Gaming laptop broken - less than 3 years old

RogerBareford

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RogerBareford said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RogerBareford said:

jackh123 said:

Thanks all for your posts, however, I'm seeing some people implying that I'm trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes and not giving all information - @Manxman_in_exile - my wording may not have been the best by calling the 6 year CRA reference a warranty, I accept that, but again this isn't exactly my area of expertise.
I do have a report, again, didn't see a need to post this earlier, I am merely getting together some idea's. The report states as to why the laptop failed, by one of the MOSFETs burning through the motherboard.

I agree with @cx6, this is unusual to happen. With reference to the servicing of the laptop @unholyangel, the laptop insides were clean, it wasn't "serviced" per se, but was kept in a clean environment, though I would say it is highly unlikely that a dusting would have saved the chip to blow up.

understand your rights before starting the process of getting reports done. If you had done this then you would have known that the report needs to state it's and "inherent" fault

The "report" merely needs to assist the consumer in articulating that on the balance of probabilities the goods do not conform to the contract. 

Well the contract was to supply a device which functions without defects or faults. If the report simply states a component has failed after three years of use then that certainly doesn't mean it was in any part due to a fault during the manufacturing. The OP could have taped up all the vents and used it on top of a radiator for three years. So that's why the report needs to state that the component failed due to no fault of the OP and it must have been due to the component being sub standard during manufacture (i.e. an inherent fault).

So if your saying it doesn't need to specifically say the fault is "inherent" then yes your right but it needs to say the fault was likely to be there when purchased which is what inherent means so they might aswell use that terminology in the report so there is no doubt by anyone who needs to review it.

No I'm not saying this (although I don't like the term inherent).

I am saying that it is possible to articulate a conclusion which is not stated from others which either are or aren't. 

If an independent inspection doesn't note any water damage a conclusion may be articulated that the goods were not water damaged, as if they were it would have been mentioned.  

Equally if an independent inspection concludes an sealed internal component, with which the user has had no negative interaction, has failed then a conclusion may be articulated that the component failed due to a lack of durability rather than being left on top of a radiator as had this occurred there would be signs of misuse detailed in the report.

For the consumer the risk of small claims is very little as the costs are small, however the process is likely to be daunting.

For the trader the process is probably not daunting and they know typically that it is for the consumer, however the costs are likely to be disproportionate from their perspective.

There is no harm whatsoever in approaching the trader with the best you are able to achieve in the hope they will accept it, should you wish to file through small claims then it would be wise to ensure what you have has appropriate substance but on the balance of probability rather than beyond all reasonable doubt. 

I understand what you are saying but i just think it's best to understand what you want from a report before you ask someone to complete one. If the OP has just taken their laptop to get a report stating a fault it might just say "MOSFET failed" without any other wording. Now your saying due to the absence of any other wording reltating to heat damage, water damage then this means it wasn't present. But i don't agree that is true because they won't necesarily go into the cause if you just ask for a report saying what is wrong.

So that's why i say it "needs" to include a part saying it's inherent and why that is so that it's clear cut and not open to interpretation.

Jenni_D

I understand what you mean ... the report should state the nature of the fault, and (in the engineer's opinion) the cause of the fault (on the balance of probabilities). So something like:

"The fault with the laptop is due to MOSFET chip XXX. It is my opinion that this is an early-life failure of the chip rather than failure through use".

Yes?

RogerBareford

Jenni_D said:

I understand what you mean ... the report should state the nature of the fault, and (in the engineer's opinion) the cause of the fault (on the balance of probabilities). So something like:

"The fault with the laptop is due to MOSFET chip XXX. It is my opinion that this is an early-life failure of the chip rather than failure through use".

Yes?

That's personally the kind of thing i would expect and would want to see if i was getting a report so then there is no question to what the report actually says.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RogerBareford said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RogerBareford said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RogerBareford said:

jackh123 said:

Thanks all for your posts, however, I'm seeing some people implying that I'm trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes and not giving all information - @Manxman_in_exile - my wording may not have been the best by calling the 6 year CRA reference a warranty, I accept that, but again this isn't exactly my area of expertise.
I do have a report, again, didn't see a need to post this earlier, I am merely getting together some idea's. The report states as to why the laptop failed, by one of the MOSFETs burning through the motherboard.

