Sale of Goods Act, how long should a digital camera last?

Mids_Costcutter

Since February I've been pursuing a Section 75 claim (Consumer Credit Act 1974) from my credit card issuer for a refund for a faulty digital camera bought just 5 years ago. The retailer is no longer trading hence the need to follow the Section 75 route.

My claim has just been rejected on the basis that "the camera has lasted more than a reasonable length of time, taking into account the purchase price, advancements in technology and fair 'wear and tear'".

The camera, a Canon PowerShot A85, cost £140.74 at the time. I consider this to be a decent amount of money. According to the Sale of Goods Act goods should last a reasonable length of time. In my view a good quality camera should last a good deal longer than 5 years, but would be grateful to know what others think.

I'd be prepared to accept some loss for wear and tear. The user manual provides no guide as to expected lifespan. The camera wasn't used that intensively: a few times a year for holidays, special occasions that's all.

[Deleted User]

I'm rather surprised - i've got a Canon Ixus I bought in 2002/3 and it's still kicking along rather happily, even after being soaked once. Sure, the display is a bit knackered, but it still takes a picture.

However, 5 years is a long time in camera world. That camera can now be bought for £32 on ebay. Even then, £140 wasn't much in terms of the cost of a camera. Heck, it doesn't buy you a 'good quality' one now, just an average entry-level camera. My Ixus was £300, and made of solid stuff.

I've also got a Kodak that probably still works and it is pushing 13 years old. However, it's been kept in it's box for a while, and i shouldn't expect them to break if not used and stored correctly.

Out of interest, what is up with the camera? Does it turn on?

Mids_Costcutter

Camera shop tested and reported that focusing motor is not working properly and also sensor has ceased to work correctly.

Jakg

I don't think you have a hope in hell of expecting a £140 camera to last for 5 years.

maninthestreet

I think you are deemed to have accepted the camera after 5 years of ownership. £140 over 5 years is £28 per year, or just £2.33 per month. There was a known fault with the CCD in the A85 other Canon camera of the same era:

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/canon-recall-a60-a70-a75-a300-a310-a40-a80-a85-s230-sd100-sd110-368982/

pulliptears

5 years for a £140 camera, which lets face it in todays market would be exceptionally dated.

This is a 4 Mega Pixel Camera which is selling on ebay for £5.50....
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-PowerShot-A85-4-0-MP-Digital-Camera-/250826242825?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item3a6668bb09

I think I'd give up this particular fight if I were you.

gordikin

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

Since February I've been pursuing a Section 75 claim (Consumer Credit Act 1974) from my credit card issuer for a refund for a faulty digital camera bought just 5 years ago. The retailer is no longer trading hence the need to follow the Section 75 route.

My claim has just been rejected on the basis that "the camera has lasted more than a reasonable length of time, taking into account the purchase price, advancements in technology and fair 'wear and tear'".

The camera, a Canon PowerShot A85, cost £140.74 at the time. I consider this to be a decent amount of money. According to the Sale of Goods Act goods should last a reasonable length of time. In my view a good quality camera should last a good deal longer than 5 years, but would be grateful to know what others think.

I'd be prepared to accept some loss for wear and tear. The user manual provides no guide as to expected lifespan. The camera wasn't used that intensively: a few times a year for holidays, special occasions that's all.

I think 5-6 years is reasonable (what does SOGA say)....err hold on you got that!

Take it to Court if you are confident

gordikin

pulliptears wrote: »

5 years for a £140 camera, which lets face it in todays market would be exceptionally dated.

This is a 4 Mega Pixel Camera which is selling on ebay for £5.50....
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-PowerShot-A85-4-0-MP-Digital-Camera-/250826242825?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item3a6668bb09

I think I'd give up this particular fight if I were you.

...and I think you have given the answer that the OP wont want to hear!

pulliptears

gordikin wrote: »

...and I think you have given the answer that the OP wont want to hear!

Ahh well

I wouldnt thank you for a 4MP Camera now to be honest. You pick your fights, and a piece of dated technology thats currently selling for a fiver isn't worth fighting over after 5 years.

I completely expected to open this thread and see a £1500 Canon SLR.

gordikin

pulliptears wrote: »

Ahh well

I wouldnt thank you for a 4MP Camera now to be honest. You pick your fights, and a piece of dated technology thats currently selling for a fiver isn't worth fighting over after 5 years.

I completely expected to open this thread and see a £1500 Canon SLR.

I beg your pardon my Kodak 4.2MP (with charging dock!) is fine.

OP you are welcome to purchase the whole lot for £10 + P&P...memory cards thrown in for free...if I can find them!

MamaMoo_2

Let's be fair, after 5 years, the most you could expect would be a partial refund, which will obviously not be possible if the retailer is no longer trading. Plus, considering how much this camera has dropped in value etc, it'd be pretty ridiculous to give you £140 for a camera which, let's face it, has lasted a decent amount of time. I certainly wouldn't class it as having been unfit for purpose with regards to it's life span if it's lasted 5 years.
You'll probably spend more on paper, ink, stamps and envelopes to complain than you would spend just buying a new one.
Give up, and get a newer camera.