consumer rights

M cebee

i wasn't really aware of consumer law regarding product lifespan


what's a reasonable lifetime of time for ps3's ,flat screen tvs,electronics, etc?

and who decides?


and what's the point of paying for 'extended warranties'?


do shops deliberately fob people off by stating an item is out of warranty,and what percentage of people would be aware of their right to expect a product to last a certain period of time?

BrianD

Not defined by law as it would be impossible to do so as it depends on so many factors.

I would never by an extended warranty (particularly of the UK high street stores) as I don't believe they offer good value.

I suspect that the value that people see is that the definition of a reasonable lifespan and a failure that would be classed as a warranty failure would probably involve a lot of hassle and a judgement in court.

Shane-KornSpace

I would see it as if my PS3 were to die within 2 years of usage. Well, a bit longer I suppose.
My €1500 laptop is still running fine after almost 5 years.
But if my TV of €1000 were to die after (for arguements' sake) 3 years, I would be very dissapointed.

M cebee

so what's the usual scenario when you go back with a flatscreen after 3 years?

judging by some of the posts i've seen here-the retailer often fobs off the customer and he's none the wiser if he doesn't know his rights

cast_iron

M cebee wrote: »

so what's the usual scenario when you go back with a flatscreen after 3 years?

judging by some of the posts i've seen here-the retailer often fobs off the customer and he's none the wiser if he doesn't know his rights

That's exactly it.
As to who decides what is a reasonable lifespan, it's ultimately a district court judge in the small claims court.
If you have forked out quite alot for the tv, then a longer lifespan would not be an unreasonable expectation. On the face of it, a 3 year lifespan for a tv seems a bit short to me, and I'm not sure manufacturers would ever say that is an expected lifespan.
Proving the fault was as a result of poor manufacturing (and not over-use or abuse) would usually be part of the process. Usually, the threat of the small claims case (ie. an application to the SCC and the court clerk contacting the shop for a response) is enough for the shop to cave in. It will cost you €15 and a bit of time.

BrianD

cast_iron wrote: »

Usually, the threat of the small claims case (ie. an application to the SCC and the court clerk contacting the shop for a response) is enough for the shop to cave in. It will cost you €15 and a bit of time.

I wouldn't rely on that logic. If the retailer is going to have to pay out market value for a TV set they sold years ago then they would probably defend the action.

Also they'll factor in that you've had use of the product for, say, three years.

cast_iron

BrianD wrote: »

I wouldn't rely on that logic. If the retailer is going to have to pay out market value for a TV set they sold years ago then they would probably defend the action.

Also they'll factor in that you've had use of the product for, say, three years.

The retailers first question to itself will be if it thinks it will win or lose the case on the back of the law stating that 3 years is/is not a reasonable lifespan of the tv.
If it loses the case, the cost could well be alot more than the cost of replacing (or repairing) the tv. The negative publicity of having the company in court, losing a case, and the potential publicity leading to a whole raft of people who never knew just how strong consumer law is in Ireland bringing their tvs/kettles/toasters/dvd players/washing machines, etc back for a free repair will far outweigh any (repair) cost of a faulty tv.
Most smart businesses would realise it is far easier and less costly to settle the case. Of course, it would only really consider settling if there's a good chance they will lose. 3 years for a tv?? Personally I reckon there's a strong chance a judge would agree that's just a bit too short.

M cebee

so what is the meaning of warranties then if an item must last a 'lifetime' anyway?

theteal

Warranties were originally introduced as a selling tool to promote consumer confidence, that is all. Thanks to definitively structured consumer legislation, warranties are effectively meaningless but some companies do try to hide behind them when uninformed customers raise queries.

I'm not sure what you mean by this 'lifetime' statement, a product must last a reasonable amount of time. If it comes down to it, this reasonable timeframe can be defined by a SCC judge.

slimjimmc

M cebee wrote: »

so what is the meaning of warranties then if an item must last a 'lifetime' anyway?

A marketing tool. e.g product "A" has a 3yr warranty therefore product "A" must be better (in the consumer's perception) than the competition who only give 2 yrs. It also gives peace of mind that any problem will be dealt with promptly.