xbox 360

jt2k6

Hi all,

as some of you may have seen there was an item on BBCwatchdog this week about the problems with early 360's unfortinatly i missed it and the website doesn't give a huge amount of information!

my problem is similar to the ones stated on the programme, my 360 suffered a hard ware failure (as indicated by the 3 red lights) 14months after purchase (ie after warrenty has expiered) I know several people who got theirs at the same time and have same problems, they have been told it will be replaced FOC however they want to charge me £80! is there anyway I can get this repaired for free or replaced? does it not state somewhere that an item should last at least 2 years.

I Think wife purchased it at argos online and we no longer have recipt (however bank statement show date, company and ammount would this constitute proof of purchase)

is it worth taking it back to argos! and also with Microsoft admiting it's at fault should they charge me for repair?

hope u can help

Nile

Hello jt2k6

Your thread will be better placed in 'The (Consumer) Vent' board, so I'll move it across.

Hi, Martin’s asked me to post this in these circumstances: I’ve asked Board Guides to move threads if they’ll receive a better response elsewhere(please see this rule) so this post/thread has been moved to another board, where it should get more replies. If you have any questions about this policy please email [EMAIL="abuse@moneysavingexpert.com"]abuse@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL].

Regards

Nile

jt2k6

Any one?

all help gratefully recieved

ttfn

C_Ronaldo

why dont you try it at argos

Searcher

jt2k6 wrote:

Hi all,

as some of you may have seen there was an item on BBCwatchdog this week about the problems with early 360's unfortinatly i missed it and the website doesn't give a huge amount of information!

my problem is similar to the ones stated on the programme, my 360 suffered a hard ware failure (as indicated by the 3 red lights) 14months after purchase (ie after warrenty has expiered) I know several people who got theirs at the same time and have same problems, they have been told it will be replaced FOC however they want to charge me £80! is there anyway I can get this repaired for free or replaced? does it not state somewhere that an item should last at least 2 years.

I Think wife purchased it at argos online and we no longer have recipt (however bank statement show date, company and ammount would this constitute proof of purchase)

is it worth taking it back to argos! and also with Microsoft admiting it's at fault should they charge me for repair?

hope u can help

I don't think Microsoft have admitted there's a fault all they said was that most people have had a "positive experience"

SuperNashwan

Goods have to be of satisfactory quality and one of the factors to judge that on is durability; you should be able to get a full refund or replacement out of Argos, because clearly an expensive console should last more than just over a year (when most 360s seem to be failing) in normal use. I know a few people have had success with Game using this argument, not sure how Argos will react and you may have to start proceedings for the Small Claims Court if they don't agree.

furrypolka

SuperNashwan wrote:

Goods have to be of satisfactory quality and one of the factors to judge that on is durability; you should be able to get a full refund or replacement out of Argos, because clearly an expensive console should last more than just over a year (when most 360s seem to be failing) in normal use. I know a few people have had success with Game using this argument, not sure how Argos will react and you may have to start proceedings for the Small Claims Court if they don't agree.

Just to state that you would not get a full refund after a reasonable length of time has passed, neither would you necessarily be legally entitled to a brand new replacement.

You don't actually say how old the console is, but your rights would basically be:

The Sale of Goods Act states that goods must be of satisfactory quality, fit for all normal purposes and as described. Your rights under this Act can last for up to six years, although normal wear and tear is not covered and your rights do weaken over time.

If goods do not comply with the terms of the Act (e.g. if they are faulty) then you have a reasonable period of time to reject the goods and claim a full refund. This timescale is usually fairly short, about 2-3 weeks in most cases.

After this, the trader is entitled to offer, in the first instance, a satisfactory repair or like for like replacement within a reasonable time. You cannot have betterment, i.e. if you have goods which are 18 months old you cannot demand a brand new replacement, as this means you will be in a better position than you would have been in had the item not become faulty - you will effectively have had 18 months of free use from the product.

If repair or replacement either fails, is economically not viable or impossible, then you can rescind the contract. Rescission is basically a partial refund, reduced to take into account the wear and tear that you have enjoyed from the product. If the item's only a couple of months old you would have a case for a full refund as you would not have had much use from it; however if it is older than that the retailer can reduce your refund to take into account the fact that you have had some use from the product. Obviously this amount has to be reasonable (again ultimately only a judge can decide) and it will reduce further the longer you have had a product.

Hope this helps to explain.

SuperNashwan

furrypolka wrote:

If goods do not comply with the terms of the Act (e.g. if they are faulty) then you have a reasonable period of time to reject the goods and claim a full refund. This timescale is usually fairly short, about 2-3 weeks in most cases.

With a big fat IMHO: a reasonable period of time in the case of goods not being of satisfactory durability would be your 2-3 weeks after the fault is discovered, otherwise the "durability" part of s.14 is made complete nonsense.

furrypolka

SuperNashwan wrote:

With a big fat IMHO: a reasonable period of time in the case of goods not being of satisfactory durability would be your 2-3 weeks after the fault is discovered, otherwise the "durability" part of s.14 is complete nonsense.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

The "reasonable time" in which consumers can reject outright for a full refund is not defined in law but case law shows it to be about 2-3 weeks following purchase (google Bernstein v Pamson Motors for an example).

After this time has passed, of course they still have rights to redress if the goods become faulty and that fault cannot be attributed to normal wear and tear. However, this will be repair or replacement (down to trader to select which is more proportionate) in the first instance, and rights will weaken as time goes on. You most certainly could not get a full refund after a year of use, even if repair or replacement was not possible.

SuperNashwan

Sorry, I'll try and be clearer. s.14 requires that goods are of satisfactory quality and one of the factors to take into account is the goods' durability. Bernstein is of questionable applicability to this in my opinion because the "durability" part was only inserted into the SoGA by the '94 amendment. To make sense of the amendment I don't think acceptance under s.35 can take place until the buyer has a reasonable opportunity to ascertain whether goods are satisfactorily durable, and for complex consumer electronics I can't see how that could happen other by using the product until it exceeds its expected life. A reasonable period of time is a question of fact for the individual circumstances of each case.
I'll admit it's not a hugely strong argument and I suspect it might depend on the day on whether the judge is one of the people who think Bernstein was overly restrictive. Or I may just be talking rubbish, it's been a few years since I studied law...

furrypolka

Bernstein is still applicable in the courts today as rejection for a full refund is part of the "old" Sale of Goods Act and not the Regulations that amended it which deal with the additional remedies of repair/replacement and rescission.

There are newer cases but without surfing through Butterworths (which I don't have time to do!) I can't quote them just now.

The position is as I have stated before: the consumer only has a reasonable time (2-3 weeks except in exceptional cases) in which to reject the goods for a full refund. After this, the Regulations which amended the Act allow the trader to offer a repair or like-for-like replacement in the first instance (Prior to these Regs, the consumer could only legally demand damages).

Only if this is wrong can the consumer move on to rescission of the contract as provided for in Section 48 (C) of the new Part 5a amendment to the Sale of Goods Act (amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations) as below:

48C

(1) If section 48A above applies, the buyer may—

(a) require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods in question to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or

(b) rescind the contract with regard to those goods,

if the condition in subsection (2) below is satisfied.

(2) The condition is that—

(a) by virtue of section 48B(3) above the buyer may require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; or

(b) the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods, but the seller is in breach of the requirement of section 48B(2)(a) above to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

(3) For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him.

Note (3) which states that a refund may be partial to allow for the wear and tear the consumer has enjoyed.

It would be impossible in court to argue for a full refund after a year's use of a product; it just wouldn't happen.