xbox 360

wishface

sporedude wrote: »

Your right, It is silly, Thats why I'm not going to pay attention to this thread anymore.

well that's your right. I'm not sure you give your point any credence by broadcasting it.

substandard wrote: »

This is silly. Clearly it would be wrong if the law said that after 6 months your rights are gone and if your Xbox breaks it's tough. But the law doesn't say this. It says you have to prove the fault was not caused by an inherent fault. Otherwise, anyone who breaks their kit (this includes accidents, I don't know why you're going on about deliberate breakages) can just get a free replacement indefinitely.

Every high street has at least one electronics repair shop, the yellow pages will have many more. If you're Xbox goes kaput 7 months after you bought it, take it along to one of these shops, get them to tell you what's wrong with it, pay them a fee and take it to the retailer. The law then gives you full recompense. What it doesn't do is compel retailers to pay out out every time someone's greasy mits mess up their expensive equipment. (Edit: which is why most of us think the law is as fair and balanced as possible... the law is not there to give YOU rights, it's there to mediate between competing interests, many laws don't manage this, but UK consumer laws do.)

It is entirely unfair on the consumer because to burden them with proving they didn't break their console after an arbitrary and tiny period of time is inherently unfair. Everyone knows that gives the retailer far too much power given that proving the negative is always impossible. Not only that but compelling the average consumer to have the means to investigate - without damaging said machine - for himself is beyond ridiculous. This is not ameliorated by saying that any money spent on third party investigation will be refunded in court is preposterous - the consumer shouldn't have to go to extra expense (assuming he can afford it to begin with). The law says nothing about a free replacement; whether the consumer is entitled to that, should he ask for it, is down to a judge to decide (assuming the retailer doesn't agree).

What is intrinsic to the timeframe of 6 months? Are electronic products intended to last no longer? If so that's a very sad indictment of consumer society and a rather sad way for society to live.

And not every high street has an electronics repairer at all; far from it. Assuming you live near such a high street.

Not once have i suggest people who break their machines should be entitled to anything.

substandard

wishface wrote: »

It is entirely unfair on the consumer because to burden them with proving they didn’t break their console after an arbitrary and tiny period of time is inherently unfair.

Likewise, it is entirely unfair on the retailer to burden them with proof that the consumer didn’t break the console after an arbitrary period of time.

wishface wrote: »

proving the negative is always impossible.

Untrue. An electircal engineer should be able to find the cause of the fault and thereby ascertain whether the consumer was at fault. We’re talking about electrical goods, not proving the existence of God.

wishface wrote: »

Not only that but compelling the average consumer to have the means to investigate for himself is beyond ridiculous.

How much is an engineer’s report likely to cost? About £50? Only a little more than the cost of an Xbox game and a lot less than the price of a new console. Given that an honest retailer will refund this anyway, and a dishonest one will be compelled to refund if it got to court, this is irrelevant anyway.

wishface wrote: »

The law says nothing about a free replacement; whether the consumer is entitled to that, should he ask for it, is down to a judge to decide (assuming the retailer doesn’t agree).

The law is there in black and white for the consumer to show the retailer in case of dispute. If they still won’t budge then it’s up to the consumer to press for court action. This is how the legal system works.

wishface wrote: »

What is intrinsic to the timeframe of 6 months? Are electronic products intended to last no longer? If so that’s a very sad indictment of consumer society and a rather sad way for society to live.

Again, this is beside the point. Goods that are expected to last longer than six months are still protected by the law - it’s just the burden of proof that shifts. The law has to put the benchmark somewhere. How long would it be in the Republic of Wishface?

wishface wrote: »

And not every high street has an electronics repairer at all; far from it. Assuming you live near such a high street.

I also said to check the yellow pages - help is readily available for anyone who isn’t too lazy to exercise his or her rights.

wishface wrote: »

Not once have i suggest people who break their machines should be entitled to anything.

But how do you legislate against this? If you’re saying someone should be able to turn up in a shop with a receipt and a broken machine, how do you protect the retailer from people who break their Xbox any time longer than 6 months after purchase? That’s why the benchmark is set where it is. The law says that, on balance, a fault that hasn’t manifested in the first 6 months of use is more likely to have been caused by user misuse.

As said elsewhere. If you want the law to change, get lobbying. Arguing the toss on this message board isn’t going to help.

wishface

substandard wrote: »

Likewise, it is entirely unfair on the retailer to burden them with proof that the consumer didn’t break the console after an arbitrary period of time.

No it isn't. It is the lesser of two evils. In fact it is much more unfair to penalise the average consumer, likely someone without the means to divine the source of hardware faults without outside assistance. Six months is nowhere near a reasonable period of time to expect electronic hardware to last. You are inherently assuming that consumers are crooks which is nonsense.

Untrue. An electircal engineer should be able to find the cause of the fault and thereby ascertain whether the consumer was at fault. We’re talking about electrical goods, not proving the existence of God.

