| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 35635 | 2003-07-17 23:35:00 | Defective Philips 170S4 LCD - Legal Question. | nz_liam (845) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 160674 | 2003-07-29 00:52:00 | so,What was the eventual outcome? | metla (154) | ||
| 160675 | 2003-07-29 01:19:00 | > I would like to know the difference between Personal > and business I think the law would still be the same. Actually I agree. I am a lawyer and I have never understood why a product I use at home is protected by the Consumer Guarantees Act but the same product (such as a computer screen) purchased for work is not similarly protected. However we still have legal rights and remedies whatever Act applies. A Disputes Tribunal claim can be a great leveler between the small person and a corporation. Just ask any insurance company. Good luck |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 160676 | 2003-07-29 02:36:00 | The fact that TechPac generally sells to retailers does not mean that the CGA does not apply. If the product was sold to a person for personal use then the CGA will apply, even though there general business is to retailers (where they can opt out of the CGA). Another words the ability to use the CGA occurs on a transactional basis not a general business practice basis. As previously said it therefore comes down to what is "Reasonable quality" |
roofus (483) | ||
| 160677 | 2003-07-29 04:44:00 | roofus, I would have thought that it wouldn't be covered because it was probably a sale which never happened. One of those one off deals that no one knows about. Could be wrong though. | -=JM=- (16) | ||
| 160678 | 2003-07-29 09:24:00 | Well if its a sale that no one was ment to know about, the IRD wouldn't mind knowing!!! and if its a sale that " no one knows about" then one can not be a consumer and therefore can not be protected from the CGA |
roofus (483) | ||
| 160679 | 2003-07-29 09:41:00 | Glad you are not my accountant,I mean to say,mentioning the robbers. | Thomas (1820) | ||
| 160680 | 2003-07-30 02:42:00 | Didn't you know, accountants are the agents of the Revenue paid by us? | Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 160681 | 2003-07-30 07:57:00 | Lovely! | Thomas (1820) | ||
| 160682 | 2003-07-30 08:37:00 | >>>A Disputes Tribunal claim can be a great leveler between the small person and a corporation. Just ask any insurance company. Winston, you are spot on there. As a Loss Adjuster who has sat on both sides of the fence at Disputes Tribunal hearings I firmly agree that a D/T referee would be fair in seeing you get "what you expected to get". Furthermore I guess a referee would be better at establishing whether your purchase was for commercial or personal reasons, depending on whether the usage / risk was increased in how / what you do with the product. A retailer may contract out of the CGA in respect of goods supplied for commercial purposes, but this may be irrelevant in what you are doing with your monitor as usage at home or commercial wouldn't be much different. Section 7 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 refers to "Acceptable Quality" as being free from minor defects. This may have relevance. You can access NZ Statute Here (www.legislation.govt.nz). Click the "c" on the leftand scroll down to the Consumers Guarantees Act. I personally wouldn't let it drop. If the monitor was advertised as having faulty pixels then you would be lumped with it. If the advertising extolled the wonderful features and clear screen, that is not what you got. J. :D |
Jester (13) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||