ps3 and small claims court

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

I don't see any point in splitting hairs over which legislation to quote. The Irish legislation is stronger and supercedes the european law, so I think it is the one to use. This has been covered on this thread already, anyway.

Sure the sale of goods act offers additional coverage, but it's not splitting hairs to point out that the following is misinformation:

"I'd just be careful about using the wrong info in these cases, as it could weaken your argument. For example the ECC webpage quoted above and on the first page have nothing to do with articles purchased in Ireland by Irish people. It is only for goods purchased in another EU state."

Using the EU legislation won't weaken your case at all, as long as the PS3 was bought within the last two years. The legislation covers purchases within this state as well as any other EU state. Either law will work just fine in those circumstances. No point in further muddying already murky waters.

whiterebel

alastair wrote: »

Sure the sale of goods act offers additional coverage, but it's not splitting hairs to point out that the following is misinformation:

"I'd just be careful about using the wrong info in these cases, as it could weaken your argument. For example the ECC webpage quoted above and on the first page have nothing to do with articles purchased in Ireland by Irish people. It is only for goods purchased in another EU state."

Using the EU legislation won't weaken your case at all, as long as the PS3 was bought within the last two years. The legislation covers purchases within this state as well as any other EU state. Either law will work just fine in those circumstances. No point in further muddying already murky waters.

I, MARY HARNEY, Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 ( No. 27 of 1972 ), and for the purpose of giving effect to Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 19991 , on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, hereby make the following regulations:

TBH, Alastair, its you who are muddying the waters. EU Directives don't have to be implemented in total, and this one hasn't. If you read the SI11/2003, you'll see it doesn't mention 2 years at all.

alastair

whiterebel wrote: »

I, MARY HARNEY, Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 ( No. 27 of 1972 ), and for the purpose of giving effect to Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 19991 , on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, hereby make the following regulations:

TBH, Alastair, its you who are muddying the waters. EU Directives don't have to be implemented in total, and this one hasn't. If you read the SI11/2003, you'll see it doesn't mention 2 years at all.

Once again - the title of the directive is the same across the entire EU - we haven't selectively implemented the directive - it's called "certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees" even when fully implemented. SI11/2003 makes clear that we have implemented the directive in it's entirety:

I, MARY HARNEY, Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 ( No. 27 of 1972 ), and for the purpose of giving effect to Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 19991 , on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees

There's no mention of a number of points within the directive, but it's quite clear that the full EU directive applies, and that local law may extend beyond the provision within the directive:

These Regulations are for the purpose of giving effect to Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees. The purpose of the Directive is to provide a common set of minimum rules that can be relied upon when a consumer is purchasing goods in any Member State of the European Union. The Regulations compliment and are in addition to the existing law in this area, namely the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Acts 1893 and 1980 and the European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulations 1995.

4) In a case where the level of protection for the consumer afforded by a particular provision of any other enactment is greater than that afforded by a particular provision of these Regulations, or to the extent that the invocation of a latter such provision by the consumer would diminish the first-mentioned level of protection for him or her —

(a) the consumer may opt to invoke the particular provision of that other enactment to the exclusion of the other provision of these Regulations, and

(b) that other provision of these Regulations may be invoked, and shall be construed and operate so as to be capable of being invoked, by the consumer in a manner that does not diminish the first-mentioned level of protection for him or her,

Flecktarn

Right so if you were trying to get a new replacement which would you bring along with you? The Sale of Goods or the EU Directive?

alastair

Flecktarn wrote: »

Right so if you were trying to get a new replacement which would you bring along with you? The Sale of Goods or the EU Directive?

Either's going to be fine for two-year old purchases, the Sale of Goods act for anything older.

whiterebel

alastair wrote: »

Once again - the title of the directive is the same across the entire EU - we haven't selectively implemented the directive - it's called "certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees" even when fully implemented. SI11/2003 makes clear that we have implemented the directive in it's entirety:

I, MARY HARNEY, Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 ( No. 27 of 1972 ), and for the purpose of giving effect to Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 19991 , on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees

There's no mention of a number of points within the directive, but it's quite clear that the full EU directive applies, and that local law may extend beyond the provision within the directive:

These Regulations are for the purpose of giving effect to Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees. The purpose of the Directive is to provide a common set of minimum rules that can be relied upon when a consumer is purchasing goods in any Member State of the European Union. The Regulations compliment and are in addition to the existing law in this area, namely the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Acts 1893 and 1980 and the European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulations 1995.

