| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 104978 | 2009-11-15 00:20:00 | Warranty issues | Paul Purton (15429) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 830211 | 2009-11-15 00:20:00 | I bought Samsung blue tooth headphones from PB Technology's Wellington some months ago. Disappointing from the start. Prone to interferences from everything. Could not guarantee streaming music say if the was a microwave running. Killed by leaking transmissions walking down street. And then one day they snapped as I was putting them on. Effectively ending their life span as headphones. The warranty was for a year. Good since paying $90 for electronics with a life span of four months is no good. Anyway I returned them to PB Technology. who did not send them to Samsung as they informed me. They sent them to PB technology Auckland. Who sent them back saying nothing could be done as the break was physical. This is a rare warranty return for me. Normally the stuff I buy lasts for years. I'm writing this because of the sleazy way PB technology's deals with its warranty's. And anger at spending money on a junk product with a tiny lifespan. Don't spend your money at PB technology Wellington. Their motto is buyer beware. Avoid Samsung Bluetooth Stereo headset SBH500. Thanks for your time. Paul Purton |
Paul Purton (15429) | ||
| 830212 | 2009-11-15 00:27:00 | send them back to Samsung and bypass the dealer, what does the small print say about wear and tear? | gary67 (56) | ||
| 830213 | 2009-11-15 00:38:00 | Yes that interpretation of wear and tear is the kicker. They snapped as I put them on. You have to pull them apart slightly to loop them over your ears. The warranty states about defects in materials and design. Which is the problem. I expected no problems from samsung. I'm shocked. I got the one in ten thousand or something. Anyway thanks for your advice. I'll try to contact them. |
Paul Purton (15429) | ||
| 830214 | 2009-11-15 00:47:00 | Hi Paul..... Consumer Guarantees Act.... Act by section Contents › Part 1 Guarantees in respect of supply of goods 7 Meaning of acceptable quality (1) For the purposes of section 6 of this Act, goods are of acceptable quality if they are as— (a) Fit for all the purposes for which goods of the type in question are commonly supplied; and (b) Acceptable in appearance and finish; and (c) Free from minor defects; and (d) Safe; and (e) Durable,— as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods, including any hidden defects, would regard as acceptable, having regard to— (f) The nature of the goods: (g) The price (where relevant): (h) Any statements made about the goods on any packaging or label on the goods: (i) Any representation made about the goods by the supplier or the manufacturer: (j) All other relevant circumstances of the supply of the goods. (2) Where any defects in goods have been specifically drawn to the consumer's attention before he or she agreed to the supply, then notwithstanding that a reasonable consumer may not have regarded the goods as acceptable with those defects, the goods will not fail to comply with the guarantee as to acceptable quality by reason only of those defects. (3) Where goods are displayed for sale or hire, the defects that are to be treated as having been specifically drawn to the consumer's attention for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section are those disclosed on a written notice displayed with the goods. (4) Goods will not fail to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality if— (a) The goods have been used in a manner, or to an extent which is inconsistent with the manner or extent of use that a reasonable consumer would expect to obtain from the goods; and (b) The goods would have complied with the guarantee of acceptable quality if they had not been used in that manner or to that extent. (5) A reference in subsections (2) and (3) of this section to a defect means any failure of the goods to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality. |
Scouse (83) | ||
| 830215 | 2009-11-15 00:49:00 | Do you have a link to the product in question? I have to admit I'm surprised at your claim here - even the 'cheap junk' headphones can generally stand up to being used, as long as they're cared for properly. | Erayd (23) | ||
| 830216 | 2009-11-15 00:51:00 | Probably these (pbtech.co.nz) | Speedy Gonzales (78) | ||
| 830217 | 2009-11-15 00:56:00 | Workmate has a pair of them. He swears by them, best thing since sliced bread apparently :D | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 830218 | 2009-11-15 01:31:00 | Proberly these are them. And i'm surprised. I'm giving up on bluetooth. |
Paul Purton (15429) | ||
| 830219 | 2009-11-15 01:39:00 | Anyway I returned them to PB Technology . who did not send them to Samsung as they informed me . They sent them to PB technology Auckland . Who sent them back saying nothing could be done as the break was physical . Well no . Retailers do not return products to the manufacturer, they return to them to their wholesaler . The wholesaler replaces them (or not) and later on sends them back overseas . Once there is a bulk load to send . Physical damage is excluded from the warranty . It will even say that on Samsungs website, never mind the retailers . SHould have returned them when they first had problems, before they snapped . |
pctek (84) | ||
| 830220 | 2009-11-15 01:50:00 | I put this saga down to my love affair with convergent technologies. I thought it would be smart to roll everything into one device. Smartphones need bluetooth to sound decent. For $90 I'll just get an ordinary mp3 player with 3.5 jack. I already have reasonable headphones. I'm putting bluetooth far behind me. I'm no longer in love with convergent technology. Bluetooth expensive and unreliable. |
Paul Purton (15429) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||