The thing I’m getting at is that an engine should last more than 100000km yet that is the manufacturers warranty limit.
This is exactly the same situation as the pedals
They have a two year warranty but they should last a lot longer so they should be covered?
The part about them being serviceable does lead the retailer to think that they should last longer but may be longer than a $20 pedal when used in harsh environments such as mud, water, mtb.
So if subjected to these environments it now will last as long as a $20 pedal that is not designed for these environments.
I guess what I’m getting at is that would a $400 set of titanium pedals be expected to last on a $ per year scale of $20/ year say 40 years?
Not trying to argue with you mate just trying to get my head around how these “laws” are if that are not accord the board.
As for the retailer spirito I still can’t see that it’s the retailers sole responsibility as if the retailer goes belly up that sold you the wheels you still have a warranty if the manufacturer is still running so the retailer is merely a middle man for the claim but not the warranty holder I would think,
There aren’t really any hard and fast rules with this stuff. It’s mostly down to individual circumstances. As is the case with a lot of legal areas. Which is why, I reckon, it’s important to understand your rights (and obligations).
And…nobody has sole responsibility. The consumer has protections through statutory warranties and the manufacturer provides a warranty. Neither has sole responsibility for warranties.
Dayne - my understanding is that the the retailer has every right to seek redress from the manufacturer/distributor if they have been provided with a faulty product. But in the cases where false information was provided (or information withheld) the issue remains between the customer and retailer as that is who the contract was between.
Equally that’s why its in the interest of the retailer to check the products they are supplied by the manufacturer/distributor before offering them for sale as it removes/reduces the ‘faulty product’ issue.
Also - back to the original point… a lot of retailers aren’t aware of the laws they are working under. Especially since ignorance is definitely bliss (but no defence) in this case.
I inadvertently learnt a lot about this in the 90s selling skateboards (and skate hardware). Andy’s example is very close to the definition we used. But as a result I still won’t use Alien Workshop boards
My Google Nexus 4 has a dead pixel and a faulty lock-switch. Still usable but annoying.
I have been offered a refurbished replacement. I have got the same thing from Apple before. Where do I stand in consumer rights land about this? It is still under the 2 year warranty, but best case I would like to upgrade to a new Nexus 5. Can I claim a refund?
I do understand where you are coming from Dayne, and I don’t mean this to be argumentative. I agree and think there is a grey period with this kind of thing. Like Andy_Vibes I also worked in a shoe department and had to make these kinds of calls all the time. Price in that store was a determining factor in returns, and something that the ACCC does make comment on. When products range from $10 to $1000 there is an expectation of quality and durability at each level. At the bottom end we had shoes that were sold almost as single wear items (often for weddings, and one-off fancy affairs), very cheap, and customers rarely brought them back as I think both the retailer and customer knew that they were cheap shit that was never designed to last. However, at the opposite end were the designer shoes, you know the ones with leather soles, each one carefully constructed by some little Italian dude in a shop in Milan, requiring resoling every so often, but if cared for guaranteed to last many years. I had the occasional customer come in with a pair of these where the last had come away from the sole, the heel detached, etc. and you know what? we offered a repair to every single one. These customers had an expectation of quality and that had not been delivered. But between those extremes it does get tricky.
With cars it is doubly tricky, there are hundreds of points of potential failure, and each part has different expectations of durability and quality, plus there are separate ‘lemon laws’ that apply to cars so let’s not go there. However with bicycle gear I think we understand the expectations of quality and durability quite well. The idea of a time based warranty in cycling just doesn’t fit either, as many of us have bikes that we might only ride once a week/month/year. In the case of your example I think if your titanium pedals broke in half at less than 10,000km you’d probably be quite pissed off, or at least I would be. The materials, brand and precision craftsmanship in such a product would lead me as a consumer to expect that this part, so long as it is cared for (cleaned, greased, etc.) would last near a lifetime.
Minor fault, so the supplier has the option of repairing, replacing or refunding. They also have the option of using refurbished parts in repairing it, or replacing it with a refurbished model, as long as they let you know this (maybe in writing). You can of course ask for a refund, but doesn’t mean you’ll get it.
You can ask for a refund but there’s no compulsion for the retailer to provide a refund. If they’re offering a replacement or repair which effectively fixes your issues then I reckon you’d e unlikely to do better taking it to Fair Trading.
