John Lewis TV guarantee

neverthesamedaytwice

y3sitsm3 said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

y3sitsm3 said:

TV's break.  They'll have a Mean Time Between Failure but that is an average, not a minimum.

You've had 2 years of usage of said TV at a cost of £200, so roughly £2 a week.  Hardly unreasonable is it?

Yes, I do consider it unreasonable, because I didn't intend to rent a TV by the week.

I expected the TV to last at least five years, hopefully more.

Take the refund and put some more towards the TV you really want.  And then shell out a packet on a 5 year warranty that gives you an equivalent model replacement from the latest models for the same brand (good luck with that.)

If the JL site had been more clear about the terms of the warranty (e.g. "We will provide you with a TV equivalent to the money you spent, minus £100 depreciation per year owned. There is no guarantee you will receive a TV from the same manufacturer.") I would not have shopped at JL.

It's very clear actually.

It would be clear if they stated: "There is no guarantee you will receive a TV from the same manufacturer."

I also think stating this would affect their bottom line. If it would dissuade me from making a purchase, I'm sure others could feel the same.

y3sitsm3

neverthesamedaytwice said:

y3sitsm3 said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

y3sitsm3 said:

TV's break.  They'll have a Mean Time Between Failure but that is an average, not a minimum.

You've had 2 years of usage of said TV at a cost of £200, so roughly £2 a week.  Hardly unreasonable is it?

Yes, I do consider it unreasonable, because I didn't intend to rent a TV by the week.

I expected the TV to last at least five years, hopefully more.

Take the refund and put some more towards the TV you really want.  And then shell out a packet on a 5 year warranty that gives you an equivalent model replacement from the latest models for the same brand (good luck with that.)

If the JL site had been more clear about the terms of the warranty (e.g. "We will provide you with a TV equivalent to the money you spent, minus £100 depreciation per year owned. There is no guarantee you will receive a TV from the same manufacturer.") I would not have shopped at JL.

It's very clear actually.

It would be clear if they stated: "There is no guarantee you will receive a TV from the same manufacturer."

I also think stating this would affect their bottom line. If it would dissuade me from making a purchase, I'm sure others could feel the same.

They don't need to specify that because they never said they would.

Same spec does not mean same manufacturer

neverthesamedaytwice

neverthesamedaytwice said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

y3sitsm3 said:

No, you're not.

You've exercised your contractual rights under their warranty, which do not include you getting the TV back, and neither do your consumer rights.

When did I stop owning the TV?

Will the warranty be subject to a specific set of terms, and if so where can these be found? (Asking as it sounds like you're privy to them ..)

I'd be very interested to learn how this works legally.

Any update here?

neverthesamedaytwice

y3sitsm3 said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

y3sitsm3 said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

y3sitsm3 said:

TV's break.  They'll have a Mean Time Between Failure but that is an average, not a minimum.

You've had 2 years of usage of said TV at a cost of £200, so roughly £2 a week.  Hardly unreasonable is it?

Yes, I do consider it unreasonable, because I didn't intend to rent a TV by the week.

I expected the TV to last at least five years, hopefully more.

Take the refund and put some more towards the TV you really want.  And then shell out a packet on a 5 year warranty that gives you an equivalent model replacement from the latest models for the same brand (good luck with that.)

If the JL site had been more clear about the terms of the warranty (e.g. "We will provide you with a TV equivalent to the money you spent, minus £100 depreciation per year owned. There is no guarantee you will receive a TV from the same manufacturer.") I would not have shopped at JL.

It's very clear actually.

It would be clear if they stated: "There is no guarantee you will receive a TV from the same manufacturer."

I also think stating this would affect their bottom line. If it would dissuade me from making a purchase, I'm sure others could feel the same.

They don't need to specify that because they never said they would.

Same spec does not mean same manufacturer

Could the operating system used by the TV be considered part of the specification?

y3sitsm3

neverthesamedaytwice said:

y3sitsm3 said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

y3sitsm3 said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

y3sitsm3 said:

TV's break.  They'll have a Mean Time Between Failure but that is an average, not a minimum.

