ps3 and small claims court

Slick50

Hi norrie, don't forget you cannot claim for any expenses incured in making your case in the SCC. You are right not to let anyone open your console, as that would void any argument you would have about not tampering with the insides. Another angle smyths are pushing, is that the burden of proof is on you. This is wrong, consumer law puts the onus on the retailer to prove that any damage, or the cause of failure was caused by you. It is worth pointing out that neither sony or smyths have offered, or at any point attempted to establish a cause of the failure of your console. They simply offer a blanket solution, that avoids having to do this, at the consumers expense. There is a very good reason for this, they would have to disclose the real problem.
My argument will be pushing this, on the "reasonable durability" angle of the sale of goods act. While it is no harm having supporting evidence for your case, you do not need to prove a "class action" type of case. I will also be quoting the "nofussreviews" survey, which contradicts the failure rate figures being quoted by both smyths and sony too.
It might be no harm offering to have the console independently assessed, by someone mutualy agreeable to yourself and smyths, throug the SCC. Possibly sharing the costs, or whatever arrangement, but they would have to agree that the security seal was intact before it got sent away, and that there was no external damage.

Absolam

Elessar wrote: »

So if I understand this correctly, they want you to show it was a manufacturing fault?
Simple, bring it with you to court, or to the registrar and demonstrate that it's not working. If there's no obvious damage to the unit, what else could it be?! I'd ring the court and ask could you do this.
Your response should be in the line of "Manufacturers warranty is in addition to and not a replacement of, my statutory rights under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980. Under the Act, goods must be of merchantable quality and last for a reasonable amount of time. I believe that it is reasonable to expect a €600 games console to last longer than it has in my case. There is no damage to the unit nor has the unit ever been damaged in the past. It is a well documented manufacturing fault. I am requesting either a refund, repair or replacement from the retailer.".

I don't think 'there's no apparent damage' would be much of an argument. The point still comes down to the SOGA which does not quite say what you have above. Specifically: "Goods are of merchantable quality if they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought and as durable as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them".

So there are two potential considerations;
1) Were the goods of merchantable quality when sold i.e. was there a FAULT in the goods, present when purchased, which caused them to cease functioning at a later date?
It seems possible that some models had an inherent fault which caused the ylod after about two years of use. How can this be proven to a court? Is there a well documented (i.e. technically documented not apocryphal speculation) manufacturing fault? This to me seems where the meat of the issue is, and where there may or may not be proof to present.

2) Were the goods as durable as it was reasonable to expect? Everyone is getting all caught up in how many years the guarantee/warranty on a PS3 should be in their opinion, but the definition is "as durable as it is reasonable to expect". If Sony say "We build them, and in our opinion based on our components and our testing of those components they should last a year, so we give a years warranty" then a Judge is unlikely to offer the opinion that their work is of better quality than they say, and therefore it is reasonable to expect it to last longer than they do, because someone who doesn't make consoles, but plays them, thinks they should last longer than they do. In this, the weight would have to be on the side of expert opinion. Also, if a Judge ruled for a longer warranty he'd be conscious that it means a consumer purchasing from a retailer would have a longer guarantee, and also a retailer purchasing from Sony would have a longer guarantee; Sony would be bound to honour the terms and would have to factor that cost into their pricing, thereby pushing up the price of their goods to the consumer.
Of course, Sony might not want to say in so many words "A PS3 will only last a year", but set that against the cost of saying otherwise... and they might.

A lot of people have been offering the argument:

Elessar wrote: »

Manufacturers warranty is in addition to and not a replacement of, my statutory rights under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980

This is very misleading. Largely, a manufacturers warranty exists because of the SOGA; few manufacturers would offer a free recourse on their goods if they weren't obliged by law. The SOGA places terms of recourse on goods purchased, which means a manufacturer has to provide a warranty to the purchaser (retailer), the retailer secure in their knowledge of their warranty passes it on to the next purchaser (the consumer).
Some retailers offer (sell) extended warranties/guarantees which are in addition to and not a replacement of statutory rights, and confer additional rights, which is where the confusion arises for most people in my opinion.

Absolam

Slick50 wrote: »

Another angle smyths are pushing, is that the burden of proof is on you. This is wrong, consumer law puts the onus on the retailer to prove that any damage, or the cause of failure was caused by you.

