amount of money something costs shouldnt effect your warranty. Your contract is with the shop, yes? At the bottom of your invoice/receipt it says how long your warranty is, if you accept this then you take it. You cant decide after 5 years that "Oh, this tv has stopped working, I think I should get a refund" Thats like me taking a 6 month contract at work, After 6 months my job has ended and I stop getting paid. So I go to court for unlawful dismissal.

People really need to get over themselves and stop trying to take a moral high ground and be realistic

ssmith6287

"Generally speaking, extended warranties (more often than not are actually an insurance policy, not a warranty) are not worth the money paid for them. It depends on the type of policy being bought, and what is covered. This varies from supplier to supplier, but in now way can you say they are all worth every cent."

No an extended warranty is an extension of your warranty, simple. You damage the product its your own fault. I bought my laptop with a 2 year extended warranty. Comletely crashed after 2 years, brought it back. Fair enough had to wait I think 2 weeks but it was replaced under the extended warranty to a slightly better spec laptop, First thing I did "how much is it for a 2year extended warranty"

28064212

ssmith6287 wrote: »

No an extended warranty is an extension of your warranty, simple. You damage the product its your own fault. I bought my laptop with a 2 year extended warranty. Comletely crashed after 2 years, brought it back. Fair enough had to wait I think 2 weeks but it was replaced under the extended warranty to a slightly better spec laptop, First thing I did "how much is it for a 2year extended warranty"

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what a warranty is. It's an extra agreement between you and either the manufacturer or the store. A warranty is offered on top of the statutory rights. There is no 'implied' warranty if no warranty is offered. Your statutory rights have nothing to do with warranties

If you bought a TV which came with a warranty of 30 days (or no warranty at all), and it broke down after 35 days, would you just say "F*ck it, it's out of warranty"?

axer

ssmith6287 wrote: »

So what your saying is I should basically have a 10 year warranty on my €600 tv but not on my €300.... now thats ridiculous.

Do you think your €600 or €300 tvs should be reasonably expected to last 10 years?

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Good for one not for the other. The 6 year rule is the manufacturer must stock parts if somethiing fails, they don't have to repair, replace, or refund.

not sure what you mean here?

ssmith6287 wrote: »

These "rights" are to grey. The amount of money something costs shouldnt effect your warranty. Your contract is with the shop, yes? At the bottom of your invoice/receipt it says how long your warranty is, if you accept this then you take it. You cant decide after 5 years that "Oh, this tv has stopped working, I think I should get a refund" Thats like me taking a 6 month contract at work, After 6 months my job has ended and I stop getting paid. So I go to court for unlawful dismissal.

Except you didnt expect your job to last longer than 6 months. When you purchase a tv for example you do expect it to last longer. Would you be willing to pay €600 for a new tv every 6 months? or even every year?

ssmith6287 wrote: »

People really need to get over themselves and stop trying to take a moral high ground and be realistic

Step back here and realise that you are the ones bringing in what you think morals wise. The law is there already - thats the way it is - morals dont come into it.

axer

ssmith6287 wrote: »

No an extended warranty is an extension of your warranty, simple.

No it is insurance. People are already covered for faults etc.

ssmith6287 wrote: »

You damage the product its your own fault. I bought my laptop with a 2 year extended warranty. Comletely crashed after 2 years, brought it back. Fair enough had to wait I think 2 weeks but it was replaced under the extended warranty to a slightly better spec laptop, First thing I did "how much is it for a 2year extended warranty"

Yes, if you damage it then it is your fault and the law wont help you there - thats where insurance, if taken out, comes into action but insurance is not necessary for faults that are not your own fault - get it?

ssmith6287

Its not insurance, hence if your gearbox goes on your new car your warranty will cover it not your insurance.

Im not saying that I expect it to work for just 6 months but if your using price as an indication for working life then its silly. My tv I paid 2k for 2.5 years ago by todays standard is worth about 300€ new, How much of a comeback do I have if it breaks down next year when its worth next to nothing.

I just don't think people appreciate depreciation and once they paid 1000€ for something then its always worth €1000, but who makes the valuation.

Its just too grey

Listen I understand you can get annoyed but i'm reading other threads on here and I'm just thinking how thick some people are and how unrealistic peoples expectations are.

Definition of warranty:
a written guarantee given to the purchaser of a new appliance, automobile, or other item by the manufacturer or dealer, usually specifying that the manufacturer will make any repairs or replace defective parts free of charge for a stated period of time.

