Currys monitor

eskbanker

DullGreyGuy said:

hrawlins said:

I don't see why the consumer rights act wouldn't apply.  I bought it as a consumer for my.kids to play on, but choose now to use it in the day whilst they are out since I recently started working from home.  My company didn't pay for it at all.

The Consumer Rights Act defines a consumer as:

“Consumer” means an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual’s trade, business, craft or profession.

Therefore if you are using it notably for business you fail to meet the definition of a consumer and fall outside of the consumer rights act however you may fall inside the remaining bits of the Sales of Goods Act which still requires items sold to be of reasonable durability but the resolutions under the act have mainly been removed since the CRA came about. 

Perhaps also worth noting that the very next line in the CRA definitions is:

A trader claiming that an individual was not acting for purposes wholly or mainly outside the individual’s trade, business, craft or profession must prove it.

so the likelihood of a merchant actually choosing to try to prove that seems remote in this scenario, and if the purchase was made well before OP started to work from home it wouldn't be difficult to demonstrate that the purchase wasn't for business purposes at the time, which I'd have thought was the test (from the reference to 'was' rather than 'is')....

DullGreyGuy

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:

hrawlins said:

I don't see why the consumer rights act wouldn't apply.  I bought it as a consumer for my.kids to play on, but choose now to use it in the day whilst they are out since I recently started working from home.  My company didn't pay for it at all.

The Consumer Rights Act defines a consumer as:

“Consumer” means an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual’s trade, business, craft or profession.

Therefore if you are using it notably for business you fail to meet the definition of a consumer and fall outside of the consumer rights act however you may fall inside the remaining bits of the Sales of Goods Act which still requires items sold to be of reasonable durability but the resolutions under the act have mainly been removed since the CRA came about. 

Perhaps also worth noting that the very next line in the CRA definitions is:

A trader claiming that an individual was not acting for purposes wholly or mainly outside the individual’s trade, business, craft or profession must prove it.

so the likelihood of a merchant actually choosing to try to prove that seems remote in this scenario, and if the purchase was made well before OP started to work from home it wouldn't be difficult to demonstrate that the purchase wasn't for business purposes at the time, which I'd have thought was the test (from the reference to 'was' rather than 'is')....

Assuming the OP was always intending to use it for business 12 hours a day... does encouraging them to "forget to say that" really sit well even if the following clause requires the trader to prove it if the customer doesn't fess up?

Doesn't feel a million miles away from all those on the Motor section who encourage insurance fraud by telling people not to mention a privately settled crash because the insurer will never find out

eskbanker

DullGreyGuy said:
Assuming the OP was always intending to use it for business 12 hours a day...

That's not what OP said though, the clear implication was that it wasn't purchased with business use in mind:

hrawlins said:

I don't see why the consumer rights act wouldn't apply.  I bought it as a consumer for my.kids to play on, but choose now to use it in the day whilst they are out since I recently started working from home.  My company didn't pay for it at all.

DullGreyGuy

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:
Assuming the OP was always intending to use it for business 12 hours a day...

That's not what OP said though, the clear implication was that it wasn't purchased with business use in mind:

hrawlins said:

I don't see why the consumer rights act wouldn't apply.  I bought it as a consumer for my.kids to play on, but choose now to use it in the day whilst they are out since I recently started working from home.  My company didn't pay for it at all.

Hence I said assuming... didn't want to get into a debate about the fact the original story was used 12 hours a day for over 2 years and only after pointing out that the business use would preclude CRA rights did it become bought for kids to play on and only recently been working on it.

Guess some kids do play on a computer 12 hours a day continuously (to use the OPs words of its level of use) but the clarification in circumstances immediately post finding a problem seemed coincidental and those using a monitor that much typically are doing some form of work rather than playing 84 hours a week of Call of Duty. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

The guidance says:

The other main restriction on who is a consumer is that a consumer must be acting wholly or mainly outside their trade, business, craft or profession. This means, for example, that a person who buys a kettle for their home, works from home one day a week and uses it on the days when working from home would still be a consumer. Conversely a sole trader that operates from a private dwelling who buys a printer of which 95% of the use is for the purposes of the business, is not likely to be held to be a consumer 

but as is typical highlights one extreme to the other rather than what could be in the middle, possibly because it would be down to a court to decide.

If you buy the kettle for your home, work from home 5 days a week and drink most of your tea or coffee during the hours you work then it leans towards not being a consumer but who is going to ask these questions and who is going to volunteer such information without being asked? 

eskbanker

DullGreyGuy said:

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:
Assuming the OP was always intending to use it for business 12 hours a day...

That's not what OP said though, the clear implication was that it wasn't purchased with business use in mind:

hrawlins said:

I don't see why the consumer rights act wouldn't apply.  I bought it as a consumer for my.kids to play on, but choose now to use it in the day whilst they are out since I recently started working from home.  My company didn't pay for it at all.

Hence I said assuming... didn't want to get into a debate about the fact the original story was used 12 hours a day for over 2 years and only after pointing out that the business use would preclude CRA rights did it become bought for kids to play on and only recently been working on it.

Guess some kids do play on a computer 12 hours a day continuously (to use the OPs words of its level of use) but the clarification in circumstances immediately post finding a problem seemed coincidental and those using a monitor that much typically are doing some form of work rather than playing 84 hours a week of Call of Duty. 