Can you cite your source?

Elessar

Absolam wrote: »

2) Were the goods as durable as it was reasonable to expect? Everyone is getting all caught up in how many years the guarantee/warranty on a PS3 should be in their opinion, but the definition is "as durable as it is reasonable to expect". If Sony say "We build them, and in our opinion based on our components and our testing of those components they should last a year, so we give a years warranty" then a Judge is unlikely to offer the opinion that their work is of better quality than they say, and therefore it is reasonable to expect it to last longer than they do, because someone who doesn't make consoles, but plays them, thinks they should last longer than they do. In this, the weight would have to be on the side of expert opinion. Also, if a Judge ruled for a longer warranty he'd be conscious that it means a consumer purchasing from a retailer would have a longer guarantee, and also a retailer purchasing from Sony would have a longer guarantee; Sony would be bound to honour the terms and would have to factor that cost into their pricing, thereby pushing up the price of their goods to the consumer.
Of course, Sony might not want to say in so many words "A PS3 will only last a year", but set that against the cost of saying otherwise... and they might.

I think you need to familiarise yourself a bit more with the law on this. Irrespective of what the manufacturer says about the product, the goods must be of merchantable quality and "as durable as it is reasonable to expect". All factors are taken into consideration when going to a judge, it's not black and white. The price, the item, when the fault occured. The manufacturers opinion is not relevant, it is between the two parties in the contract (i.e. shop and consumer) that it is settled.

Think about what you are saying. If Sony sold the PS3 with one months warranty but still charged you €600, and it broke the second month, do you honestly believe any reasonable judge would say "tough, Sony says it's only reasonable for a month, case closed!". No. Sony doesn't even enter into it. If it is reasonable to expect a product to last longer than it has, based on the item itself and the price you paid for it, you have a very good chance of winning any SCC case.

This is very misleading. Largely, a manufacturers warranty exists because of the SOGA; few manufacturers would offer a free recourse on their goods if they weren't obliged by law. The SOGA places terms of recourse on goods purchased, which means a manufacturer has to provide a warranty to the purchaser (retailer), the retailer secure in their knowledge of their warranty passes it on to the next purchaser (the consumer).
Some retailers offer (sell) extended warranties/guarantees which are in addition to and not a replacement of statutory rights, and confer additional rights, which is where the confusion arises for most people in my opinion.

You are completely incorrect here.

Manufacturers are not obliged by law to offer warranties. No one is. The SOGA puts the onus on the retailer (with whom the contract is made) to remedy any fault with a good. If a product was sold without a manufacturers warranty, it is still the responsibility of the retailer to refund, repair or replace a faulty product. That is the cost of doing business in Ireland. Thus warranties are in addition to, and not a replacement of, your rights under the act.

Absolam

Elessar wrote: »

I think you need to familiarise yourself a bit more with the law on this. Irrespective of what the manufacturer says about the product, the goods must be of merchantable quality and "as durable as it is reasonable to expect". All factors are taken into consideration when going to a judge, it's not black and white. The price, the item, when the fault occured. The manufacturers opinion is not relevant, it is between the two parties in the contract (i.e. shop and consumer) that it is settled.

I don't disagree, but the SOGA only covers faults present when the product is sold, and the seller will inevitably refer to the manufacturers specifications with regard to durability. As you say, a judge will take all factors into consideration, but would a judge repudiate evidence of durability from a manufacturer in favour of opinion of durability from an unqualified consumer?

Elessar wrote: »

Think about what you are saying. If Sony sold the PS3 with one months warranty but still charged you €600, and it broke the second month, do you honestly believe any reasonable judge would say "tough, Sony says it's only reasonable for a month, case closed!". No. Sony doesn't even enter into it. If it is reasonable to expect a product to last longer than it has, based on the item itself and the price you paid for it, you have a very good chance of winning any SCC case.

If the sellers expectation of durability (based on the expectation of durability given them by the person they purchased from, in this case Sony) is one year, then is it reasonable for the purchaser to have a higher expectation? Sony only enter into it as providing the most informed opinion on durability since they know how the product is made; as a seller I would have to rely on their information and would present that to a judge. As a consumer I would look to find equally if not more compelling testimony to contradict that opinion. The crux of the question is is it reasonable to expect a PS3 to last longer than a year. It certainly is reasonable to expect more than a month; hence Sony give a one year warranty.

