Laptop purchse

Akumo

Hi

Hoping someone can offer some advice please, been to CAB and getting mixed messages from them.

In April 2016 I bought an MSI GT72 laptop that was advertised as having the Graphics in the laptop as being upgradeable.
This advertisement was on the manufacturer's website and others along with YouTube videos with MSI employees all talking about this upgradeability but not on the merchants website.
The upgradeability of the graphics was the sole reason for me choosing this computer hardware over other options available to me at the time.
MSI formally announced in early September (via a 3rd party website) that this series of laptops were not actually upgradeable due to compatibility and stability issues with the latest graphics cards that have come out.
They also announced (on the same 3rd party website) that they would be introducing a trade in program.
The details of the trade in program is that MSI provide a valuation for your laptop and then provide a range of laptops for you to exchange it which are valued at full SRP.
Initially the valuation of my laptop was way below what I expected to get for it so I went to the merchant and as they had not advertised it as being upgradeable were not prepared to even entertain any form of dispute resolution, several emails were sent and received.
So I went to my credit card company as I had bought it on my CC and they also stated that as the merchant I bought from had not advertised it is being upgradeable there was nothing that they can do.
So I've been to CAB as well whilst all this was happening and CAB stated that because MSI had put their advertising relating to the upgradeability of the GPU into the public domain then the merchant is liable however another CAB volunteer was unable to confirm this.
Now the revaluation of my laptop is not too far off what I paid for it so I am not now concerned about that, it is just that the potential replacement laptops being offered we are expected to pay full SRP when many of them are on sale.
So:
I am being offered almost what I paid for the laptop
If the laptop had been upgradeable in the first place then there would have been a cost to me to get the laptop upgraded
The laptops being offered have an upgrade in terms of GPU over my current laptop, however they have a downgrade in terms of CPU, optical drive, chipset and other features.
Is there any other route left open to me? Or am I only able now to pursue this through the small claims court, if I go through the small claims court has anyone any idea of the chances of success and should I put my claim in against the retailer or manufacturer?
As for resolution I’d like to see MSI reduce the value of the laptops that they are offering as part of the trade in by £200, which would match their resellers prices, this would allow me to move across to the lowest spec’d laptop with GT1070 for nothing (baring in mind all the other downgrades), or pay £200 for the next one up.
Or do people here thinking that I am being too greedy and that what MSI are offering is fair?

alumende27

You've had 10 months use out of the laptop and they're offering a trade in to a newer model with a faster graphics card (that you'd otherwise have had to pay for?). Sounds reasonable to me.

What is the technical spec (CPU, optical drive, chipset and other features) of your current laptop vs the replacements?

bris

Small claims court will not work as the retailer, who you're contract is with have done nothing wrong.

Akumo

Hi Bris

Thank you for that, I just wanted confirmation one way or the other, I was told by CAB that because MSI placed this advert out in the 'public domain' that the retailer could be held liable.

Just to say that I have no problem with the retailer whom I bought the laptop off.

@dsdhall, yes I have actually had just over 9 months usage of the laptop and several of those months are down to the time frame that MSI have taken to reply to my enquiries, first email to them was at the start of September, as soon as
1) I knew of the upgrade problem
and
2) when I had a contact at MSI to send my enquiry to

I then sent another in early or mid October, and I heard nothing from them until early December.
Not exactly my fault that I have had the laptop for 10 months.
My laptop is a GT72S6QE-046UK:
CPU: i7 6820K
GPU: GTX980m
Optical drive: Blu-ray writer
Chipset: CM236
MUX switching

Laptops to trade to all have:
i7 6700HQ CPU
DVD Rewriter (more expensive ones do have a Blu-ray)
Chipset: HM170
No MUX switching

Both laptops 16GB RAM, the 'trade to' laptops are fitted with DDR4 inplace of DDR3.

I think the above are the most significant differences.

---

Adding some flesh to the bones of my original post:
In early 2016 my desktop was struggling to do anything, I needed new computer hardware and my son had expressed an interest in VR, he also has a GT72 laptop but an older model that has, by modern comparisons, a weak CPU so that even if the GPU were to be upgraded to one that was VR capable his laptop would not be able to run VR software because of the CPU.
I therefore had a choice, upgrade my desktop or purchase a laptop, I chose to go with the MSI GT72 laptop because of what the manufacturer had advertised.

