Who to sue??

onthebeach

I bought a CPU, a Q9450, on 18 April 2008. Then in December 2009 in died, PC was downloading emails, nothing too strenuous.

I contacted the retailer Novatech who told me that after 28 days I should contact the manufacturer, Intel.

I raised a support ticket and after some time they replied that the CPU was OEM and only had a 1 year warranty.

I have since done some extensive research that has revealed that courts deem a reasonable amount of time for a computer and its subsidiary parts to work is 3 years.

However Im unsure who to take to the small claims court Intel or Novatech? The CPU cost £259 (Total order was £600) at the time.

gordikin

YOU have to after 6 months have to prove that it is inherently faulty...did your extensive research tell you that?

OlliesDad

First of all you would need to get an independent engineers report confirming that there is an inherent fault and not due to normal wear and tear or misuse. Once you have done this you would need to send a letter before action to Novatech fiving X amount of days for resolution.

After this you would make a claim against Novatech.

dmg24

Can you elaborate on the information that you have found? It is rare that the facts of any two cases are identical, so you would need to examine the precedent that you think is relevant very carefully.

onthebeach

The engineers report would have been £390+vat! if someone can do it cheaper let me know.

Intels own MTBF(Mean Time Between Failures) is 25000 hours for Q9450 (2.6 years)

Yes I have the proof it was inherently faulty. I have the temperature logs right up until it died that showed it running at 32C with a Max of 39C when playing games(70C is the limit). It was consistently within Intel's specified limits.

It was also protected against electrical spikes via a surge protector and UPS.

The extensive research was done at the library and website of HM’s Court Service.

gordikin

dmg24 wrote: »

Can you elaborate on the information that you have found? It is rare that the facts of any two cases are identical, so you would need to examine the precedent that you think is relevant very carefully.

Like that's ever going to happen!

pitkin2020

onthebeach wrote: »

The engineers report would have been £390+vat! if someone can do it cheaper let me know.

Intels own MTBF(Mean Time Between Failures) is 25000 hours for Q9450 (2.6 years)

Yes I have the proof it was inherently faulty. I have the temperature logs right up until it died that showed it running at 32C with a Max of 39C when playing games(70C is the limit). It was consistently within Intel's specified limits.

It was also protected against electrical spikes via a surge protector and UPS.

The extensive research was done at the library and website of HM’s Court Service.

You don't have an engineers report so you have no proof. You have some temp logs...........that proves nothing accept the system was operating within the specfied temperature range.

You more than likely have a case but without a proper engineers report you will be laughed all the way out of the court. The purpose of the report is to show there is a fault and to stop people claiming for an inherent fault when the failure was actually caused from misuse.
Should you win you would be able to claim back the costs of the report I would have thought.

dmg24

onthebeach wrote: »

The engineers report would have been £390+vat! if someone can do it cheaper let me know.

Intels own MTBF(Mean Time Between Failures) is 25000 hours for Q9450 (2.6 years)

Yes I have the proof it was inherently faulty. I have the temperature logs right up until it died that showed it running at 32C with a Max of 39C when playing games(70C is the limit). It was consistently within Intel's specified limits.

It was also protected against electrical spikes via a surge protector and UPS.

The extensive research was done at the library and website of HM’s Court Service.

Nothing that you have stated here demonstrates that it is inherently faulty. All that you have demonstrated is that is was ok and then it went wrong, which does not prove anything.

Which cases did you refer to in your research?

4743hudsonj

onthebeach wrote: »

The engineers report would have been £390+vat! if someone can do it cheaper let me know.

Intels own MTBF(Mean Time Between Failures) is 25000 hours for Q9450 (2.6 years)

Yes I have the proof it was inherently faulty. I have the temperature logs right up until it died that showed it running at 32C with a Max of 39C when playing games(70C is the limit). It was consistently within Intel's specified limits.

It was also protected against electrical spikes via a surge protector and UPS.

The extensive research was done at the library and website of HM’s Court Service.

What we're trying to say is this may not be enough. You will still in most likelihood have to pay for a report which if is in your favour, you can claim for in your case.

dmg24

gordikin wrote: »

Like that's ever going to happen!

The OP says he has done his research. I am always interested to learn new things!

gordikin

4743hudsonj wrote: »

what were trying to say is this may not be enough. You will still in most likelihood have to pay for a report which if is in your favour, you can claim for i your case.

Type...check...post...why not?