JVC Video Camera Out of Warranty - who is liable?

Lawbag_2

I bought a JVC video camera in December 2002, and have been using it on and off since then. It came with the usual manufacturers 1 year warranty, but not the extended warranty when we bought it from Currys/Comet.

Well sods law, it has stopped working, and the error message it gives on the display screen is mentioned in the trouble shooting guide, the solution is to return it to a JVC authorised dealer for repair.

Currys/Comet initially didnt want to touch it because (a) it was out of warranty and (b) it did have their mastercare warranty either. I insisted they repair it for which I was happy-ish to pay for.

I got a phone call from them, a week after I dropped it off, saying they wanted £ 105 to begin investigative diagnosis of them problem, and once repairs were completed, the additional repair costs.

Now Im no technician, but I could expect repair costs to be at least a further £ 100 plus, meaning the repair is more than the value of the camera, even considering its 3 year age.

So who is liable, who pays for the repairs etc...

I thought JVC had a duty to repair an item, even out of warranty, as I recall somewhere learning that you would expect a £350 camera to last more than 3 years. The similar argument went that by spending say £ 400 on a television you would expect it to last a certain reasonable length of time.

Thoughts, advice, criticism appreciated.......

MODERATORS - Apologies if this is in the wrong section, please move as required

grumbler

3 years is a long time, but ...

See Any Lawyers About? Question About The Sale Of Goods Act thread ...

ollywood68

Lawbag, i am very amused by your posting. You expect a company that sold you a product to fix it for free, forever. You're having a laugh aren't you????? If it breaks in the first 6 months, the company must prove that the fault wasnt in the product when you bought. For the next six months, you have to prove that it was faulty when you bought it and after a period of a year, NOTHING. Some companies offer good will with their products , if they are a reputable make, but they are under no obligation to fix it. The manufactures never made a contract with you, yours was with the shop, so you have little comback with them. 3 years of onwership, basically means TOUGH. It was your choice not to take out an extended (normally rip off) warranty. Go buy another one. or change the battery, it may be run down

grumbler

ollywood68 wrote:

... i am very amused ... You're having a laugh aren't you?????... after a period of a year, NOTHING. ... 3 years of onwership, basically means TOUGH. ...

Well, if you are an expert, could you comment this, please?:

Under the Sale of Goods Act, retailers are responsible for faulty goods (that are not 'of satisfactory quality') for up to six years after you bought them. In Scotland the period is five years after something goes wrong. 'Satisfactory quality' covers various aspects that could be wrong with the goods, including whether they've lasted as long as you could reasonably expect. A 'reasonable' lifetime for different products is not defined in law and would ultimately be for a court to decide. But, for example, you might reasonably expect a £600 television to last longer than 18 months, but you wouldn't necessarily expect compensation if a £20 kettle broke down in this period.

derrick

grumbler wrote:

Well, if you are an expert, could you comment this, please?:

Quote:
Under the Sale of Goods Act, retailers are responsible for faulty goods (that are not 'of satisfactory quality') for up to six years after you bought them. In Scotland the period is five years after something goes wrong. 'Satisfactory quality' covers various aspects that could be wrong with the goods, including whether they've lasted as long as you could reasonably expect. A 'reasonable' lifetime for different products is not defined in law and would ultimately be for a court to decide. But, for example, you might reasonably expect a £600 television to last longer than 18 months, but you wouldn't necessarily expect compensation if a £20 kettle broke down in this period.




Correct and remember it is the RETAILER not the manufacturer who is responsible

ollywood68

grumbler wrote:

Well, if you are an expert, could you comment this, please?:

what i said is sort of right however i can explain further. For the 1st 6 months its up to the seller to prove there was not a fault in a product and therefore this is the easiest time to bring it back. for the next 6 months its up to you prove there was a fault when you bought it. The six year rule refers to a product which you bought which has an INHERENT fault (e.g. in all the products) but it is up to you to prove it in this time e.g. a software problem is all the pcs a company sold or a fault tube in a certain model of tvs sold. But essentially after a year it gets much harder to bring something back unless you are able to prove this inherent fault. OK

djohn2002uk

ollywood68 wrote:

what i said is sort of right however i can explain further. For the 1st 6 months its up to the seller to prove there was not a fault in a product and therefore this is the easiest time to bring it back. for the next 6 months its up to you prove there was a fault when you bought it.

That isn't right either. In the second 6 months you have to prove nothing if there is a 12months warranty. You only would have to prove it if for whatever reason the warranty was no longer in force, for example if the manufacturer went bust and you needed to rely solely on the sale of goods act.