Outside of that, tough!

ssmith6287, didn't you say before you worked in Harvey Norman?

To be honest, as silly as this may sound, your posts in this whole thread seem to telling people to buy warranties because they're not otherwise covered.

28064212

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Its not insurance, hence if your gearbox goes on your new car your warranty will cover it not your insurance.

No, your statutory rights cover it. If there is a warranty with it, you can claim under that as it's normally faster and easier

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Im not saying that I expect it to work for just 6 months but if your using price as an indication for working life then its silly. My tv I paid 2k for 2.5 years ago by todays standard is worth about 300€ new, How much of a comeback do I have if it breaks down next year when its worth next to nothing.

You are the only person who brought up price as an indication for working life

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Definition of warranty:
a written guarantee given to the purchaser of a new appliance, automobile, or other item by the manufacturer or dealer, usually specifying that the manufacturer will make any repairs or replace defective parts free of charge for a stated period of time.

And once again, that is on top of your statutory rights. As in: extra. As in: supplementary to.

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Outside of that, tough!

Outside of that, you can no longer claim under your warranty. You are still entitled to excerise your statutory rights

ssmith6287

used to work there, its been a while though. Thats irrelivent, I'm looking at other threads on here and just making a general feeling known.

I didnt bring up the thing about the price reflecting on lifetime, I think your warranty should be the same whether you spen €10 or €1000.

What i'm giving out about is people saying that they have the right to refund, repair or replace after 4 and 5 years

borderlinemeath

There are a good amount of threads on this forum with people whose electrical equipment has given up after a couple of years and there are a few people who immediately tell them to go the small claims court as they are "entitled" under Irish law and f*ck the retailers guarantee.

It really does depend on the individual item - eg a washing machine that
a)
Is in constant use for a family (say twice a day) that wears out after 5 years - I wouldn't expect any retailer or small claims court to entertain a claim like this.
b)
Is used occasionally (maybe twice a week) for a single person, that stops working after 18 months. This is where you would expect a claim to be made as it's outside the retailer guarantee but barely used.

The same can be said for most appliances - my sister puts on the TV when she wakes up in the morning and just has it on in the background all day. She's gone through 3 TVs in 6 years.

28064212

ssmith6287 wrote: »

I didnt bring up the thing about the price reflecting on lifetime, I think your warranty should be the same whether you spen €10 or €1000.

Price has nothing to do with it, and you are the only person who has brought it up in this thread

ssmith6287 wrote: »

What i'm giving out about is people saying that they have the right to refund, repair or replace after 4 and 5 years

They do, if it is reasonable to expect the product to last that long.

I don't know why you insist on bringing warranties into the discussion. Warranties are completely and utterly irrelevant to consumer rights

Boggles

ssmith6287 wrote: »

My tv I paid 2k for 2.5 years ago by todays standard is worth about 300€ new, How much of a comeback do I have if it breaks down next year when its worth next to nothing.

It's up to you really to decide what your happy with.

Your entitled to redress under law and in this case a repair would be more than adequate and reasonable, IMO.

As a side note, if you paid €2000 for a television 30 months ago and you can get the exact same spec'd one now for €300, you might have a case for a robbery charge.

axer

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Its not insurance, hence if your gearbox goes on your new car your warranty will cover it not your insurance.

Extended warranties are insurance policys. A manufacturers warranty (this is really a guarantee under law) is not insurance. There is a difference.

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Im not saying that I expect it to work for just 6 months but if your using price as an indication for working life then its silly. My tv I paid 2k for 2.5 years ago by todays standard is worth about 300€ new, How much of a comeback do I have if it breaks down next year when its worth next to nothing.

If it turns out to be a manufacturers fault then the fault is deemed to have existed when you purchased the TV. You may not get a refund (and partial refunds as opposed to full refunds can be awarded too) and you may not get a replacement - you might just be awarded a repair. It depends on the circumstances and what is reasonable (ultimately a judge decides this if negotiations fail).

ssmith6287 wrote: »

I just don't think people appreciate depreciation and once they paid 1000€ for something then its always worth €1000, but who makes the valuation.

This has nothing to do with the worth of the TV. In the case of above I would think it is reasonable to accept a repair of the TV, failing that then a replacement or a partial refund (i.e. to the value of replacing the tv with a similiar spec model which should be cheaper 2.5 years later than the original cost of the broken TV).

