Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

My Pioneer DVD player, AVLAND and the Sale of Goods Act

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Gerard McGovern

unread,
Dec 1, 2003, 5:08:46 PM12/1/03
to
Posted yesterday about a fault with my Pioneer DV-747a DVD player. I
purchased the player from Avland in Feb 2002 and it has now refused to play
DVDs. It will play CDs fine but it just ejects DVDs.

Phoned them up and quoted the Sale of Goods Act and that the retailer is
liable for six years after purchase for a manufacturing fault that may
develop. They couldn't give a toss. The official line from one of their
directors, Frank Harvey, was that even though it states in the Sale of Goods
Act that the retailer was liable they wouldn't do anything about it.

Phoned my local Trading Standards and they said that Avland couldn't be more
in the wrong. Suggested I try contacting Pioneer before going legal and see
what happens.

Now, I personally think it is harsh that the retailer is liable in this case
and not the manufacturer. But that is the law of the land. Avland will have
made a profit on my £800 DVD player and some of that profit should be used
to cover the rare instance of a claim such as this.

Pioneer have offered to fix the problem, provided it has nothing to do with
the multi-region mod that Avland provided, for just labour charges as a good
will gesture. If that fails then I can't see any other option than to take
Avland to the Small Claims Court. Sad really.

Has anyone else had experience with the Sale of Goods act and taking
retailers to court?

Thanks,

Gerard


Gerard McGovern

unread,
Dec 1, 2003, 6:52:17 PM12/1/03
to
> <snip>

> >Now, I personally think it is harsh that the retailer is liable in this
case
> >and not the manufacturer. But that is the law of the land. Avland will
have
> >made a profit on my £800 DVD player and some of that profit should be
used
> >to cover the rare instance of a claim such as this.
>
> Speaking purely from a personal viewpoint, I really think the law is
> wrong. Dont get me wrong - its there for me to use if the need arises,
> I just dont think its fair that the retailer gets the responsability.
> It definately should be the manufacturer IMHO, if anyone at all.

I actually had this chat with the Trading Standards officer. He put it this
way. The law has been this way for quite some time now. It is not as if it
has suddenly been introduced. If retailers don't provide sufficent margin in
their prices to allow for the cost of repair then that is their fault.

Anyway, we shall see how it goes.

G


P Pron

unread,
Dec 1, 2003, 8:11:09 PM12/1/03
to

Some very useful leaflets on www.tradingstandards.gov.uk - including a
link to enable you to serve a claim online(!)

I agree with you that the law is a bit one-sided, placing all the onus
on the retailer - but at that price I think any reasonable person
would conclude that you've got a right to expect more than 52 weeks
use of the player!!

paul


loz

unread,
Dec 2, 2003, 4:32:48 AM12/2/03
to

"guv" <gu...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:gfknsvk7ucnbdcgbc...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:08:46 -0000, "Gerard McGovern"
> <st...@inkiboo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>

> >Now, I personally think it is harsh that the retailer is liable in this case
> >and not the manufacturer. But that is the law of the land. Avland will have
> >made a profit on my £800 DVD player and some of that profit should be used
> >to cover the rare instance of a claim such as this.
>
> Speaking purely from a personal viewpoint, I really think the law is
> wrong. Dont get me wrong - its there for me to use if the need arises,
> I just dont think its fair that the retailer gets the responsability.
> It definately should be the manufacturer IMHO, if anyone at all.

The customers relationship is with the retailer.
The retailers relationship is then with the manufacturer.
Something goes wrong, the customer goes to the retailer, the retailer goes to
the manufacturer.
Very simple really.
If retailers just want to earn the profits from selling and not have to deal
with any later problems, then their prices ought to be lower.

loz


Gerard McGovern

unread,
Dec 2, 2003, 4:36:10 AM12/2/03
to
> The customers relationship is with the retailer.
> The retailers relationship is then with the manufacturer.
> Something goes wrong, the customer goes to the retailer, the retailer goes
to
> the manufacturer.
> Very simple really.
> If retailers just want to earn the profits from selling and not have to
deal
> with any later problems, then their prices ought to be lower.

Exactly, which is why I will probably never buy from Avland again. Their
attitude of 'we don't care, we offered a 1yr guarantee, go away' is just
unbelievable. They didn't even offer to speak to Pioneer on my behalf to see
what could be done.

Just have to wait and see what Pioneer say.