4) In a case where the level of protection for the consumer afforded by a particular provision of any other enactment is greater than that afforded by a particular provision of these Regulations, or to the extent that the invocation of a latter such provision by the consumer would diminish the first-mentioned level of protection for him or her —

(a) the consumer may opt to invoke the particular provision of that other enactment to the exclusion of the other provision of these Regulations, and

(b) that other provision of these Regulations may be invoked, and shall be construed and operate so as to be capable of being invoked, by the consumer in a manner that does not diminish the first-mentioned level of protection for him or her,

You are reading what YOU THINK applies. Why not ring the NCA, like I did and clarify it for yourself?

Edited: In fact here from that body's own FAQ:
"Q1. What are my rights in respect of faulty goods?

The Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980 gives legal rights to consumers in their dealings with retailers and service suppliers."

No mention at all of the EC Directive. As I have asked before, if there was a binding EU Directive that we had signed up to, would every manufacturer not be forced to provide a 2 year warranty?

alastair

whiterebel wrote: »

You are reading what YOU THINK applies. Why not ring the NCA, like I did and clarify it for yourself?

Edited: In fact here from that body's own FAQ:
"Q1. What are my rights in respect of faulty goods?

The Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980 gives legal rights to consumers in their dealings with retailers and service suppliers."

No mention at all of the EC Directive. As I have asked before, if there was a binding EU Directive that we had signed up to, would every manufacturer not be forced to provide a 2 year warranty?

No-one is claiming that the Sale of Goods Act isn't relevant legislation in this state. The binding nature of the EU directive shouldn't need to be re-iterated - I've supplied various links clarifying the legal nature of the directive and who has responsibility for regulation of the directive, and they are unambiguous. This isn't a matter of what I THINK, but of what the statute book stipulates. There are two binding legislation sources covering the same area, with a large degree of crossover. For another reference confirming same see the Ireland section of 'EC Consumer Law Compendium - Comparative Analysis' - "The regulations transposing Directive 99/44 expressly do not substitute, but complete other existing enactments relating to the sale of goods or the terms of contracts concluded with consumers. The consumer can choose the enactment which is more favourable to him."

Manufacturer's warranties have nothing to do with consumer law. A manufacturer can offer a month warranty or a decade warranty, it doesn't impinge on your consumer rights (which relate to the retailer, not the manufacturer).

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

Manufacturer's warranties have nothing to do with consumer law. A manufacturer can offer a month warranty or a decade warranty, it doesn't impinge on your consumer rights (which relate to the retailer, not the manufacturer).

This is a section from the sale of goods and supply of services act

19.—(1) The buyer of goods may maintain an action against a manufacturer or other supplier who fails to observe any of the terms of the guarantee as if that manufacturer or supplier had sold the goods to the buyer and had committed a breach of warranty, and the court may order the manufacturer or supplier to take such action as may be necessary to observe the terms of the guarantee, or to pay damages to the buyer. In this subsection, "buyer" includes all persons who acquire title to the goods within the duration of the guarantee and, where goods are imported, "manufacturer" includes the importer.
(2) In any case in which a guarantor is liable to an owner in damages, the court may at its discretion and on such terms as the court may deem just afford the guarantor the opportunity of performing these obligations under the guarantee to the satisfaction of the court within a time to be limited by the court.

does this not mean that you can in fact take an action against the manufacturer or importer directly... seeing as we are driffting off topic.

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

does this not mean that you can in fact take an action against the manufacturer or importer directly... seeing as we are driffting off topic.

Sure, but it follows this:

17.—(1) Where the seller of goods delivers a guarantee to the buyer, irrespective of when or how it is delivered, the seller shall be liable to the buyer for the observance of the terms of the guarantee as if he were the guarantor, unless he expressly indicates the contrary to the buyer at the time of delivery.