Up to you if you choose not to believe OP, but for the avoidance of doubt, my post was predicated on their posts painting an accurate picture!

DullGreyGuy

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:
Assuming the OP was always intending to use it for business 12 hours a day...

That's not what OP said though, the clear implication was that it wasn't purchased with business use in mind:

hrawlins said:

I don't see why the consumer rights act wouldn't apply.  I bought it as a consumer for my.kids to play on, but choose now to use it in the day whilst they are out since I recently started working from home.  My company didn't pay for it at all.

Hence I said assuming... didn't want to get into a debate about the fact the original story was used 12 hours a day for over 2 years and only after pointing out that the business use would preclude CRA rights did it become bought for kids to play on and only recently been working on it.

Guess some kids do play on a computer 12 hours a day continuously (to use the OPs words of its level of use) but the clarification in circumstances immediately post finding a problem seemed coincidental and those using a monitor that much typically are doing some form of work rather than playing 84 hours a week of Call of Duty. 

Up to you if you choose not to believe OP, but for the avoidance of doubt, my post was predicated on their posts painting an accurate picture!

But your post didn't give that predication and so, to me at least, your comment:

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:

hrawlins said:

I don't see why the consumer rights act wouldn't apply.  I bought it as a consumer for my.kids to play on, but choose now to use it in the day whilst they are out since I recently started working from home.  My company didn't pay for it at all.

The Consumer Rights Act defines a consumer as:

“Consumer” means an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual’s trade, business, craft or profession.

Therefore if you are using it notably for business you fail to meet the definition of a consumer and fall outside of the consumer rights act however you may fall inside the remaining bits of the Sales of Goods Act which still requires items sold to be of reasonable durability but the resolutions under the act have mainly been removed since the CRA came about. 

Perhaps also worth noting that the very next line in the CRA definitions is:

A trader claiming that an individual was not acting for purposes wholly or mainly outside the individual’s trade, business, craft or profession must prove it.

so the likelihood of a merchant actually choosing to try to prove that seems remote in this scenario

Seemed much more to say that the reality doesn't matter because the merchant can't prove it anyway so you can pretend it was a consumer purchase even if it wasn't. 

eskbanker

DullGreyGuy said:

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:
Assuming the OP was always intending to use it for business 12 hours a day...

That's not what OP said though, the clear implication was that it wasn't purchased with business use in mind:

hrawlins said:

I don't see why the consumer rights act wouldn't apply.  I bought it as a consumer for my.kids to play on, but choose now to use it in the day whilst they are out since I recently started working from home.  My company didn't pay for it at all.

Hence I said assuming... didn't want to get into a debate about the fact the original story was used 12 hours a day for over 2 years and only after pointing out that the business use would preclude CRA rights did it become bought for kids to play on and only recently been working on it.

Guess some kids do play on a computer 12 hours a day continuously (to use the OPs words of its level of use) but the clarification in circumstances immediately post finding a problem seemed coincidental and those using a monitor that much typically are doing some form of work rather than playing 84 hours a week of Call of Duty. 

Up to you if you choose not to believe OP, but for the avoidance of doubt, my post was predicated on their posts painting an accurate picture!

But your post didn't give that predication and so, to me at least, your comment:

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:

hrawlins said:

I don't see why the consumer rights act wouldn't apply.  I bought it as a consumer for my.kids to play on, but choose now to use it in the day whilst they are out since I recently started working from home.  My company didn't pay for it at all.

The Consumer Rights Act defines a consumer as:

“Consumer” means an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual’s trade, business, craft or profession.

Therefore if you are using it notably for business you fail to meet the definition of a consumer and fall outside of the consumer rights act however you may fall inside the remaining bits of the Sales of Goods Act which still requires items sold to be of reasonable durability but the resolutions under the act have mainly been removed since the CRA came about. 

Perhaps also worth noting that the very next line in the CRA definitions is:

A trader claiming that an individual was not acting for purposes wholly or mainly outside the individual’s trade, business, craft or profession must prove it.

so the likelihood of a merchant actually choosing to try to prove that seems remote in this scenario

Seemed much more to say that the reality doesn't matter because the merchant can't prove it anyway so you can pretend it was a consumer purchase even if it wasn't. 

The predication should be clear from the quoting of OP's statement that the monitor wasn't bought for business purposes, so I certainly wasn't suggesting any form of deception, and the rest of the post highlighted that there was no need to deceive anyway, i.e. it was effectively 'they're unlikely to ask but even if they did, you have the right answer'.

hrawlins

Thanks all.  My takeaway is that when using an expensive  PC monitor for over 12 hours a day it is considered reasonable for it to last only 2 years, since it seems to be considered excessive use.

I won't pursue a claim that it should have lasted longer.  I will now buy a separate (cheaper) monitor to use for my working at home, and a new gaming monitor to replace this gaming one, for the kids.   Hopefully one day someone will invent a monitor consumers can purchase for both work and play,, which will last as long as a TV does.

eskbanker

hrawlins said:

My takeaway is that when using an expensive  PC monitor for over 12 hours a day it is considered reasonable for it to last only 2 years, since it seems to be considered excessive use.

I won't pursue a claim that it should have lasted longer.

There isn't consensus on that point - one or two posters may have opined that a couple of years of intensive use is a decent innings, but the opposite view remains valid, i.e. that a high-end quality monitor should be expected to last longer than that.