I completely understand your not being argumentative Dan I’m not trying to be either and am more than happy to be proven wrong as it happens often I just need to ask lots of questions before I can agree with most things.
As it stands I completely agree that the pedals should have lasted a lot longer, I just wanted to try to work out why in a lot of cases these things are not across the board.
Actually, its not - its about duty of care, which is the cornerstone of negligence, knowing that harm could come to someone, even if you don’t know who that someone is.
There’s a fundamental difference between contract and product liability law. Your contract lies with the retailer, however, the liability for the merchantibility or fitness of the product is with the manufacturer. Generally, the retailer doesn’t warrant or guarantee the fitness of the product as they contract with you to sell you something.
Your rights under contract are far different from your rights as a consumer. Consumers’ rights are governed by legislation (Federally, the old Trade Practices Act and the new Australian Competition and Consumer Act which replaced it, and state-based ACL) and should be viewed differently than contract - in short, you’ve better rights under law than any general transaction contract.
Questions of warranty, fitness for purpose etc go back to the manufacturer, not the retailer, and if the manufacturer is foreign then it is whoever imports it into the country.
Fair Trading is OK but is geared towards the retailer. It initially was set up to regularate the way goods are supplied and advertised. The ACL ties it in a bit more consistently with the Federal law is where the teeth of consumer protection lie. They are black and white rights, quite simply, if you buy X and it doesn’t do what X is meant to do, then there’s been a breach. It doesn’t matter why or how, and the consumer is entitled to redress.
You can ask but doesn’t mean diddly squat or mandate what needs to happen after you ask.
Did manage a refund out of Google Play Store despite them continually palming me off to the manufacturer LG. I had insisted to them that i was spending the refund money on a Nexus 5 regardless, and that my 4 is fault (dead pixel, insensitive lock switch)
Took a few well worded emails, as they offered a refurbished device and I said that that isn’t appropriate, and that I am entitled to ask for a refund. Threw in a ‘if not I’ll take my money to another smartphone manufacturer, as well as my recommendations to friends and family’ (rightly so, I have spruiked Nexus phones to pretty much everyone!).
Finally got an email providing a refund. Win. Be persistant!
I have had similar situations, where I’ve had to scrub up consumer law and more specififcally, “merchantable quality”, the most recent case involved an iphone, and it took months, lots of calls, emails, but I did finally get the result.
I have a 3D printer from a company. They only accept returns in person during business hours - impossible for me to take it there. It has thus been faulty since october, when I took it out fo the box. The unit works fine but one of the main selling points (autosetup/calibration) always says ‘error’. Obviously not what you want when you drop 2K on it.
A few points that are pissing me off are:
Their refusal to organise a courier. They want me to pay for it, and they will 'determine whether they repay it when they look at the printer, and maybe give me some extra plastic to compensate. I assumed it was sending to Bondi, and was given an address in Melbourne.
Their refusal to offer an exchange quickly. I would have liked them to exchange it on the spot (after showing them the error, of course) but they refuse, and will only repair it, which takes a week, plus courier time. One week is a whole architectural model, a loss of about $2000 to me. Though i can’t claim that as a consequential loss, of course. (Plus the rights for personal v. business use is difficult)
I do not want a repaired unit. I would like a new unit, shipped quickly, or available to pickup at one of their retailers. Ofcourse they need to inspect its fault (though most shops will be able to do this.)
Its the complete unwillingness to help in any way that is beneficial to the customer which is shitting me endlessly on this. They took two weeks to reply to an email!
Unfortunately they can repair it in whats considered “reasonable time” you’ll see that a lot on the ACCC consumer rights page. Which kind of covers them more than you,
Good news is postage for a large/bulky item being returned does have to be handled by them, (not sure how big a 3d printer is),
Bad news is they don’t have to replace it with a new unit, as the issue is not considered “major”.
*Make sure you put everything in writing, as phone calls aren’t legal and can be denied. Put dates on everything and when you consider this repair or return to be ‘reasonable’. Make sure that they have been informed as to your problem, and have had “reasonable time” to respond. A week is considered ‘reasonable’.
Keep it simple and clear, don’t get emotional, and don’t threaten. Let them know you’ll seek legal consultation on this issue if required.
*I’m not a legal professional, this is not legal advice and the user assumes full responsibility for using or taking action as per the written advice.
