[DUG] [Off Topic]Warranty expired

[Jolyon Smith]

"Average person .. average situation" to me reads like a definition of
"typical", not "reasonable".

But there is no legal definition of "reasonable" in the CGA.  Consumer Org
themselves make this point:

*The Act's terms "reasonable" and "acceptable" are deliberately open-ended.
It depends on what a reasonable consumer would think was acceptable based
on the nature of the goods, the price, and any statements that have been
made about the goods.*


Since "reasonable" is used here as an adjective to describe a specific type
of consumer we can simply refer to a dictionary to figure out what Consumer
Org mean:

*reasonable:* Having sound judgement;* fair and sensible*


Which I have to say fits perfectly my interpretation of the term as used in
the CGA as well.

And yes, if the manufacturer wants to make an issue of it, they can simply
refuse to meet the consumers demands and ultimately perhaps find themselves
in court.  Which they would presumably do only if they felt confident that
they were being reasonable and the consumer was not.  And of course the
consumer also has to come along for the ride, with all the bother that
entails.

You're right that it might be a lot of bother, but it is equally unworkable
for every manufacturer to simply roll over every time someone threatens
them with the CGA.


But I don't think those with unreasonable expectations are getting a free
ride.

My first encounter with this aspect of the NZ CGA legislation was reading
an article in the Consumer Org magazine (your source, remember) in which it
was explained that it was reasonable that a washing machine that stopped
working after 5 years would be "covered" under the CGA as it would be
expected to last much longer.  But if for the past year that machine had
not been used but had been stored in a shed (i.e. "it was fine when we put
it in the shed, but we need it again now, and when we plugged it in it
doesn't work any more") then it would /not/ be reasonable and the CGA
wouldn't apply.

If your belief that individual circumstances are not a factor, only
expectations against statistically normalised average outcomes were true
then this aspect of a specific case wouldn't even be a factor.


In Leigh's case, Dell would be within their rights to ask to inspect the
equipment.  Worth noting is that the consumer is expected to pay for this -
if a fault is found then the consumer will get the inspection fee refunded.
 This presumably acts to dissuade frivolous or fraudulent claims.

But if no fault is found however - or, let's say Dell found damage
consistent with a power surge - then they would go back to the consumer and
say (e.g.) "Sorry, but there is evidence of damage consistent with faulty
mains power supply or a power surge" and it's then going to be up to the
consumer to prove otherwise.

Or, more likely if a reasonable person is involve, thank Dell for bringing
this to their attention before other equipment was damaged and get their
wiring checked or invest in a surge protector for a few 10's of $'s.  :)


In the case of the washing machine, the manufacturer would have sent a
technician out to do an inspection and they might have found mould, dirt or
other evidence of the machine having been stored in an unsuitable condition
for an extended period and at that point the consumer's game would be up.

:)


The CGA is great, but it is no panacaea.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.123.net.nz/pipermail/delphi/attachments/20120614/fd595025/attachment-0001.html