[DUG] [Off Topic]Warranty expired

[David Brennan]

I agree with pretty much all of that. 

 

Note that I didn’t say that individual circumstances didn’t matter, I said that it usually isn’t worth the suppliers time to investigate every request to replace a faulty product which has failed to last a reasonably expected lifetime. Of course it does depend on the value of the item, for a $2000 monitor it may well be worth Dell’s time to do some decent investigation if they suspect an unreasonable situation. 

 

Out of curiosity where did your info about Dell being able to charge the customer for inspecting the broken monitor come from? It sounds vaguely plausible but I haven’t heard that one before.

 

BTW I hope no one minds that it isn’t Friday afternoon ;-)

 

David.

 

 

From: delphi-bounces at listserver.123.net.nz [mailto:delphi-bounces at listserver.123.net.nz] On Behalf Of Jolyon Smith
Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2012 1:47 p.m.
To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List
Subject: Re: [DUG] [Off Topic]Warranty expired

 

"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/20120614/6db2f5a2/attachment.html