Elessar wrote: »

You are completely incorrect here.
Manufacturers are not obliged by law to offer warranties. No one is. The SOGA puts the onus on the retailer (with whom the contract is made) to remedy any fault with a good. If a product was sold without a manufacturers warranty, it is still the responsibility of the retailer to refund, repair or replace a faulty product. That is the cost of doing business in Ireland. Thus warranties are in addition to, and not a replacement of, your rights under the act.

I didn't say they were obliged; I said one is a result of the other. The warranty specifies rights already conferred, so you won't (generally) find any additional rights conferred in a manufacturers warranty, it simply sets down existing legal obligations, and defines 'reasonable' periods from the manufacturers point of view (which in this case is what is being challenged). So what rights, for instance, are conferred in Sonys PS3 warranty, which are not already legal rights under the SOGA and other legislation?

Remedy isn't a cost exclusively imposed on retailers; a retailer deals as a consumer when purchasing from a manufacturer and has the same right of remedy. What a consumer can claim from a retailer, a retailer can claim from a manufacturer. So, at least for a retailer, the responsibility of repair replacement or refund is not a cost of doing business in Ireland; they pass the cost of the action straight back to the manufacturer.
Of course, the manufacturer builds the cost of remedying faulty goods into the cost of their goods to the retailer, who pass it on to the consumer...

Varik

Absolam wrote: »

If the sellers expectation of durability (based on the expectation of durability given them by the person they purchased from, in this case Sony) is one year, then is it reasonable for the purchaser to have a higher expectation? Sony only enter into it as providing the most informed opinion on durability since they know how the product is made; as a seller I would have to rely on their information and would present that to a judge. As a consumer I would look to find equally if not more compelling testimony to contradict that opinion. The crux of the question is is it reasonable to expect a PS3 to last longer than a year. It certainly is reasonable to expect more than a month; hence Sony give a one year warranty.

You assume that Sony or the seller would find it to their advantage to say that this should only last a year and if you get more your lucky. the below is about this but deals with TV and is taken from the consumer affairs forums Mod, and at least for this case the judge agreed.

dudara wrote: »

There is no set figure for the lifetime of electronics. The law states that they have to have a "reasonable" lifetime.

We all have had TVs for 10+ years, so expecting a TV to last 7 years is quite reasonable.

Smaller, portable devices can be expected to have shorter lifetimes, but there is no figure set in law.

Absolam

Varik wrote: »

You assume that Sony or the seller would find it to their advantage to say that this should only last a year and if you get more your lucky. the below is about this but deals with TV and is taken from the consumer affairs forums Mod, and at least for this case the judge agreed.

Yes, I'm assuming Sony would want to limit the number of machines they have to repair or replace as much as possible because it reduces their costs.

On the other thread I didn't notice that the poster said they'd won the case in the SCC? But 'reasonable' is still the discussion point.

Varik

Absolam wrote: »

But 'reasonable' is still the discussion point.

Yep that is the only point up for debate, and that's where we'll get em. Most judges will not be young, and going by my dad expectation who until a month ago was still using a TV that is close to 25 years old (maybe older, when was colour invented) and was replace with a new one only to get the digital channels not to any failure. There is nothing i expect to own in 10 years that i have now, i will get new phones, new TVs, and new computers, but that's not to say they shouldn't last that long.

Sony will stay out of any thing unless the action is being taken against them directly (small claims court, so no) the judge will decide and going by how old previous generation of console can last then it can be expected to last more than 3 or 4 years.

whiterebel

Would it be worth pointing out that Sony had a Logistics provider (J.P. Jones sorry Jenkinsons) set up in Dublin to handle swap outs of faulty units. I have never heard of this being done in Ireland before, usually a European centre, or at best UK. It would suggest to me they were well ready for an avalache of returns.

Varik

whiterebel wrote: »

Would it be worth pointing out that Sony had a Logistics provider (J.P. Jones) set up in Dublin to handle swap outs of faulty units. I have never heard of this being done in Ireland before, usually a European centre, or at best UK. It would suggest to me they were well ready for an avalache of returns.

Maybe mention them when talking about repairs/replacements, but having a system in place would just be good business.

whiterebel

Varik wrote: »

Maybe mention them when talking about repairs/replacements, but having a system in place would just be good business.