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Its just too grey

It would not be possible to legislate for every scenario thus it comes down to what is reasonable. Yes, it can be subjective but most law is not black and white law due to the amount of possible circumstances. Black and white in law is bad imo - grey law is why we have judges.

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Listen I understand you can get annoyed but i'm reading other threads on here and I'm just thinking how thick some people are and how unrealistic peoples expectations are.

Definition of warranty:
a written guarantee given to the purchaser of a new appliance, automobile, or other item by the manufacturer or dealer, usually specifying that the manufacturer will make any repairs or replace defective parts free of charge for a stated period of time.

Outside of that, tough!

Thankfully consumer law does not follow your line of thinking.

Really I dont see the consumer issue here - this is more like a humanities thread since you are trying to argue the morals of the law - not the reality of the law.

ssmith6287

That makes sense now but the general style on this is the people that sold you the product is out to get you, its their fault your tv stopped working, its their fault your microwave broke, so lets bad mouth them all and sue the holes off them till they all shut down and leave us be ....

I know i'm been dramatic but as theat person said, I used to work in retail and it bugged me that people would come in and try to recourgitate to suit them what their statitory rights say. Now I'm reading here, and a guy said he owned the tv for 4 years, it after breaking down. The next guy says go to small claims... Like comon

28064212

ssmith6287 wrote: »

That makes sense now but the general style on this is the people that sold you the product is out to get you, its their fault your tv stopped working, its their fault your microwave broke, so lets bad mouth them all and sue the holes off them till they all shut down and leave us be ....

I know i'm been dramatic but as theat person said, I used to work in retail and it bugged me that people would come in and try to recourgitate to suit them what their statitory rights say. Now I'm reading here, and a guy said he owned the tv for 4 years, it after breaking down. The next guy says go to small claims... Like comon

As opposed to people who state that all you're entitled to is what the shop decides to offer a warranty for? Or that buying extended warranties are a good idea?

axer

28064212 wrote: »

You are the only person who brought up price as an indication for working life

28064212 wrote: »

Price has nothing to do with it, and you are the only person who has brought it up in this thread

I think I brought it up.

Price can be relevant as to how long goods should last. See here:

(3) Goods are of merchantable quality if they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought and as durable as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances, and any reference in this Act to unmerchantable goods shall be construed accordingly.

I would expect a €1000 tv to last longer than a €300 tv all things being equal e.g. same size etc. i.e. some models are cheaper than others and not as reliable as a result.

axer

ssmith6287 wrote: »

I didnt bring up the thing about the price reflecting on lifetime, I think your warranty should be the same whether you spen €10 or €1000.

I dont think it is fair to say that a cheaper model product should be expect to last as long as a more expensive model - when features etc are taken to be the same.

ssmith6287 wrote: »

What i'm giving out about is people saying that they have the right to refund, repair or replace after 4 and 5 years

It is possible to have those rights but it completely depends on the circumstances as to whether it is fair to assume that a fault existed at the time of sale.

28064212

axer wrote: »

I think I brought it up.

Touché, but you certainly didn't suggest that it was a linear scale and a direct reflection of the length of a warranty

axer

ssmith6287 wrote: »

That makes sense now but the general style on this is the people that sold you the product is out to get you, its their fault your tv stopped working, its their fault your microwave broke, so lets bad mouth them all and sue the holes off them till they all shut down and leave us be ....

I am a strong advocate against such behaviour.

ssmith6287 wrote: »

I know i'm been dramatic but as theat person said, I used to work in retail and it bugged me that people would come in and try to recourgitate to suit them what their statitory rights say. Now I'm reading here, and a guy said he owned the tv for 4 years, it after breaking down. The next guy says go to small claims... Like comon

It totally depends on the circumstances involved. I would let such a person know that they may have a fight on their hands depending on what the fault is i.e. is it a fault that could have been caused by misuse/abuse.

axer

28064212 wrote: »

Touché, but you certainly didn't suggest that it was a linear scale and a direct reflection of the length of a warranty

No, I think the OP might have misunderstood that. I should have been more clear with the "if relevant" part.

axer

OP I think your issue is simply explained in that there are chancers and ignorant people all over the place. Both consumers and business reps.

You have consumers that think a business should sing and dance for them and you have businesses that effectively tell you to f off.

In the middle you have reasonable consumers and reasonable business reps who deal with each other and look at the situations and the law in a reasonable manner.

