Sale of goods act?

bigsi

Hi,
This is my first post on here and i need some help/advice.
My Playstation 3 broke last week and after phoning Sony they want £131 to send me a replacement which i'm not to happy about, The Playstation cost over £400 and has only lasted 3 years.
After looking around the net some people who have had this problem have taken it back to the shop and got a free replacement after quoting the "Sale of good act", Others have just said that it's tough luck and pay Sony the money to get a refurbished replacement.
So what should i do try and take it back to the Game shop and tell them i'm not happy that my expensive piece of equipment has only lasted 3 years or just save up the cash and get Sony to send me a refurbished unit.
Is the Sale of goods act the right thing to be quoting to try and get them to replace it?
Thanks for any help/info.
Simon

Anihilator

After 3 years take Sonys offer. The SOGA is unlikely to entitle you to more.

Colliefrog

I'm certainly no expert on SOGA, but in my opinion £131 to replace a 3 year old console is fair. I'd just be happy that they didn't tell me tough !!!!!!, go buy a new one!

I'm sure someone wiser will be along very shortly to give you the legal perspective!

Blacksheep1979

you've had 3 years use out of the item and they are in effect refunding 2/3 of your money by only charging you a 1/3 of the price you paid to replace it - that's kind of admitting the item should last 9 years (would you say that's fair?) and have had some benefit from the item.

Personally I'd take the offer.

pitkin2020

Colliefrog wrote: »

I'm certainly no expert on SOGA, but in my opinion £131 to replace a 3 year old console is fair. I'd just be happy that they didn't tell me tough !!!!!!, go buy a new one!

I'm sure someone wiser will be along very shortly to give you the legal perspective!

Are you for real, the OP has bought the product and its expected to last a lot longer than 3 years. The op will have effectively paid over £500 for a console that could only last 4 years, (refurbs get 12 months warranty I believe). When the refurb one breaks in 13 months he will have to shell out another £131 for another refurb. Good for repeat business I suppose.

Others seem to have been succesful taking it back to the retailer and like you said quoting SOGA, the emphasis is on you to prove its an inherent fault and not through something you have caused. If its the yellow light of death I can't see why they wont get it repaired for you or replace as its a well known fault, its only Sony who won't actually admit its a fault with there system.

Colliefrog

pitkin2020 wrote: »

Are you for real, the OP has bought the product and its expected to last a lot longer than 3 years. The op will have effectively paid over £500 for a console that could only last 4 years, (refurbs get 12 months warranty I believe). When the refurb one breaks in 13 months he will have to shell out another £131 for another refurb. Good for repeat business I suppose.

Erm, yes I am for real! All I said is in MY opinion, I didn't say it is right. But it seems I'm not the only one who thinks like that.

pitkin2020

Colliefrog wrote: »

Erm, yes I am for real! All I said is in MY opinion, I didn't say it is right. But it seems I'm not the only one who thinks like that.

So in your opinion its acceptable to replace a £400 item after 3 years?
Personally I don't, obviously something is not going to last for ever but 3 years isn't a great deal of time for a console.

The PS3 has the well known YLOD problem and if that is what the OP is suffering it should be repaired or replaced FOC, if its broke through mis-use then thats the OP's fault and tough luck, but why should someone have to pay AGAIN for something that doesn't last.

pitkin2020

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

you've had 3 years use out of the item and they are in effect refunding 2/3 of your money by only charging you a 1/3 of the price you paid to replace it - that's kind of admitting the item should last 9 years (would you say that's fair?) and have had some benefit from the item.

Personally I'd take the offer.

You say they are effectively admitting the item should last 9 years, yet after 3 years its acceptable for it to be replaced??
There also not effectively refunding you anything, they are charging you more, so a £400 console has now cost £530, and the refurb model may break after 12 months costing another £131. By the time the OP gets to the recommended 6 years a £400 ps3 could end up costing him nearly £800.

Colliefrog

pitkin2020 wrote: »

So in your opinion its acceptable to replace a £400 item after 3 years?
Personally I don't, obviously something is not going to last for ever but 3 years isn't a great deal of time for a console.

Yes, in my opinion I think it is acceptable to pay £131 for a replacement for a console I've had for 3 years. I would rather accept their offer than spend weeks, maybe months trying to get a free replacement. I'm not telling the OP that is the right answer and I don't expect everyone to agree with me. That is why it's called an opinion and not a fact.

dmg24

pitkin2020 wrote: »

Are you for real, the OP has bought the product and its expected to last a lot longer than 3 years. The op will have effectively paid over £500 for a console that could only last 4 years, (refurbs get 12 months warranty I believe). When the refurb one breaks in 13 months he will have to shell out another £131 for another refurb. Good for repeat business I suppose.

Others seem to have been succesful taking it back to the retailer and like you said quoting SOGA, the emphasis is on you to prove its an inherent fault and not through something you have caused. If its the yellow light of death I can't see why they wont get it repaired for you or replace as its a well known fault, its only Sony who won't actually admit its a fault with there system.

I think you need to look at the way you are speaking to people. Colliefrog's opinion is just as valid as yours.

bingo_bango

pitkin2020 wrote: »

You say they are effectively admitting the item should last 9 years, yet after 3 years its acceptable for it to be replaced??
There also not effectively refunding you anything, they are charging you more, so a £400 console has now cost £530, and the refurb model may break after 12 months costing another £131. By the time the OP gets to the recommended 6 years a £400 ps3 could end up costing him nearly £800.

Please tell me who recommended this? In my line of work I would love to have such a source to quote.