That's my point - Its NOT good business if there won't be any returns.

norrie rugger

whiterebel wrote: »

Would it be worth pointing out that Sony had a Logistics provider (J.P. Jones) set up in Dublin to handle swap outs of faulty units. I have never heard of this being done in Ireland before, usually a European centre, or at best UK. It would suggest to me they were well ready for an avalache of returns.

Got a source for this one?

whiterebel

norrie rugger wrote: »

Got a source for this one?

If you PM me your email address, I can actually send you the email that Sony sent me, including the swap instructions. BTW, mine was 2 months over the warranty.

My mistake, the logistics company is called Jenkinsons, all part of the same group as JP Jones.

norrie rugger

I am going to add in the articles, posted by Retro before I print the below.
I think that I might hold on to the Collection service, untill we hear more about it (and if this goes to court). As it could be argued that they are doing this for WR, as the unit is just beyond warrantee and they are showing good faith
What am I missing, as I feel that there is something important that I am not putting in.

Me wrote:

Re: Norrie Rugger –v- SMYTHS TOYS LTD.
Claim No: ***/2010
Attached: 1 Image

Hi ***,
I am writing this in reply to the notification of 12 July 2010.
I believe that the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act states that goods should be
· Of merchantable quality
· Fit for purpose
· Reasonably durable
The manufacturer warranty offered is only to supplement the above.
I do not believe that 2.5 years is a reasonable time frame, for a €400 piece of equipment to be of usable condition.
The PS3 was used only in relation to its advertised abilities of playing BluRay Discs (both Video and Game) and of being a Media Centre.
I attach an image of my home system, to illustrate the storage conditions of the PS3.
As can be seen in the image, the PS3 is stored in an extremely well ventilated area, which has no “Dust-traps” to allow for particulate build up around the item.
The item is obviously not the only electronic item that I own. Within this image, the only the TV is of similar age category, to the PS3.
The Nintendo Wii (bottom left of stand) is over 1 year older than the PS3, the DVD/surround sound system is 2 years older and the PC is in fact over 7 years old.
Upon request I can also provide evidence of my ability to care for electronics far beyond this time period.
· Original Gameboy: 20+ years old
· Atari 7800: 20+ years old
· Sega Mega Drive: 17 Years old
· Nintendo 64: 12 Years old
· Playstation 2: 8 Years old (currently in use in the National Children’s Hospital Tallaght)

I also had a Playstation 1 (6 years), which I sold after acquiring the Playstation 2.
At the time of purchase of the PS3 I had never had a console last less than 5.5 years, in fact they all still operate. Given that the expected life cycle of the PS3 product is 10 years and the Head of Sony Computer Entertainment America stated that customers could “expect many many years of use” from their PS3; I believe that I am reasonable to expect the same level of durability from the current generation.

All of these pieces of electronics (barring the PS3 and the sold PS1) are in perfect working order.
I find it unlikely that “something must have happened” to the PS3; yet leave the remaining units unaffected. As Smyths ascertain that “something must have happened” to this non-portable and permanently affixed unit, I would be more than happy to surrender the console, for their examination, to determine if their belief is correct.

Kind Regards,

Norrie Rugger.

Slick50

Well written norrie, the only thing I'd question would be surrendering the unit to smyths. I would look to have an independent, mutually agreeable source to assess the console. I think if they were allowed to reflow the solder connections and get the console up and running again, it would make it difficult for smyths to argue that you had caused the damage to it. It would also add credence to widely documented reports of a design problem with the console. Maybe question why smyths are promoting the fact that the new consoles "run cooler" too.

norrie rugger

Slick50 wrote: »

Well written norrie, the only thing I'd question would be surrendering the unit to smyths. I would look to have an independent, mutually agreeable source to assess the console. I think if they were allowed to reflow the solder connections and get the console up and running again, it would make it difficult for smyths to argue that you had caused the damage to it. It would also add credence to widely documented reports of a design problem with the console. Maybe question why smyths are promoting the fact that the new consoles "run cooler" too.

Agreed and already ammended

Slick50

Absolam wrote: »

Can you cite your source?

Can't find the origional article I seen it in. Came across it in one of the consumer programs, where a woman got a defective three year old tv replaced.

