Bought TV in the summer, finally get around to opening it today to find it the screen

Fosterdog

Out of curiosity was there any damage at all to the box? The way TVs are packaged these days there is polystyrene supporting the frame of the TV but the screen itself is almost suspended in the open and empty space between it and the box. It would be physically impossible for anything to hit the screen (from the front or back) enough to cause the level of damage you describe without the box being damaged. The most you may get without a damaged box would be a single crack usually from a corner if the box was dropped with enough force to cause a jolt but not enough force to damage the box.

There was a range of Sony TVs 2-3 years ago that used a new packing material and design and there were loads getting cracked on the edges where it overlapped the screen without any damage to the box as even a small movement would cause it so they did a retail level recall on them all to check and repack with their old type packaging and swapped any over that were damaged getting to customers.

The only other possibility is that it was packed already damaged but that sounds like way too much damage to be missed during packing and probably wouldnt have even easily gone in the box.

neilmcl

naedanger wrote: »

You are correct to say that if you take the retailer to court then the onus will be on them to prove the fault was not inherent.

However that does not mean they must give you a refund or replacement if you return the tv. They could dispute that the fault was inherent. In which case you may need to take them to court to resolve the dispute.

If the matter gets to court then, as you say, they will need to prove the fault was not inherent. But they only need to do so on the balance of probability, which is a low standard of proof. (The retailer might feel they have at least a reasonable chance of winning in court if the fault is consistent with physical damage, together with the fact the fault was not reported for 4 months.)

Again it's not a fault, it's damage. It would be fairly easy for the seller to prove, based on the balance of probabilities, that the damage must have been caused by the buyer, given that he's been in possession of the TV for over 4 months.

neilmcl

Fosterdog wrote: »

Out of curiosity was there any damage at all to the box? The way TVs are packaged these days there is polystyrene supporting the frame of the TV but the screen itself is almost suspended in the open and empty space between it and the box. It would be physically impossible for anything to hit the screen (from the front or back) enough to cause the level of damage you describe without the box being damaged. The most you may get without a damaged box would be a single crack usually from a corner if the box was dropped with enough force to cause a jolt but not enough force to damage the box.

There was a range of Sony TVs 2-3 years ago that used a new packing material and design and there were loads getting cracked on the edges where it overlapped the screen without any damage to the box as even a small movement would cause it so they did a retail level recall on them all to check and repack with their old type packaging and swapped any over that were damaged getting to customers.

The only other possibility is that it was packed already damaged but that sounds like way too much damage to be missed during packing and probably wouldnt have even easily gone in the box.

I'm sure the OP would be able to show damage to the box if need be

And if the packaging is obviously damaged then why hadn't it been noticed and reported sooner, the sort of thing the retailer would be questioning.

naedanger

neilmcl wrote: »

Again it's not a fault, it's damage. It would be fairly easy for the seller to prove, based on the balance of probabilities, that the damage must have been caused by the buyer, given that he's been in possession of the TV for over 4 months.

Damage is a type of fault. But usually only an inherent fault if the item arrived damaged.

I agree with the sentiment in your second sentence.

Fosterdog

naedanger wrote: »

Damage is a type of fault. But usually only an inherent fault if the item arrived damaged.

I agree with the sentiment in your second sentence.

I'd have to disagree I don't see damage as being a type of fault. Damage is damage, caused by a physical act. Although the onus is on the seller they only have to prove that it's not an inherent fault at this stage and damage is not and inherent fault it is something that has been caused.

fleshandbone

Fosterdog wrote: »

I'd have to disagree I don't see damage as being a type of fault. Damage is damage, caused by a physical act. Although the onus is on the seller they only have to prove that it's not an inherent fault at this stage and damage is not and inherent fault it is something that has been caused.

Damage can be caused by an "Act of God" like an earthquake, monsoon, tornado etc.

wealdroam

Forget the word 'fault'.

Perhaps the suggestion being made by the OP is that the goods do not conform to contract.

Or maybe Section 9 of The CRA plays a part:

9 Goods to be of satisfactory quality

(1) Every contract to supply goods is to be treated as including a term that the quality of the goods is satisfactory.
(2) The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory...

wealdroam

Fosterdog wrote: »

I'd have to disagree I don't see damage as being a type of fault. Damage is damage, caused by a physical act. Although the onus is on the seller they only have to prove that it's not an inherent fault at this stage and damage is not and inherent fault it is something that has been caused.

Quite simply, an inherent fault is one that was present at the time of delivery.

If the damage was done before delivery, then it is an inherent fault. There can be no argument about that.

Obviously it is when the damage was done that is the difficult bit.