An expensive Plasma .... But 5 years ago

Mark_Hewitt

It can have an effect, but the effect is slight.
e.g. If you bought a TV today for £100 and it broke after 1 year a judge is less likely to award damages than if you'd spent £1,000.

shaun_from_Africa

It says nowhere is SOGA about the price varying the amount of time which would be a reasonable lifespan for a product. Price does not have any bearing whatsoever on the lifetime of the product.

From the Sale and supply of goods act act 1994.

(3)For the purposes of this section and section 11E below, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.

I could go out today and buy a new LED type spotlight bulb which I would pay anywhere from £5 to £18 for.
The £5 one is still far more expensive than a standard 35w halogen, which is about £1 but most people would not expect this "cheap" LED lamp to last as long as the £18 version.

£2000 for a plasma TV sounds like a lot of money now, but if at the time of purchase it was a budget model, It wouldn't be reasonable to expect it to be of the same quality and have the same life as one that cost £5000

Mankysteve

zppp wrote: »

It says nowhere is SOGA about the price varying the amount of time which would be a reasonable lifespan for a product. Price does not have any bearing whatsoever on the lifetime of the product.

I would have to disagree, if you buy a cheapo branded tv from a shop then you wouldn't expect it to last as long as Tv from one of the bigger branded TVs.


But I would also agree with those that when you buy a reasonable new to market item then it will not last a long technology we know more about.

Just because you spent £2k on something when it first came onto the market doesn't mean it'll last as long as £500 one now.

vyle

Matty007 wrote: »

We are not paying the 'technology fairy' here, but a retailer who is making a greater profit on selling a higher priced item than others of a lower price.

While the point about damages received from my previous post has been covered, I must point something out with regards to this comment.

The price of a TV and the amount of profit made selling the TV don't correlate directly. Just because a TV sells for £2000 doesn't mean it makes more profit than a TV sold for £200.

The expensive TVs generally cost more to make, so the manufacturers charge more for the stores to buy them. I make more profit for my company selling a 26" sony TV right now than I do selling a 50" 3D panasonic. One is £360, the other is £1899.

Ipod nanos (up until this current gen) cost my store £115 each. We sold them at £120 - £5 profit.

Conversely, the cases, which sold at £20 were bought for £4 each. A high price in no way indicates more profit.

As others have said, regarding price and durability, 5 years ago, the technology was a lot more expensive and £2000 was not a particularly high price for that technology because it was still relatively new. Technology depreciates in value and improves incredibly quickly. Plasma TV lifespans have increased from 50,000 hours to over 100,000 in just a few years.

Out of curiosity, if you took the shop to small claims and won, would they have to pay your court costs?

Techhead_2

Matty007 wrote: »

Thanks for that, is not the £2000+ price tag, the issue here ??

Regards
Matt007

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

From the Sale and supply of goods act act 1994.




I could go out today and buy a new LED type spotlight bulb which I would pay anywhere from £5 to £18 for.
The £5 one is still far more expensive than a standard 35w halogen, which is about £1 but most people would not expect this "cheap" LED lamp to last as long as the £18 version.

£2000 for a plasma TV sounds like a lot of money now, but if at the time of purchase it was a budget model, It wouldn't be reasonable to expect it to be of the same quality and have the same life as one that cost £5000

This was my point earlier, whilst £2000 sounds like a top end price; five years ago it was actually a mid-range price.
So it comes back to what many of us keep saying it needs to be proven that the TV was inherently faulty.

Matty007

vyle wrote: »

While the point about damages received from my previous post has been covered, I must point something out with regards to this comment.

The price of a TV and the amount of profit made selling the TV don't correlate directly. Just because a TV sells for £2000 doesn't mean it makes more profit than a TV sold for £200.

The expensive TVs generally cost more to make, so the manufacturers charge more for the stores to buy them. I make more profit for my company selling a 26" sony TV right now than I do selling a 50" 3D panasonic. One is £360, the other is £1899.

Ipod nanos (up until this current gen) cost my store £115 each. We sold them at £120 - £5 profit.


There will be variations and unique models that allow retailers to retail some products at greater margins, but my point stands that
Conversely, the cases, which sold at £20 were bought for £4 each. A high price in no way indicates more profit.

As others have said, regarding price and durability, 5 years ago, the technology was a lot more expensive and £2000 was not a particularly high price for that technology because it was still relatively new.

Technology depreciates in value and improves incredibly quickly. Plasma TV lifespans have increased from 50,000 hours to over 100,000 in just a few years.

Out of curiosity, if you took the shop to small claims and won, would they have to pay your court costs?

As an ex owner retailer, I accept that profit margins within a shop of varying products can show differing margins.

But as a general rule the same product type will have an industry 'norm' that retails at similar profit margins.

For an independent retailer to commit to hold stock of a higher price item it is only right for them to benefit from a higher financial gain.

Again I must stress that this issue isn't one of the depreciation of the the TV or its technology, unless I was looking for some sort of refund, which I am not.

Again with respect and as a former owner retailer your examples of buying and selling prices within your own store seem a little unlikely, I certainly would not offer my supplier a shop window for his goods with such unsustainable profit margins.

Unless of course I could make fantastic margins on other of their popular lines, if not it would seem they no longer wish to supply you with their goods !!!!

If you successfully challenge a retailer in the SCC then the cost are reimbursed by the retailer.

Matty007

custardy wrote: »

sorry.are you saying all TVs are the same and the more expensive ones are simply more expensive to make a greater profit?

Nope, I was saying that technology on its own is not an excuse for selling a product at a higher price whilst negating your legal responsibility to the customer.

As an aside some within certain manufacturing Industries might say that many items are basically the same whilst retailers and manufacturers charge their consumers more for 'the same' product.

But thats another story for another day.

dmg24

Have you actually established that the tv is inherently faulty?

bob_a_builder

Have you actually established that the tv is inherently faulty?

i.e. found lots of other users of the same product which have failed in the same way / due to same component - that would be good proof of an inherent fault

Matty007

dmg24 wrote: »

Have you actually established that the tv is inherently faulty?

I think we are stuck on the 'inherently faulty' aspect, this is as vague as a 'reasonable amount of time' and 'satisfactory quality' it is subjective and something that the SOGA lends itself well to.

If a failing component effects the overall function of an item, then ultimately the decision will be whether the Magistrate feels that the product should still be working after a certain amount of time, especially with a 'standstill product' such as a TV.

The challenge for the consumer is to show that there has been no misuse, then look at the indicators, such as price, of what a customer should of reasonably expected when they bought the product and how long should last.