G


Simon Heather

unread,
Dec 2, 2003, 6:30:24 AM12/2/03
to
"Gerard McGovern" <st...@inkiboo.com> wrote in message news:<bqge5e$2266uq$1...@ID-201354.news.uni-berlin.de>...

> Has anyone else had experience with the Sale of Goods act and taking
> retailers to court?

Yes, I had a similar problem with my Fujitsu plasma dying after two
years use - after much persuasion the retailer sent it for free to a
plasma repair company for a quote. They reckoned it would cost £2K to
fix so I asked the retailer to either repair it or provide a new
plasma at a large discount. They refused to do either and so I lodged
a claim with the small claims court - you can do this online at
www.moneyclaim.gov.uk - it took four months for my case to be heard
and the retailer didn't bother turning up - the judge then awarded me
the £2K that I has asked for.

You will need to decide how much money you think you should be owed -
you will have to take into account the repair cost if known or a
proportion of the purchase price - though you will have to take into
account the lower cost of buying a new one today.

- Simon.

Gerard McGovern

unread,
Dec 2, 2003, 6:39:46 AM12/2/03
to
> They refused to do either and so I lodged
> a claim with the small claims court - you can do this online at
> www.moneyclaim.gov.uk - it took four months for my case to be heard
> and the retailer didn't bother turning up - the judge then awarded me
> the £2K that I has asked for.

Did you get the £2k in the end or has the company in question never paid?

G


Dave Higton

unread,
Dec 2, 2003, 10:12:14 AM12/2/03
to
David Hemmings wrote:

> Now consider the dvd player, it is a relatively very expensive
> machine, you would expect to have that machine for quite some
> considerable time. unless there has been abuse or it has been
> continuously been playing films for 1year, unfortunately the chipping
> will muddy the waters immensely, as it immediately invalidated the
> warrantee the second the machine was opened, hence pioneers comment.

I was under the impression retailers were using a firmware flash to "mod"
Pioneer players. Infact I got the impression they got it from Pioneer...
Perhaps I'm wrong or this doesn't apply to all Pioneer players?


Dave.

Simon Heather

unread,
Dec 2, 2003, 5:11:36 PM12/2/03
to
"Gerard McGovern" <st...@inkiboo.com> wrote in message
news:bqhtm3$220k7u$1...@ID-201354.news.uni-berlin.de...

> > They refused to do either and so I lodged
> > a claim with the small claims court - you can do this online at
> > www.moneyclaim.gov.uk - it took four months for my case to be heard
> > and the retailer didn't bother turning up - the judge then awarded me
> > the Ł2K that I has asked for.
>
> Did you get the Ł2k in the end or has the company in question never paid?
>
> G
>
>

Yes I got my Ł2K by cheque two weeks later - it helped offset the cost of
buying a new Toshiba plasma for Ł3K. So long as the company is still
solvent then you will get your money - if they ignore the court order you
can send in the bailiffs etc.

- Simon.


Simon Heather

unread,
Dec 2, 2003, 5:19:31 PM12/2/03
to
"guv" <gu...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5mmnsv4mbptgtjhvp...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:17:29 +0000, Kurt Hamster <m...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >>I just dont think its fair that the retailer gets the responsability.
> >>It definately should be the manufacturer IMHO, if anyone at all.
> >
> >It is fair as they are the ones who sold it to you, the manufacturer
> >sold it to them. Your contract is with the person you bought it off.
>
> I understand what you are saying completely and the logistics.
>
> But lets say for example Phillips produce a TV that ends up being a
> lemon and they all fail in 13 months time. The blame for the fault is
> not with the retailler clearly - but they are the ones to pay for a
> dodgy manufacturer fault. What I am saying here is that I dont believe
> that is fair - nothing more.
>

And the retailer then makes a claim against their supplier and so on ...
until it ends up with the manufacturer. If a retailer starts getting a
large number of returns for a product then they are going to stop stocking
that product unless the manufacturer helps them out.

- Simon.


Simon Heather

unread,
Dec 2, 2003, 5:24:02 PM12/2/03
to
"guv" <gu...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:n9mnsv46oja4ijlgd...@4ax.com...
> On the TS comment - I bet he couldnt provide information on what he
> would consider a reasonable amount to cover this - or what the
> expected failure rate will be.

Why should he - that's not his job! It is up to the judge to decide what is
reasonable when claiming an amount of money - its up to the claimant to
decide how much they think they are owed. You have to be able to justify
the claimed amount - I recommend using either the repair cost (if you know
what this is) or a simple fraction of the purchase price based on length of
service of the item.

- Simon.


0 new messages