The product warranty (which doesn't impinge on your standard consumer rights) is considered to reside with the retailer, as far as the consumer is concerned. If the consumer gets no joy on a warranty claim with the retailer, article 19 allows a claim to be taken up with either retailer or manufacturer - though the retailer is the first port of call.

Yellowledbetter

Just wondering how the various people pursuing replacements against their retailers are getting on with their various cases.????

I traded in my refurbed 160GB against a 120GB Slim today and got €190 off the Slim

Slick50

Only this morning, I posted my comments on smyths response, to the court registrar, in Galway. Things are being done by snail-mail at this stage?? Smyths seem intent on contesting my claim, as they have "denied" the claim. So we could be getting a legal ruling on the situation in the not too distant, will be posting any progress.

spareman

My Launch model ps3 died a few weeks ago, seems to be ylod problem.
I rang Sony and they said I would have to pay €160 for a refurbished model. I cant find my reciept anywhere, would this go against me if I tried to take a case to the small claims court?
Bought it in xtravision, by the way.

norrie rugger

spareman wrote: »

My Launch model ps3 died a few weeks ago, seems to be ylod problem.
I rang Sony and they said I would have to pay €160 for a refurbished model. I cant find my reciept anywhere, would this go against me if I tried to take a case to the small claims court?
Bought it in xtravision, by the way.

Did you use a credit card?

Messi19

spareman wrote: »

My Launch model ps3 died a few weeks ago, seems to be ylod problem.
I rang Sony and they said I would have to pay €160 for a refurbished model. I cant find my reciept anywhere, would this go against me if I tried to take a case to the small claims court?
Bought it in xtravision, by the way.

I also bought mine in Xtra-Vision and thankfully had my receipt. I also had prepaid for it on my account but also gave a deposit. I'd suppose that if anybody else went the same route that they would have some sort of record of it. Also if you paid by credit card you should be covered as if you had the receipt

spareman

norrie rugger wrote: »

Did you use a credit card?

Messi19 wrote: »

I also bought mine in Xtra-Vision and thankfully had my receipt. I also had prepaid for it on my account but also gave a deposit. I'd suppose that if anybody else went the same route that they would have some sort of record of it. Also if you paid by credit card you should be covered as if you had the receipt

Unfortunatly I didn't pay by credit card, or pay off on my account, which I probably would have done if I hadn't won €1,000 in a draw that week. Think I paid something like €740 with a game.

johnny_adidas

when i got mine in xtravision they told me they were linking it to my xv account for proof of purchase, something to do with the vouchers i got with it i think. maybe worth checking?

Elessar

Any update from the people who are waiting on small claims court applications?

Slick50

Nothing new in my case. Waiting for word from the registrar since last post.

joe316

Just to give people an update:

ps3(launch day from smyths) got a brod a couple of weeks ago, went into the store got told it was 160 for a refurb. Rang and emailed head office and got the same story, wrote a registered letter stating my rights and what I expected. Gave them 10 days to reply, didnt hear a thing until the 10th day when I got a phone call from them saying a letter would be sent out to me on Monday still havent got it but when I do ill update ye to let you know.

gant0

Messi19 wrote: »

Hi

Just wondering has anybody had any success in filing a case against a retailer in the small claims court over a faulty ps3?

Seriously don't bother.I had the same problem a few months ago and although you do have consumer rights covering you it really wouldn't be worth the effort and money to create a case for the courts as you'd need to hire an expert on such hardware to survey your ps3 and show it really was the manufacturers fault.I was going to bring them to the court with my brother who is a solicitor and he really wanted to sue and he said with the evidence we had we would've won but the effort and money spent would greatly outweight the gain.You can get a new ps3 for I think 300e or you can get a refurb one with 6 month warranty for 150e.

whiterebel

gant0 wrote: »

Seriously don't bother.I had the same problem a few months ago and although you do have consumer rights covering you it really wouldn't be worth the effort and money to create a case for the courts as you'd need to hire an expert on such hardware to survey your ps3 and show it really was the manufacturers fault.I was going to bring them to the court with my brother who is a solicitor and he really wanted to sue and he said with the evidence we had we would've won but the effort and money spent would greatly outweight the gain.You can get a new ps3 for I think 300e or you can get a refurb one with 6 month warranty for 150e.