I guess what I find really annoying is that if I had not bought the laptop back then I could have bought a VR laptop already for my son at less than the SRP that MSI want to charge me and all down to their false advertising.

If MSI said you can trade in your laptop for a GT72VR 6RE (Dominator Pro)-040UK for £100 charge I'd be happy with that, but they are asking for an extra £400, and yes it would be nice to have the MSI Holiday bundle included that various online sellers are giving away for free but as they are refusing to include it with any trade in I am not going to refuse any trade in based on this one aspect.
I take it that the only course of action I have is to try and negotiate with MSI for the best possible deal for myself?

wealdroam

Akumo wrote: »

I take it that the only course of action I have is to try and negotiate with MSI for the best possible deal for myself?

Yes, I believe that is a fair appraisal of your situation.

Leo2020

My understanding is that the retailer is liable for any claims the manufacturer makes about a product. The same as if faulty you return to the product to the seller. For example its not the sellers fault that say a product was poorly made its the manufacturers for poor training/quality control/etc but the seller is still the one who is liable for any claims under the SOGA or Consumer Rights Act.

But I suppose I and CAB could be wrong.

alumende27

The OP is probably already aware of it, but there's a similar discussion on the overclocker's forums about this issue and what other people are being offered by MSI. If it's any help?

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18746748

George_Michael

Leo2020 wrote: »

My understanding is that the retailer is liable for any claims the manufacturer makes about a product. The same as if faulty you return to the product to the seller.

A retailer is generally only liable for manufacturers adverts or information if that retailer uses the information themselves such as in their own advert or on something in their store.

Faulty goods is a totally different situation. In this case you are buying those goods from the retailer and even though they didn't manufacture them, they are still legally responsible for the goods that they sell.

The CRA (and the SOGA before this) specifically related to contracts of sale between consumers and traders and the only time that it would cover the manufacturer is if the goods were purchased directly from them.

Leo2020

Would it possible for someone to provide proof either way? Because I believe that what CAB said that if it was in the public domain even if not mentioned by the retailer then the retailer was responsible. If not this creates a potential loop hole with the purchaser stuck without recourse. The manufactuer states x on their website for example, consumer purchases good from a retailer. Turns out manufacturer is wrong both retailer and manufacturer refuses to do anything than the consumer is stuck. The consumer only has a contract with the retailer so legally they can claim nothing through the manufacturer if they refuse to assist.

Now I will admit that I learnt this by working at PC World Customer Service department and PC World arent known for getting the law right. But this is what we were taught because sometimes cases such as the OPs came up and we were always told to resolve so possible refund, in the case of a PC possible upgrade, etc but either way PCW took the hit for the manufacturers error even if PCW hadn't itself misdescribed the product.

George_Michael

Leo2020 wrote: »

Would it possible for someone to provide proof either way? Because I believe that what CAB said that if it was in the public domain even if not mentioned by the retailer then the retailer was responsible.

Surely the only proof needed is the Consumer rights act.
Any rights that you have under this legislation are between you and the person or company that you had a contract of sale with and this is the trader and not the manufacturer (unless purchased directly from the manufacturer).

IMO, this would be the most relevant part of the CRA:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/11/enacted

(4) Any information that is provided by the trader about the goods and is information mentioned in paragraph (a) of Schedule 1 or 2 to the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/3134) (main characteristics of goods) is to be treated as included as a term of the contract.

If this wasn't the case then it would mean that a retailer could be held liable for something that they may not know about and for which they had zero control over.

Leo2020

This is from the The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers
Regulations 2002

"Additional implied terms in consumer cases
3.—(1) Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2C) insert—
“(2D) If the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, if a contract of sale is a consumer
contract, the relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2A) above include any
public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods made about them by the
seller, the producer or his representative, particularly in advertising or on labelling."

But this refers to the SOGA and not the Consumer Rights Act. Does the CRA supercede any rights within The Sale and Supply Act and therefore statements made by the manufacturer are no longer covered?