I agree with @cx6, this is unusual to happen. With reference to the servicing of the laptop @unholyangel, the laptop insides were clean, it wasn't "serviced" per se, but was kept in a clean environment, though I would say it is highly unlikely that a dusting would have saved the chip to blow up.

understand your rights before starting the process of getting reports done. If you had done this then you would have known that the report needs to state it's and "inherent" fault

The "report" merely needs to assist the consumer in articulating that on the balance of probabilities the goods do not conform to the contract. 

Well the contract was to supply a device which functions without defects or faults. If the report simply states a component has failed after three years of use then that certainly doesn't mean it was in any part due to a fault during the manufacturing. The OP could have taped up all the vents and used it on top of a radiator for three years. So that's why the report needs to state that the component failed due to no fault of the OP and it must have been due to the component being sub standard during manufacture (i.e. an inherent fault).

So if your saying it doesn't need to specifically say the fault is "inherent" then yes your right but it needs to say the fault was likely to be there when purchased which is what inherent means so they might aswell use that terminology in the report so there is no doubt by anyone who needs to review it.

No I'm not saying this (although I don't like the term inherent).

I am saying that it is possible to articulate a conclusion which is not stated from others which either are or aren't. 

If an independent inspection doesn't note any water damage a conclusion may be articulated that the goods were not water damaged, as if they were it would have been mentioned.  

Equally if an independent inspection concludes an sealed internal component, with which the user has had no negative interaction, has failed then a conclusion may be articulated that the component failed due to a lack of durability rather than being left on top of a radiator as had this occurred there would be signs of misuse detailed in the report.

For the consumer the risk of small claims is very little as the costs are small, however the process is likely to be daunting.

For the trader the process is probably not daunting and they know typically that it is for the consumer, however the costs are likely to be disproportionate from their perspective.

There is no harm whatsoever in approaching the trader with the best you are able to achieve in the hope they will accept it, should you wish to file through small claims then it would be wise to ensure what you have has appropriate substance but on the balance of probability rather than beyond all reasonable doubt. 

I understand what you are saying but i just think it's best to understand what you want from a report before you ask someone to complete one. If the OP has just taken their laptop to get a report stating a fault it might just say "MOSFET failed" without any other wording. Now your saying due to the absence of any other wording reltating to heat damage, water damage then this means it wasn't present. But i don't agree that is true because they won't necesarily go into the cause if you just ask for a report saying what is wrong.

So that's why i say it "needs" to include a part saying it's inherent and why that is so that it's clear cut and not open to interpretation.

I'm merely stating it may be possible to articulate such on the balance of probabilities. 

That is not to suggest in this example that the consumer should go running to small claims with a piece of paper that simply has  "MOSFET failed" written on it or that anything of greater detail is not of benefit to them.

I don't know what a MOSFET is, the first result on Google says it can be difficult to determine the cause of a MOSFET failure as " once a MOSFET fails – it is now dud and will not work properly so it promptly goes into another failure mode, obliterating the original evidence"

If we were to take that statement as true (I don't know if it is or not but let's say it is for the point) and as such the person carrying out the inspection can't comment on the cause as it can't be determined that doesn't mean the consumer is stuck without a "report" stating why the MOSFET failed and/or that it did before it's time, it just makes the consumer's position of articulating that the goods did not conform in terms of durability more difficult. 

cx6

A component on a 3 year old laptop should not fail like this

If it goes tp court the judge will make a decision based on the balance of probabilities that the OP did or did not use their laptop on a radiator with the vents taped up.

RogerBareford

cx6 said:

A component on a 3 year old laptop should not fail like this

If it goes tp court the judge will make a decision based on the balance of probabilities that the OP did or did not use their laptop on a radiator with the vents taped up.

I thought there was more too it than that.