I'm sure he could, but the consumer shouldn't have to go to the time and trouble and expense of finding someone to diagnose a fault, and then hope the retailer refunds them. If the retailer refuses, possibly arguing the consumer chose of their own volition to pay for an engineer, then the consumer has even more hassle and expense taking the retailer to court. Your entire argument is predicated on the fact that the situation is black and white: pay for an engineer and the retailer must legally (if that's even true) refund you. You are acting oblivious to the reality of the hassle involved which is beyond what I think a consumer should be reasonably expected to endure.

How much is an engineer’s report likely to cost? About £50? Only a little more than the cost of an Xbox game and a lot less than the price of a new console. Given that an honest retailer will refund this anyway, and a dishonest one will be compelled to refund if it got to court, this is irrelevant anyway.

The price isn't the issue is it. And that's assuming the consumer has £50 to spare. Why should anyone assume that?

The law is there in black and white for the consumer to show the retailer in case of dispute. If they still won’t budge then it’s up to the consumer to press for court action. This is how the legal system works.

Life, unlike law, isn't so black and white, and consumer law is far from clear or concise and is based entirely on the final arbitration of a court. It doesn't even define what a reaonable period of time is, when discussing the lifespan of products. It's weighted against the consumer for the sheer hassle involved and added expense that you leisurely discard as affordable. Not everyone can meet the expense of engineers fees or insurance and they shouldn't have to. Perhaps in your ivory tower mony has little meaning. Unfortunately for the rest of us, that's not the case.


Again, this is beside the point. Goods that are expected to last longer than six months are still protected by the law - it’s just the burden of proof that shifts. The law has to put the benchmark somewhere. How long would it be in the Republic of Wishface?

I've already answered that question. Perhaps if you spent the time reading and not inferring and assuming you might save yourself the hassle of asking.

I also said to check the yellow pages - help is readily available for anyone who isn’t too lazy to exercise his or her rights.

How do you equate not wanting to go to the expense and hassle of paying for independent engineering with laziness? Do you have a faulty thesaurus?

But how do you legislate against this? If you’re saying someone should be able to turn up in a shop with a receipt and a broken machine, how do you protect the retailer from people who break their Xbox any time longer than 6 months after purchase? That’s why the benchmark is set where it is. The law says that, on balance, a fault that hasn’t manifested in the first 6 months of use is more likely to have been caused by user misuse.

You are again assuming that all consumers are crooks. They aren't. You also cannot seem to understand that the majority of consuemrs are not going to deliberately break their equipment just to get it replaced with the exact same model. That you can't understand the stupidity of such a course of action, and therefore how unlikely it will be, is really quite staggering.

As said elsewhere. If you want the law to change, get lobbying. Arguing the toss on this message board isn’t going to help.

What a stupid comment. If all discussion was moderated and proscrbied on the basis of the practicality of what was being discussed noone would say anything. Honestly, are you really this stupid or is this an act?

sporedude

Because someone wont agree with you that makes them stupid?

wishface

sporedude wrote: »

Because someone wont agree with you that makes them stupid?

Explain how that is what I said or stop misrepresenting my posts.

substandard

@wishface: at first i thought you were just trolling. now i’m not so sure. regardless, when you resort to insults, you just make yourself appear a bit dim. which doesn’t help develop the discussion.

the problem here is that while you say I’m accusing consumers of dishonesty, what I’m actually doing is demonstrating that the law takes a mediating role because it cannot tell the difference between honest and dishonest consumers and retailers. That’s why it sets out the rules in black and white for the relevant authorities to adjudicate upon. This is the way legal systems work. Rightly or wrongly, this does mean that wronged parties have to take action to achieve redress. The tools are there for them to do so. The problem you’re worried about is too rare to shift the balance of the law in another direction.

Your argument is based on the idea of the consumer as victim and retailer as perpetrator. What if a wealthy banker buys his son an Xbox from a struggling independently-owned computer shop? Seven months later, his son accidentally (please note that I’m saying accidentally here... you’re the only one talking about deliberate damage) spills a drink over his Xbox and it stops working. In the Republic of Wishface, the wealthy banker is entitled to go back to the struggling independent shop with the broken Xbox and his receipt and is entitled to take a new one off the shelves and be off - never to be seen again perhaps. Which leaves the retailer’s stock down by the cost of an Xbox.

This is why the law finds a point somewhere in the middle ground and allows retailers and consumers to use it in case of dispute. To repeat: the law makes no assumptions about any one individuals honesty or dishonesty. It simply lays the framework by which a dispute can be resolved as fairly as possible.

And I don’t think it’s stupid to suggest you lobby for change somewhere that might make a difference. Think of it as a helpful suggestion that might stop you wasting your time. You’re clearly not garnering support for your cause here. The argument has run its course and you’ve failed to convince anyone, so it’s probably time to go elsewhere to put wrong this terrible injustice.