Absolum wrote: »

This is very misleading. Largely, a manufacturers warranty exists because of the SOGA; few manufacturers would offer a free recourse on their goods if they weren't obliged by law. The SOGA places terms of recourse on goods purchased, which means a manufacturer has to provide a warranty to the purchaser (retailer), the retailer secure in their knowledge of their warranty passes it on to the next purchaser (the consumer).
Some retailers offer (sell) extended warranties/guarantees which are in addition to and not a replacement of statutory rights, and confer additional rights, which is where the confusion arises for most people in my opinion.

Elessar is correct, the manufacturers warranty is in addition to your statutory rights. That is why manufacturers are required to state the terms of there warranty do not effect your statutory rights. You have even stated yourself that the extended warranties "are in addition to and not a replacement of your statutory rights", so where is the confusion. The sale of goods act clearly states that goods sold must be of merchantable quality, and to be that, they must be as durable as is reasonable to expect. I don't think Sony would state that their products could only be expected to last the duration of their one year warranty. I for one would not buy any product that the manufacturer would make such a declaration on. And I don't think sony get to decide what is "as reasonable to expect" either, it certainly is not a year in relation to modern electronic equipment. Who would buy a tv for 1,500 or 2,500, if they thought they could only reasonably expect it to last a year?

Absolam

Slick50 wrote: »

Elessar is correct, the manufacturers warranty is in addition to your statutory rights. That is why manufacturers are required to state the terms of there warranty do not effect your statutory rights. You have even stated yourself that the extended warranties "are in addition to and not a replacement of your statutory rights", so where is the confusion.

So, if you read the manufacturers warranty provided with, say, a PS3, what additional rights does it confer? If you can find any, I'll agree it's in addition to your statutory rights, otherwise it's just a restatement. And where are manufacturers "required to state the terms of there warranty do not effect your statutory rights"?
Extended warranties are in addition to and not a replacement of your statutory rights as I said because they are extended warranties, provided for a price by a retailer, which extend your warranty to include things like accidental damage, long term coverage and such. The confusion seems to lie in your not distinguishing between a manufacturers warranty and an extended warranty from a retailer.

Slick50 wrote: »

The sale of goods act clearly states that goods sold must be of merchantable quality, and to be that, they must be as durable as is reasonable to expect. I don't think Sony would state that their products could only be expected to last the duration of their one year warranty. I for one would not buy any product that the manufacturer would make such a declaration on. And I don't think sony get to decide what is "as reasonable to expect" either, it certainly is not a year in relation to modern electronic equipment. Who would buy a tv for 1,500 or 2,500, if they thought they could only reasonably expect it to last a year?

Posted in this thread correspondance from Sony to unkymo said:

unkymo wrote: »

Sony Computer Entertainment offers an industry standard 12 month warranty from the date of purchase. Your receipt is your proof of warranty. If your console should find manufacture fault within this time we will exchange your console free of charge for a remanufactured unit of the same model type. This is explained in your manual. If your console should become faulty outside of the 12 month warranty period, you do not hold your receipt or there is physical damage to the console, we can still offer you an exchange for an out of warranty fee of approximately €160.00
Playstation Ireland
Customer Service Team

Again posted in this thread correspondace from Sony to dasilverfox said:

dasilverfox wrote: »

PlayStations are manufactured to a very high standard and all units go through rigerous quality checks befoer they leave the factory floor. However as with all products, especially one of such high complexity as the PlayStation3, unfortuantely some units can fail and due to this fact we offer a 12 month warranty on all units from date of purchase. Most electrical products and indeed many other products carry an industry average one year manufacturer's warranty. After this period, it is perfectly reasonable charge for repairs or replacements following failure.

So from Sonys correspondance with consumers they seem pretty happy to say the machine should only be expected to last a year, after which you pay to get it fixed.
I agree Sony don't get to decide what is "reasonable"; a Judge gets to decide. The point of the discussion here is what would cause a Judge to decide that the machine should reasonably last longer than the people who made it say it should?
Price is a factor, but not the overriding one. For instance, if I paid €1500 for a television, I personally think it should last longer than a year, unless perhaps if I left it turned on and constantly changing channels 24/7 for 365 days. On the other hand, if I paid €1500 for fresh cream filled hand made chocolates, I wouldn't expect them not to go off after a week or so just because I paid €1500 for them.