From what i have read i was under the impression that a component may have a mean life of say 10 years but 1 in 5,000 may fail at 3 years but if it was not a manufacturing fault then you can't claim under CRA.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RogerBareford said:

cx6 said:

A component on a 3 year old laptop should not fail like this

If it goes tp court the judge will make a decision based on the balance of probabilities that the OP did or did not use their laptop on a radiator with the vents taped up.

I thought there was more too it than that.

From what i have read i was under the impression that a component may have a mean life of say 10 years but 1 in 5,000 may fail at 3 years but if it was not a manufacturing fault then you can't claim under CRA.

Those 1 in 5000 that fail before their time didn't conform to the contract in terms of durability for which the consumer is entitled to a remedy  

Sandtree

Manxman_in_exile said:

Sandtree said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Sandtree said:

unholyangel said:

Sandtree said:

The CRA gives you statutory rights not a warranty... unfortunately lax wording can add a lot of time and effort to the process. If you email the retailer about your warranty they will rightfully say you don't have one.

Some companies will simply ride roughshod over your rights so its not a magic bullet to quote your rights but you can't do much more than present your case accurately with your supporting evidence. If that doesn't get a favourable response then send a letter before action. If that doesn't solve it then Money Claim Online to go to the small track court. In practice most large companies will settle before the day in court. 

It does give a warranty, but it's the legal meaning of the word warranty (as in condition, warranty or innominate term) Of course, those who aren't legally trained/don't have legal knowledge don't know this distinction and think warranty refers to a manufacturers guarantee. 

...As you highlight though, I'm a business person with only a 101 training in law and have spent days of my life listening to £1,200 per hour partners arguing over if pseudonymised data counts as PII under GDPR or if NY or English law gives more protection to a reinsurer so can certainly appreciate that there are lawyers that would be more than happy to argue statutory rights do create a warranty

Good.  It's helpful to know what experience your opinions are based on.

Didn't realise my insurance background was unknown? 

Noooo!

I mean being locked in a conference room for days of your life with lawyers on £12 zillion per hour!

Thankfully it wasn't continuous, its interesting to start with but can end up in deep rabbit holes at times. 

Some of the partners with their £1,200/hr + vat fees however do show their worth, the NY -v- E&W debate had been going on over several meetings with the senior associate and was at deadlock but the partner joined the final meeting and ran circles around the other guy who quickly conceded to E&W.

It doesn't always work that way though, following a review by a banking lawyer a new three part clause was added that basically said A would pay B, B would then deposit the payment in an account held by A and that these transactions are considered to have happened concurrently... the other lawyers got very excited about it but all the business reviewers were asking what the hells the point of that -v- the original which said A would put into the payment in the account.  

smashinglynaive

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RogerBareford said:

cx6 said:

A component on a 3 year old laptop should not fail like this

If it goes tp court the judge will make a decision based on the balance of probabilities that the OP did or did not use their laptop on a radiator with the vents taped up.

I thought there was more too it than that.

From what i have read i was under the impression that a component may have a mean life of say 10 years but 1 in 5,000 may fail at 3 years but if it was not a manufacturing fault then you can't claim under CRA.

Those 1 in 5000 that fail before their time didn't conform to the contract in terms of durability for which the consumer is entitled to a remedy  

Components have an MTBF rating, and M doesn't stand for minimum.

Manxman_in_exile

smashinglynaive said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RogerBareford said:

cx6 said:

A component on a 3 year old laptop should not fail like this

If it goes tp court the judge will make a decision based on the balance of probabilities that the OP did or did not use their laptop on a radiator with the vents taped up.

I thought there was more too it than that.

From what i have read i was under the impression that a component may have a mean life of say 10 years but 1 in 5,000 may fail at 3 years but if it was not a manufacturing fault then you can't claim under CRA.

Those 1 in 5000 that fail before their time didn't conform to the contract in terms of durability for which the consumer is entitled to a remedy  

Components have an MTBF rating, and M doesn't stand for minimum.

No it doesn't, but @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head isn't suggesting that it does, are they?  Just that a component that fails well before the expected mean life expectancy for it was not sufficiently durable and therefore not of satisfactory quality?