People often forget that those working in shops are regular consumers too.

ssmith6287

Thats a good way of putting it. Like I said I used to work in retail and got it the whole time, the computers would be in a state. Most common "fault" been broken ac connection, eh u broke it!!!

But yeah I see people now when I go into shops and theyre eating the heads off sales staff when 90% of the time the staff are prob following the standard procedure to dealing with problems.

I understand the contract is with the shop but surely there has to come a time e.g a year, when the shop is not bound to the product and if something goes wrong they should deal with the manufacturer direct.
Its near impossible for a staff member to check for wear and tear, and you cant expect manufacturers just to give you free products on a whim that its "faulty".

axer

ssmith6287 wrote: »

But yeah I see people now when I go into shops and theyre eating the heads off sales staff when 90% of the time the staff are prob following the standard procedure to dealing with problems.

Those are ignorant chancers who wouldnt change even if the law was different.

ssmith6287 wrote: »

I understand the contract is with the shop but surely there has to come a time e.g a year, when the shop is not bound to the product and if something goes wrong they should deal with the manufacturer direct.
Its near impossible for a staff member to check for wear and tear, and you cant expect manufacturers just to give you free products on a whim that its "faulty".

The shop is bound to the product for as long as it is reasonable to assume that it should still work. If I was in retail I would change a 30 euro deposit to look at items and if it turns out to be a manufacturers fault the 30 euro is refunded otherwise it is kept. Really I dont know how it would work though as it might not be entirely fair on consumers who have been wrong but might not have much money so dont think I could implement such a policy.

The fact is that businesses have to take the fact that they could be stung by returns as part of the business and incorporate it into their profit margins.

vinniew09

axer wrote: »

I think I brought it up.

Price can be relevant as to how long goods should last. See here:
I would expect a €1000 tv to last longer than a €300 tv all things being equal e.g. same size etc. i.e. some models are cheaper than others and not as reliable as a result.

i think the mindframe is complety backwards here. with tvs unlike the old CRT you are not paying for screen size,lifespan and durability,its picture quality.
ie 50" plazmas can be got for what 600-700 quid.
yet a 32"led 100hz tv will cost the same price bracket if not more. the more you spend on a tv the better the picture quality is ie full hd,100hz,200hz....stronger colours, 3d ready.bla bla bla. i think if anyone was to look at the way tvs are put together nowadays and compare them to the CRT's anyone should realise there gonna get the same lifespan out of a lCD LED plazma etc as you would out of a CRT.very same point with laptops the amount of people who pressume just because they spend 1500 on a laptop does not garentee them that they will have it for x amount of years.u pay for preformance not lifespan and durability

axer

vinniew09 wrote: »

i think the mindframe is complety backwards here. with tvs unlike the old CRT you are not paying for screen size,lifespan and durability,its picture quality.
ie 50" plazmas can be got for what 600-700 quid.
yet a 32"led 100hz tv will cost the same price bracket if not more. the more you spend on a tv the better the picture quality is ie full hd,100hz,200hz....stronger colours, 3d ready.bla bla bla. i think if anyone was to look at the way tvs are put together nowadays and compare them to the CRT's anyone should realise there gonna get the same lifespan out of a lCD LED plazma etc as you would out of a CRT.very same point with laptops the amount of people who pressume just because they spend 1500 on a laptop does not garentee them that they will have it for x amount of years.u pay for preformance not lifespan and durability

You must have misread my post i.e. all things being equal then price may be relevant.

vinniew09

ya i did my bad...

Jumpy

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Thats a good way of putting it. Like I said I used to work in retail and got it the whole time, the computers would be in a state. Most common "fault" been broken ac connection, eh u broke it!!!

But yeah I see people now when I go into shops and theyre eating the heads off sales staff when 90% of the time the staff are prob following the standard procedure to dealing with problems.

So you previously working in HN is not irrelevant as you previously stated.

You are just pissed that you used to have to follow statutory rules.

HN came to Europe. They accepted these terms by trading here.

You as a representative (previously) were therefore required to follow those directives.

It was not your place as floor sales to approve or deny a request under those directives.

axer

Jumpy wrote: »

So you previously working in HN is not irrelevant as you previously stated.

You are just pissed that you used to have to follow statutory rules.

HN came to Europe. They accepted these terms by trading here.

You as a representative (previously) were therefore required to follow those directives.