norrie rugger

why don't you just look up the consumers association website. They give lovely examples of what you ask

Slick50

Absolam wrote: »

So from Sonys correspondance with consumers they seem pretty happy to say the machine should only be expected to last a year, after which you pay to get it fixed.
I agree Sony don't get to decide what is "reasonable"; a Judge gets to decide. The point of the discussion here is what would cause a Judge to decide that the machine should reasonably last longer than the people who made it say it should?
Price is a factor, but not the overriding one. For instance, if I paid €1500 for a television, I personally think it should last longer than a year, unless perhaps if I left it turned on and constantly changing channels 24/7 for 365 days. On the other hand, if I paid €1500 for fresh cream filled hand made chocolates, I wouldn't expect them not to go off after a week or so just because I paid €1500 for them.

I don't think stating that "unfortunately some machines of the complexity of the ps3, may fail" is quite the same as saying you can only expect them to last 12 months. As for what would sway a judge, I expect he would decide an item should last longer than a manufacturers warranty, I think he would go on his own experience of what would be the normal life time of a piece of electronic/computer equipment. Sony are promoted as market leaders, and priced accordingly. Would you really pay 600 for a console you have been told you can only expect to last 12 months. What does your 1,500 cream filled chocolate example prove, except that it's not reasonable to expect cream to not go off after a week or so. The manufacturers warranty is in addition to your statutory rights, therefore as well as. It does not confer any extra protection. If you have a look at the consumer protection agency's site, it will explain why manufacturers and retailers are required to state that their terms and conditions do not effect your statutory rights, but basically it is illegal for them to make any statements that may be deemed misleading.

thebman

Quite simply the console should last the life span of the console as this is the expected lifespan for the consumer or at least that is what I would argue.

Sony have previously state this to be 7 years for the PS3 as far as I know maybe even mentioning a decade in their marketing at times.

Absolam

Slick50 wrote: »

What does your 1,500 cream filled chocolate example prove, except that it's not reasonable to expect cream to not go off after a week or so .

It proves the price does not determine the lifespan of a product.

Slick50 wrote: »

The manufacturers warranty is in addition to your statutory rights, therefore as well as. It does not confer any extra protection..

If the manufacturers warranty does not confer any extra protection, how is it in addition to your statutory rights? What is the addition?

Slick50 wrote: »

If you have a look at the consumer protection agency's site, it will explain why manufacturers and retailers are required to state that their terms and conditions do not effect your statutory rights, but basically it is illegal for them to make any statements that may be deemed misleading.

Presume you're talking about the National Consumer Agency? Perhaps you can provide a link to where it shows your original assertion "manufacturers are required to state the terms of there warranty do not effect your statutory rights".

thebman wrote: »

Quite simply the console should last the life span of the console as this is the expected lifespan for the consumer or at least that is what I would argue. Sony have previously state this to be 7 years for the PS3 as far as I know maybe even mentioning a decade in their marketing at times.

Again this is entirely out of context; Sony were talking about how long PS3 would last as a product line before being rendered obsolete by a new generation. The lifespan of the product line is not the same as the lifespan of a product unit.
To put it another way; the Ford Escort had a lifespan of 34 years. But no one expected a 1968 Ford Escort to be repaired, replaced or refunded due to a fault in 1998, when it was replaced by the Ford Focus.

Carrying on the comparison; a Ford Focus costs (from) €21,000, about 70 times the price of a PS3. And Ford probably expect the Focus to have a lifespan of at least 14 years... but it only has a 2 year warranty; twice the duration of a PS3 warranty. After that, you'll pay to get it fixed, even though you may well have expected your car to last you for 10 years, if not 34.

So what is the cogent argument for a PS3 to have a similar warranty to, or better warranty than, a Ford Focus?

RangeR

Absolam wrote: »

So what is the cogent argument for a PS3 to have a similar warranty to, or better warranty than, a Ford Focus?

The Irish law does. It requires electrical items to have a warranty of up to 6 years. A court judge will decide what that term is on a case by case basis.

Retr0gamer

Absolam wrote: »

If the manufacturers warranty does not confer any extra protection, how is it in addition to your statutory rights? What is the addition?

It's not in addition to, it justdoesn't over ride your statutory rights. You are covered by the warrantee and also by consumer law.

