Item paid with Credit Card failed during warranty period. Question...

bris

terryads wrote: »

mambobby
Don't be too hard on yourself - hindsight is a cruel mistress. I suspect you've probably made a sensible pragmatic decision in reality, as you would likely have had a fair old fight and it's a question ultimately of whether you need the aggro in your life. And at least you have some cash to take elsewhere and spend on a better brand.

I would still say that it's the SOG rights which were your best weapon which notionally give 6 years in which to take action (although this is not to say goods are automatically expected to last that long - some clearly should not).

In your case a monitor should last a lot longer, but your difficulty is that the law puts the onus on you in your circumstances to prove your case, and that means commissioning expert reports and finding expert opinion on what is a reasonable lifespan expectation - all of which you have to cough up for upfront (and it ain't cheap). And of course the catch 22 is the "sending back to the manufacturer" clause. You have to do it but it effectively prevents you getting a second opinion (they will probably have binned it - possibly without looking at it all).

billymadbiker makes some good points too about how they make life difficult for the consumer - they used to call it "planned [FONT=&quot]obsolescence"[/FONT] in the car field, but I believe manufacturers are now legally required to have spares available for a substantial period after ceasing production (10 years rings a bell, but I may be wrong there). We need similar prection for other consumer goods.

Haven't you been keeping up, his SOGA rights were upheld, he got his refund calculated according to his consumer rights.

What is it you think he could fight for? The seller has done everything according to the consumer rights.

terryads

bris wrote: »

Haven't you been keeping up, his SOGA rights were upheld, he got his refund calculated according to his consumer rights.

What is it you think he could fight for? The seller has done everything according to the consumer rights.

Sorry, Bris, to be so slow - but can you tell me where exactly does it say he got his payout under SOGA specifically? You say that, but I can't see where the origial poster does so? The payout figure to me looks like its a pro-rata under the warranty provision, not SOGA, since it's about 1/3 of the original purchase price with 1/3 of the warranty to run.
In these circumstances a retailer will always pay out the least they can get away with, and will simply deny liability under SOGA. If he'd had a 1 yr warranty they would have offered nothing at all - I know I've been there. If it were taken to court it's actually anybody's guess what the award would have been under SOGA - it would have been assessed on what is a fair lifetime expectation for the item. Remember, warranties are in addition to, and not substitution for, statutory rights and cannot be used to supplant them.
The critical question here is "what is a reasonable amount of time". This is not specifically defined in law, and will vary according to the type of goods involved, what market segment they occupy (IE "cheap and cheerful" bargain brands will have lower expectations) and the general view of "experts" in the field. The only LCD screen I've had fail is a laptop, which was faulty from day one and I knew and accepted it as the machine was a "second". We don't know what the actual fault was, likely candidates are the backlight or inverter, which will have defined mean time before failure (MTBF) figures, although these are often not disclosed at the cheaper end of the market. In practice all the LCD TVs and monitors I've ever had over a 10 year period have never failed, and I would say that 2 years is unreasonably short, assuming average daily use. But that's just my opinion, and of course you are entitled to yours.