You've had 2 years of usage of said TV at a cost of £200, so roughly £2 a week.  Hardly unreasonable is it?

Yes, I do consider it unreasonable, because I didn't intend to rent a TV by the week.

I expected the TV to last at least five years, hopefully more.

Take the refund and put some more towards the TV you really want.  And then shell out a packet on a 5 year warranty that gives you an equivalent model replacement from the latest models for the same brand (good luck with that.)

If the JL site had been more clear about the terms of the warranty (e.g. "We will provide you with a TV equivalent to the money you spent, minus £100 depreciation per year owned. There is no guarantee you will receive a TV from the same manufacturer.") I would not have shopped at JL.

It's very clear actually.

It would be clear if they stated: "There is no guarantee you will receive a TV from the same manufacturer."

I also think stating this would affect their bottom line. If it would dissuade me from making a purchase, I'm sure others could feel the same.

They don't need to specify that because they never said they would.

Same spec does not mean same manufacturer

Could the operating system used by the TV be considered part of the specification?

No.

Stop grasping at straws.  What you've been offered is in line with the terms of their guarantee, and a fair bit above the offer you'd get via your consumer rights.

neverthesamedaytwice

y3sitsm3 said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

y3sitsm3 said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

y3sitsm3 said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

y3sitsm3 said:

TV's break.  They'll have a Mean Time Between Failure but that is an average, not a minimum.

You've had 2 years of usage of said TV at a cost of £200, so roughly £2 a week.  Hardly unreasonable is it?

Yes, I do consider it unreasonable, because I didn't intend to rent a TV by the week.

I expected the TV to last at least five years, hopefully more.

Take the refund and put some more towards the TV you really want.  And then shell out a packet on a 5 year warranty that gives you an equivalent model replacement from the latest models for the same brand (good luck with that.)

If the JL site had been more clear about the terms of the warranty (e.g. "We will provide you with a TV equivalent to the money you spent, minus £100 depreciation per year owned. There is no guarantee you will receive a TV from the same manufacturer.") I would not have shopped at JL.

It's very clear actually.

It would be clear if they stated: "There is no guarantee you will receive a TV from the same manufacturer."

I also think stating this would affect their bottom line. If it would dissuade me from making a purchase, I'm sure others could feel the same.

They don't need to specify that because they never said they would.

Same spec does not mean same manufacturer

Could the operating system used by the TV be considered part of the specification?

No.

Stop grasping at straws.  What you've been offered is in line with the terms of their guarantee, and a fair bit above the offer you'd get via your consumer rights.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you.

neverthesamedaytwice

I would be keen to see you back up some of the more legally nuanced statements you've made though.

y3sitsm3

neverthesamedaytwice said:

I would be keen to see you back up some of the more legally nuanced statements you've made though.

Like what?

neverthesamedaytwice

neverthesamedaytwice said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

y3sitsm3 said:

No, you're not.

You've exercised your contractual rights under their warranty, which do not include you getting the TV back, and neither do your consumer rights.

When did I stop owning the TV?

Will the warranty be subject to a specific set of terms, and if so where can these be found? (Asking as it sounds like you're privy to them ..)

I'd be very interested to learn how this works legally.

Any update here?

The questions contained in this thread!

y3sitsm3

neverthesamedaytwice said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

y3sitsm3 said:

No, you're not.

You've exercised your contractual rights under their warranty, which do not include you getting the TV back, and neither do your consumer rights.

When did I stop owning the TV?

Will the warranty be subject to a specific set of terms, and if so where can these be found? (Asking as it sounds like you're privy to them ..)

I'd be very interested to learn how this works legally.

Any update here?

The questions contained in this thread!

You said you'd like me to back up the "legally nuanced" statements I've made.

They're statements, not questions, so what are the legally nuanced statements you want me to "back up"?