LG worthless warranty

[Grommit]

I'd be annoyed as well if I bought a brand new telly and it only worked for a month and was still being repaired after three months. I'm not certain of exactly what the law says, but why should the consumer be the one to be inconvenienced like this? He/she bought a brand new television, and they have every right to expect it to work for more than a month. I really think that the retailer should exchange and then take it up with LG.

[Rapacity]

Really? That a fact Mr Phile? Here I was thinking I was just plain ol greedy, but there ya go.

But hey, plain english would be great thanks!

FYI - wordaphile: someone who thinks using 500 words when 50 would suffice makes them appear all smart & rooly clever.

...carry on then.

[hughsy]

Dear Rapacity (means selfishness)

I will reply in "plain english" for you.

Can you do any better than that?

[Rapacity]

Huh? Another Wordaphile?

[hughsy]

Dear Mr Nurk

Sorry for being harsh on you, i can see your intentions are honourable but you are handing out advice informally that is incorrect, that's not fair to a consumer either, that is why i am giving a bit of my time to give editorial, that's fair.

What you have quoted is someone's interpretation / view of the law in practice. The ACCC's view, however dim you suggest it may be, is not written anywhere into law, nor does ACCC preside in a judicial capacity over anything.

The ACCC does not make the law, they can enforce the law by prosecuting at law, and so can any other individual, yes just one person, by bringing an action against someone within the ambit of the same law.

The ACCC are not the god like big brother in the world of enforcement, they simply enjoy a positive rap having prosecuting a few rogues, (rogues are easy to prosecute because they are usually stupid) and got good press for it.

We can all interpret statute law in different ways. The reality however, decisions that become orders in a consumer claims case depends on how the presiding tribunal member or judicial registrar interprets the law. That person is required to follow precedent, in other words make decisions similar to decisions made prior in the same tribunal / court in similar factual circumstances.

As i said 3 months to get something fixed under wty is disgusting and i have no doubt the case could be easily won that why i advised list it with the CTTT for hearing. On the other hand if the TV was repaired satisfactorily under warranty within a week or so, there would be NO case to answer here.

What i am trying to get you to understand is that this case at face value, is not a breach of a statutory condition because the TV worked ok as it was intended for some time before it developed a fault, if it never worked from day one then it would be a breach of implied statutory warranty.

The manufacturer and the retailer are not responsible for the goods once the goods have left their control. However, the manufacturer is responsible for the contract of warranty for however long a warranty period is stated and which was sold with the goods. If they dont comply with it, the damaged party can sue them for the cost of achieving the same result,that is getting the TV fixed or replaced if it cannot be fixed.

The devils advocate here, what if this nice new under warranty TV that stopped working after one month was in fact damaged by a lightning strike close to the owners home? The damage is to internal circuit components and not visible from the outside of the set, how would you expect the retailer to deal with this customer bringing in their TV and demanding a refund and who do you think should pay?

[FredNurk]

Hugshy said this...

"A product that fails after a month or so functioning as it was intended does not constitute a breach of a statutory condition."

The ACCC said this...

"In the ACCC’s view a consumer is entitled to a
refund if a TV that could generally be expected to
last at least 10 years develops a serious fault after
12 months."

Now, I suppose you would argue against this but a fault that prevented the TV from operating and which could not be repaired within 3 months would seem to be a serious fault. And I'm betting that the ACCC would take an even dimmer view of a TV that failed after only one month instead of the 12 months in their quote above.

[FredNurk]

Settle down Gerry.... oops I mean hughsy... :-)

[NGE]

Members unless your post contains a *specific* gripe or compliment about a company, please enter Not Applicable in the Company Name field.

Please DO NOT enter a company name when making a general comment or participating in a general conversation.

[hughsy]

Sorry but you seem to me to be an activist/advocate without the specific knowledge required to be effective and appealing only to those who know less than you.

One would assume you are commenting specifically to the provisions of the "Trade Practices Act 1974" (s.74B) (s.74D) and the retailers obligations thereof.

In as much as the scenario of 3 months delay in getting a TV fixed within the terms of express warranty is simply disgusting, it is an example of slack customer service by LG, your advice as to redress is just plainly wrong.

A product that fails after a month or so functioning as it was intended does not constitute a breach of a statutory condition. Do you get a new car if the air conditioner stops working when it's 1 month old?

The remedy for the owner of the TV is to exercise their contractual rights derived from express or voluntary warranty assuming that one applies, eg the goods were not purchased as a second without warranty, this is an undertaking of the manufacturer LG, not the retailer Harvey Norman.

The action to take would be list the matter for hearing before the CTTT, naming the manufacturer LG as the respondent. The reason "breach of the express warranty contract", respondent has failed to repair or replace the product within the provisions of the express warranty contract provided with the goods.

I suggest the matter would be resolved prior to hearing between the owner and LG and almost instantly.

[FredNurk]

JakBlak.... the law clearly states that it is the seller's responsibility to refund, repair or exchange faulty products. The seller can then make a claim against the manufacturer and/or importer. But it is definitely the seller's legal obligation to fix the problem to the customer's satisfaction.

Harvey Norman, the largest electrical retailers in Australia, would certainly be aware of the law. They are just playing on the customer's lack of consumer rights knowledge. Wehlowag should ask Harvey Norman for an immediate refund. If this isn't forthcoming then a formal complaint to the Dept of Fair Trading would be the next step.

[NGE]

When making a general comment such as below, please enter Not Applicable in the Company Name field.

[HaaHn]

If he bought if from Harvey it is their responsibilty to get it sorted and immediately. A retail outlet would have a lot more luck with the manufacturer than a customer will as they should be providing good customer service and trying to keep their clientel happy

[JakBlak]

Shouldnt your gripe be with LG not Harvey Norman, all the retailer does is facilitate the manufacturers warranty. That is send it to and fromn the repair agents if need be. Try contacting LG for a replacement, its not the retailers fault its faulty its the manufacturers, if HN did replace it then they would be stuck with it because LG would say they shouldn't have replaced it, which then leads to a cost from them passed onto the other consumers who buy from that franchise, its a viscious circle, just go str8 to the manufacturer.

[wehlowag]

I bought a new LG TV from Rockhampton Harvey Norman.
Great service at the time. Had it running for a
month or so when it buggered up. Put it in for
a warranty fix and three months later I am still
waiting for it to be returned. A 'white elephant'
was sold and no one wants to know me when I try and
get a replacement new TV; yet they can not fix the
one the repairers have.
They promised week after week one thing or another
- a new TV if it couldn't be fixed. When do they
call it a day and give me a new TV!! If an retailer
can not back the warranty they should not sell the
product. That is LG products through Harvey Norman.