Camera failed out of warranty, seller has closed down

frugal_mike

Given that any claims will likely be in a small claims court you don't have to prove it was inherent as such, just that it is in the balance of probabilities. Also the goods need to last a reasonable, which is where wear and tear comes into it. Wear and tear that results in and unreasonably short life time would not be acceptable.

rainio

If the problem occurs within the "practical" lifespan of the helicopter or anything, and the fault is not found to be caused by the user, then by definition shouldn't it be an "inherent" device problem?
Or is it an "act of god"?
If it is merely a "random" malfunction, then the device should have been manufactured so these would be less likely to occur. If it has been then shouldn't it come under the banner of an "inherent" issue?

There is the myth of the "kill switch" (problems just after warranty), but if there isn't a "kill switch" then it just shows things do after more than a year and much of the time it will be an "inherent issue".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7054587/The-myth-of-the-Sony-kill-switch.html

custardy

bris wrote: »

Sony won't come back and say it's an inherent problem as they are not going to admit faults, you are going to have to get this report yourself.

speaking from experience with a faulty PC all in one
Sony fixed my out of warranty GFX board (which had a known manufacturing fault)

tinkerbell28

Inherent faults do show late, without being wear and tear.

Just had a 2 1/2 year old tv repaired by JL, cost £700 to repair, cost £1700 new. If I did not have the JL guarantee who paid, I'd have gone the SOGA route, panels don't just fail, or shouldn't do for a good few years.

We were told it was a "dodgy" panel. Out of 1000's you'll always get one unlucky one which fails before time as it wasn't made quite right. So it was inherent, just took 2.5 years to show.

Same with my kitchen aid. 2 1/2 years ish over £400 Just blew up after a couple of years of VERY LIGHT USE.

Amazon did not want to know. Kitchen aid repaired it for free, as it was not wear and tear, it was a weak armature which decided to go !!!!!! 2 1/2 years down the line. You'd expect 10 years from a kitchen aid.

wealdroam

!!!!!! wrote: »

Fair enough but I don't think helicopters come under SOGA.

I am struggling to understand why you might think that.

Alias_Omega

The SOGA is a minefield.

What if the camera was purchased, the never opened. The warranty would run out, but has it?

This is the same with a camera, if rarely used then the warranty of 12months is a little off. Its not a domestic appliance, and im sure the OP is not a professional photographer either.

shaun_from_Africa

!!!!!! wrote: »

As a natter of interest what percentage of the total fleet of that type of helicopter was affected by this problem? In your case it sounds as though a narrow set of useage conditions that your helicopters are operating in brought the problem to light - I.E. salt water.

At the base I am working, we are operating 5 of of the heli's in question and 4 of them have the dodgy loom installed, and we have another 9 aircraft in other locations and I know that at lesat 2 of them are affected.

As to the usage conditions. Helicopters of the type in question are generally used for offshore flying (either oil & gas, or search and rescue), so being exposed to salt water is something that is to be expected.

frugal_mike

Alias_Omega wrote: »

The SOGA is a minefield.

What if the camera was purchased, the never opened. The warranty would run out, but has it?

This is the same with a camera, if rarely used then the warranty of 12months is a little off. Its not a domestic appliance, and im sure the OP is not a professional photographer either.

The warranty is irrelevant to the Sale of Goods Act. The warranty will have its own terms and conditions but if the warranty won't cover something that does not mean there is no remedy to be had under the Sale of Goods Act.

But if a consumer buys a product and doesn't use it for a few years that is their own problem. The Sale of Goods Act will treat a product as 2 years old even if you waited 2 years to remove the packaging.

yangptangkipperbang

ThumbRemote wrote: »

The majority of faults in products are inherent,

To quote yourself: "That's simply not true".

The vast majority of failures are purely random. Things fail - even on a Rolls-Royce as well as a Ford.

Why do airliners have multiple hydraulic systems ? Why have more engines than necessary ? Why does your car have a split braking system ? - Because one of them (or more !!) WILL fail !

Read up on Reliability Engineering.



More here:- http://www.eventhelix.com/RealtimeMantra/FaultHandling/reliability_availability_basics.htm#.UiNLaFpIFoZ


Far too many people think that an item WILL last for a set period of time or number of cycles - that just isn't the case.
If your TV has a design life of 10,000 hours - that doesn't mean it WILL last that long, it means that most will. That TV will follow the bathtub curve. The 10,000 hour point will be somewhere along the flat bottom part of the curve. There will be a number of early failures, then a long period of minimal (but still SOME) failures, then failures will increase as components start to "wear out".

It's funny - but I never see people offering to pay again for their TV that has lasted for more than 20 years :rotfl::rotfl: but they always want their money back when it fails after 3 years..........;)

rainio

yangptangkipperbang, I think what you say bears down on the crux of this matter.

It must be difficult to state a blown resistor was due to a "random" error or just a poor quality part/poor quality control.

Either way if your tv or camera fails due to a "random" error one month after the one year warranty expires, shouldn't you be able to ask for recompense as it "should" last longer?

Isn't that what the 6 years SOGA is for - as 6 years is deemed a reasonable time for something to function? (Other wise we would think twice when purchasing anything expensive, or purchase an extended warranty for everything).

Also, would ones home contents insurance pay for the failed camera (it appears it is only for accidental damage/fire/water etc)?