It was not your place as floor sales to approve or deny a request under those directives.

I think the issue the op is more highlighting is unreasonable consumers that break something and still want to be looked after e.g. like the example of a power connection breaking when it is clear the that this is not a manufacturing fault but just someone broke it. I would assume then store staff should say the issue is clear that it was caused by abuse/misuse and refuse to remedy it.

The further from that we stray (i.e. from obvious issues) the lines become more blurred though which is where the real problem lies. Then the area of responsibility may become more blurred too but many consumers think it is clear in law all the same when it may not be. I think this is where the OP has the issue in that it seems like businesses are still 100% responsible even though it may not be clear that a problem was caused because the item was not of merchantible quality but may have been because of abuse or misuse e.g. someone has a bad power supply in their house that keeps cutting or otherwise, next the tv stops working, its not obvious that this was caused by the bad power (which would be the consumer's responsibility) so the business still has to resolve the issue.

Jumpy

If the AC connection was broken who is to say the plastic used was of bad quality and is a known issue?

The salesperson isnt google. It isnt up to a floor salesperson to state "you broke it".

The item should have been accepted, investigated and then refused if its clear that it is a user issue.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I think the whole point of the OP has been twisted out off all recognition. The point was that many customers unreasonably expect items guaranteed when they broke them or they have had a reasonable life. It, of couse, depends on the item and how old it is but he is right to say that many people here seem unreasonable and expect unrealistic life expectancy from items.

ShooterSF

Eason Future Blood wrote: »

I think the whole point of the OP has been twisted out off all recognition. The point was that many customers unreasonably expect items guaranteed when they broke them or they have had a reasonable life. It, of couse, depends on the item and how old it is but he is right to say that many people here seem unreasonable and expect unrealistic life expectancy from items.

That's a fair point but it's not the OP's only point. He also made claims that people should accept a warranty as if it's an agreed replacement for statutory rights and that people should buy extended warranties which are sometimes no better than your legal entitlements anyway, you're simply paying a retailer to acknowledge them.

vinniew09

as long as the laptop is in warrenty a charger should be posted...for what ever reason all chargers for laptops are covered under any manufacturers or extended warrenty(provided its not damaged where it connects to the laptop)
Fact of the matter is people do and will always chance their arms and say its your fault.theirs a thread relating to a canon camera where the guy openly said he had dropped the camera and who was advised by those on boards to bring it back and say it was like that when he opened it.the guy being an honest person happlily said 'do you know what i dropped it, its my fault,il buy a knew one.sadly not everyone is like that
iv had so many people come in and say that its the cameras fault that their screen as a crack or the lens is damaged(.not that its damaged because it was more than likely at the bottom of your bag with no camera case)i cant prove it,i can only send it away to those that can.
worse thing to do is start to pointing the finger back at the customer stating you broke it yourself,you can simply just send it away and see if the manufacturers agree that it was and if wasn't a manufacturers fault the customer will have a statment saying they can have it back in the same condition or they can pay for the repair.small claims wont want to hear what the consumer has to say

pleasant Co.

vinniew09 wrote: »

theirs a thread relating to a canon camera where the guy openly said he had dropped the camera and who was advised by those on boards to bring it back

Could you link? sounds familiar all right but i'd like to see those comments.

borderlinemeath

axer wrote: »

I think the issue the op is more highlighting is unreasonable consumers that break something and still want to be looked after e.g. like the example of a power connection breaking when it is clear the that this is not a manufacturing fault but just someone broke it. I would assume then store staff should say the issue is clear that it was caused by abuse/misuse and refuse to remedy it.

axer wrote: »

The further from that we stray (i.e. from obvious issues) the lines become more blurred though which is where the real problem lies. Then the area of responsibility may become more blurred too but many consumers think it is clear in law all the same when it may not be. I think this is where the OP has the issue in that it seems like businesses are still 100% responsible even though it may not be clear that a problem was caused because the item was not of merchantible quality but may have been because of abuse or misuse e.g. someone has a bad power supply in their house that keeps cutting or otherwise, next the tv stops working, its not obvious that this was caused by the bad power (which would be the consumer's responsibility) so the business still has to resolve the issue.

Having stood on the front line of retail for many years - dealing with these type of consumers is a nightmare.