Absolam wrote: »

Presume you're talking about the National Consumer Agency? Perhaps you can provide a link to where it shows your original assertion "manufacturers are required to state the terms of there warranty do not effect your statutory rights".

Actually by law they are required to state that on the documentation for the warrantee, check it next time you buy something uder warantee.

Absolam wrote: »

So what is the cogent argument for a PS3 to have a similar warranty to, or better warranty than, a Ford Focus?

We aren't talking about a warrantee. The warrantee is with the manufacturer. If there's a fault with the system you can bring it straight back to the manufacturer and get it replaced. You are still however covered by consumer laws that are with the shop you bought it from. Under these the product you bought should last a reasonable amount of time. Do you really think any judge in this country will agree that 18 months is a reasonable time for a 500 euro piece of electronics to last considering there's older consoles that are still working 20 years on. Warrantees are usually offered to dissuade people from their consumer rights and it's a crime for these companies to not acknowledge that people are protected by these consumer rights and they should be brought to court for it. These laws were set up to protect the consumer and make sure you didn't have to pay through the nose when a poor piece of equipment fails through no fault of your own. They are there to protect the consumer from having to take legal action against these corporations but if they ignore these rights then they are breaking the law.

Slick50

Absolam wrote: »

For instance, if I paid €1500 for a television, I personally think it should last longer than a year, unless perhaps if I left it turned on and constantly changing channels 24/7 for 365 days.

What would you base this expectation on. I don't know anybody who has nothing better to do with life, than sit down constantly changing channels. I have explained that the "addition" to your statutory rights means as well as, I can't say it any clearer. Your automobile comparison doesn't stand either, automobiles are subject to mechanical stresses and shocks on an on going basis, and mechanical wear and tear are to be expected. If you drove your PS3 down the road it wouldn't get you very far, and would surely show signs of external damage, fairly rapidly. So maybe try some more "reasonable" analogy.

Retr0gamer

In an automobiles case the within reason part of the clause would be if the car was kept well maintained. A judge isn't going to favour you if you drove the car around without any oil in the engine.

norrie rugger

Retr0gamer wrote: »

In an automobiles case the within reason part of the clause would be if the car was kept well maintained. A judge isn't going to favour you if you drove the car around without any oil in the engine.

Also, individual replacement components, within the car are rated for certain usage.

Now if there turned out to be an issue with the body or design of the car, there would be potential to claim a lot later

RangeR

Guys,

Drop the car analogy. It's not the same thing. The Sales of Good and supply of services act has a specific entry for electronic items covered for up to 6 years.

Varik

RangeR wrote: »

Guys,

Drop the car analogy. It's not the same thing. The Sales of Good and supply of services act has a specific entry for electronic items covered for up to 6 years.

A judge will think of it as a PC, a fancy DVD player, or a electronic toy. It's an electronic device and the laws for electronics apply to it, including what RangeR has stated and if your making a case that it should last longer it has to be treated as a electronic device.

thebman

Absolam wrote: »

Again this is entirely out of context; Sony were talking about how long PS3 would last as a product line before being rendered obsolete by a new generation. The lifespan of the product line is not the same as the lifespan of a product unit.
To put it another way; the Ford Escort had a lifespan of 34 years. But no one expected a 1968 Ford Escort to be repaired, replaced or refunded due to a fault in 1998, when it was replaced by the Ford Focus.

Its not taken out of context, one could reasonably expect to buy one PS3 to last as long as the product lines entire life at least!

Are you/Sony seriously suggesting they meant from the offset for people to buy a new PS3 for every year they released games for it? Or even every 2/3 years.

Such a concept IMO is stupid and unreasonable and should be stated on the product. A car analogy does not hold up. The Ford Focus went through many iterations during the product lines lifecycle.

They did not release one version and they did not produce the expectation that it would last over 30 years although many probably have with reasonable service and maintenance and replacements of parts that one would expect to have wear and tear.

Exactly which parts of the PS3 are we supposed to assume will break down after 2 years with normal usage and why isn't this stated on the box. It is irregular to pretty much every other electronic device which most people expect to last many years and reasonably so given in most cases, there are virtually no moving parts and the devices are rarely moved.

For a phone that is regularly exposed to harsh conditions outside normal operating conditions to last longer than a device that sits in one place for years is a joke IMHO.