Just because you couldn't be bothered, doesn't mean others won't. There has been success threatening small claims, so maybe you should have listened to your brother.

Retr0gamer

gant0 wrote: »

Seriously don't bother.I had the same problem a few months ago and although you do have consumer rights covering you it really wouldn't be worth the effort and money to create a case for the courts as you'd need to hire an expert on such hardware to survey your ps3 and show it really was the manufacturers fault.I was going to bring them to the court with my brother who is a solicitor and he really wanted to sue and he said with the evidence we had we would've won but the effort and money spent would greatly outweight the gain.You can get a new ps3 for I think 300e or you can get a refurb one with 6 month warranty for 150e.

No one will get anywhere with this attitude. I also think it would be worth the effort, a small claims court case isn't expensive at all and consumer rights are clearly on peoples sides here. Small claims accusations against Sony in America and Australia over the PS2 disc read error, which was just as prevalent as the YLOD or RROD, ended up with the governments taking class action law suits against sony and winning.

Slick50

gant0 wrote: »

Seriously don't bother.I had the same problem a few months ago and although you do have consumer rights covering you it really wouldn't be worth the effort and money to create a case for the courts as you'd need to hire an expert on such hardware to survey your ps3 and show it really was the manufacturers fault.I was going to bring them to the court with my brother who is a solicitor and he really wanted to sue and he said with the evidence we had we would've won but the effort and money spent would greatly outweight the gain.You can get a new ps3 for I think 300e or you can get a refurb one with 6 month warranty for 150e.

You seem to be seriously late with this post. If you read through the thread you would see that it was worth while for messi19, who got a replacement FOC, without having to go to court. At this stage xtravision and gamestop are providing refurbs FOC once you can produce proof of purchase (and know about the sale of goods and supply of services act). It would be interesting to see the evidence you have, as it may be of use to others.

Slick50

joe316 wrote: »

a letter would be sent out to me on Monday still havent got it but when I do ill update ye to let you know.

Hi joe316, did that letter ever materialize.

joe316

Slick50 wrote: »

Hi joe316, did that letter ever materialize.

Hey Slick,

They said they sent it, didnt receive it, rang again, said they would send it again, still no word.

They rang and told me the same story, no rights and they are doing me a favour charging me 160, etc...

so ill be seeing them in the small claims court, you any news?

bennyob

Im going to share my recent experience with you.......it actually hapened last summer

Blu ray drive died on a 60gig ps3 bought in November 07. I called sony who wanted 160 yo yo’s to replace the part. I declined their ‘kind’ offer.

Under sale of goods and supply of services act, you are covered for if the item purchased is not fit for the purpose intended and it is reasonable to assume that a €500 piece if kit should last longer than 18 months.

With this in mind I called the shop where ps3 was purchased who originally fobbed me off saying that I am not covered outside of manufacturers 1 year warranty. I said to her that is warranty is on top of my legal rights. She said that she will check it out for me and call me back. Before she hung up I made her aware that if her reply wasn’t favourable, then I will take issue to small claims court if necessary.

I got a call back 20 mins later saying that they will replace the unit with a brand new 80gig model.

Slick50

bennyob wrote: »

With this in mind I called the shop where ps3 was purchased who originally fobbed me off saying that I am not covered outside of manufacturers 1 year warranty.

Who were you dealing with bennyob.

My latest from Smyths, they replied to me through the registrar, but addressing someone elses case. I have asked the registrar to go ahead with setting a court date, that smyths are just dragging it out.
In smyths, response they were suggesting possible causes of "damage" to the console, and now adding that they think it is a durable piece of equipment.

Mak3uShy_PL

yea u got the **** box ps3s way better

Yellowledbetter

Good to see everyone sticking by their guns on this one,it worked for me and a few others so the best of luck to everyone who is challanging thier retailers on this!!

disco girl

Slick, can't believe they're fighting you on it!! Have they not seen the stats for the amount of ps3's that have gone belly up??