For the past few years I sold nursery and baby items and people expect that it's ok to abuse a buggy to the hilt and bring it back on the last week of it's guarantee and be handed a new one.

examples - punctures on tyres - not covered - yet people expect to be given free tubes and tyres.

frame broken - yet they come in with the airline sticker still stuck to it. Not the retailers problem if its had 20 suitcases stacked on top of it and been "handled" by Servisair or the like.

Wheels worn down on the back of the buggy - and think it's a manufacturing fault when theres 10 bags of shopping hanging out of the handles.

Trying to argue with people who threaten you with all sorts of litigation as its the retailer that's "putting my baby in danger in a faulty buggy" is not fun. And telling them that they've been misusing it? Parents never misuse their buggy, sure they've paid you hundreds for it, no they fold it and unfold it properly, clean it regularly, don't wallop the wheels off footpaths, don't let their child climb in and out on their own. You may as well insult their child rather than tell them they've misused it.

Boggles

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Having stood on the front line of retail for many years - dealing with these type of consumers is a nightmare.

For the past few years I sold nursery and baby items and people expect that it's ok to abuse a buggy to the hilt and bring it back on the last week of it's guarantee and be handed a new one.

examples - punctures on tyres - not covered - yet people expect to be given free tubes and tyres.

frame broken - yet they come in with the airline sticker still stuck to it. Not the retailers problem if its had 20 suitcases stacked on top of it and been "handled" by Servisair or the like.

Wheels worn down on the back of the buggy - and think it's a manufacturing fault when theres 10 bags of shopping hanging out of the handles.

Trying to argue with people who threaten you with all sorts of litigation as its the retailer that's "putting my baby in danger in a faulty buggy" is not fun. And telling them that they've been misusing it? Parents never misuse their buggy, sure they've paid you hundreds for it, no they fold it and unfold it properly, clean it regularly, don't wallop the wheels off footpaths, don't let their child climb in and out on their own. You may as well insult their child rather than tell them they've misused it.

But like has been said they are morons and chancers.

No retail staff should ever put up with abuse or threatening behaviour, and if that was to happen should ask them to leave, your well within rights.

One suggestion though, why not in conjunction with the NCA draw up a pamphlet on what rights a consumer has when they buy products from your store, you can distribute the pamphlet with each purchase or use it as a proactive tool if someone comes in demanding redress their not entitled to. Obviously the pamphlet should be clear, concise, honest and accurate, not like the terms and conditions that have become the norm, which are set in font type 1 and requires the hubble telescope pointed backwards and a law degree to read them.

Your still going to get a fair share of loons, but that's a society problem more than a consumer issue.

borderlinemeath

Boggles wrote: »

But like has been said they are morons and chancers.

No retail staff should ever put up with abuse or threatening behaviour, and if that was to happen should ask them to leave, your well within rights.

One suggestion though, why not in conjunction with the NCA draw up a pamphlet on what rights a consumer has when they buy products from your store, you can distribute the pamphlet with each purchase or use it as a proactive tool if someone comes in demanding redress their not entitled to. Obviously the pamphlet should be clear, concise, honest and accurate, not like the terms and conditions that have become the norm, which are set in font type 1 and requires the hubble telescope pointed backwards and a law degree to read them.

Your still going to get a fair share of loons, but that's a society problem more than a consumer issue.

That has been in place for some time, a booklet issued with their receipt with what's covered and whats not. And even with this getting them to bring in the receipt/booklet when they have a problem for proof of purchase is another matter.

But..consumer perception is the problem - if they think that their product has developed a fault, then it must be manufacturing rather than the fact that they abused it.

Thankfully I don't work in this industry any more, I have never had to deal with as many rude, obnoxious customers who use their child as a tool to try and get their own way. Thankfully there were just as many nice customers who made up for them.

vinniew09

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056128321&highlight=currys+world

pleasant Co.

vinniew09 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056128321&highlight=currys+world

Thanks, not the one I was thinking of at all, what the fuck is wrong with some people, absolute scum.

Jumpy

Mactard wrote: »

Thanks, not the one I was thinking of at all, what the fuck is wrong with some people, absolute scum.

Thats not a nice thing to say about Declan.

pleasant Co.

Jumpy wrote: »

Thats not a nice thing to say about Declan.

To be absolutely clear, as chances are someone will take your post seriously, I was not talking about Declan.

Jumpy

Mactard wrote: »

To be absolutely clear, as chances are someone will take your post seriously, I was not talking about Declan.

Someone would have to be pretty thick to do that to be fair