TO be HD or Not to be That is the question!

[DeanJL]

Hi,

I Wonder if anyone could advise / qualify this situation:
You may get to the punchline yourselves before the end if you are familiar with this type of story but here goes......

Our Dilema

Purchased a Sagem HTD 501 Rear Projector TV from Comet on 24th October 2004.

Comet had the set running a High Definition film though a pc "demo box".
The floor rep we spoke to discussed the TV with us and the quality of the image was outstanding it had to be said.

The conversation went on to the "soon to be rolled out" HD television and with all things considered we made our purchase.

As there was no HD content to speak of (in any consumer format) our reasoning was that when it did become available we would be in a plug and play position with our new TV. Great TV Very happy with it.

Fast forward to a few weeks ago and our decision to adopt the SKY HD service.

I have now learned that the TV has a critical omission that will prevent any of the industry's "newly ratified standard" sources from connecting to the set. The key omission being an HDCP enabled port. (A port that carries out an encrypted handshake between 2 devices).These ports come in 2 varieties. HDMI and DVI. Either (as long as they are HDCP enabled) will allow copyrighted material to be screened. If the set does not have an HDCP enabled port then no image can be displayed.

The only way this set can display an HD picture is when the source is connected to the TV's component sockets.

This makes the set HD Compatible BUT NOT HD Ready. (HDCP compliant)

1st generation SKY HD boxes are being shipped with component sockets as well as an HDCP compliant HDMI socket. So the Sky aspect of this problem is surmountable. However, newer games consoles, HD DVD players and Blue-Ray DVD players are all being produced whereby they must connect via an HDCP compliant port in order to display the content correctly.

Our Argument

I informed the store manager that having read about this issue that I was inclined to agree with many other owners that whilst the set is capable of displaying an image at an HD resolution, it places me at a considerable disadvantage with regard to the content I will be able to receive. I believed that this restriction was unreasonable and that the way the set was advertised and displayed in store did not accurately represent the potential it actually has.
Hopefully this link will take you to the page in question. Under Other features it clearly states that the set is “Ready for high definition visual content”. He informed me that he would investigate the matter and get back to me. In the mean time I have contacted the C.A.B who put me in touch with Consumer Direct. The rep there informed me that I could have a case under SOGA in respect of:

1.The set not being fit for the purpose made known.
2.The argument was still valid under the 6 year statute of limitation.

Their Argument

Last conversation with the store manager has resulted in the following:

· There was nothing they could do with regard to our set due to the fact that we had owned and used it for 3 years. (statute of limitation?)
· Prices have dropped so much over the last 3 years and technology has moved on so quickly that our set now would have a value of no more than £300.00 (£1,999.00 when purchased)
· Why don’t I use the Component sockets (fit for purpose?)

An offer of £300.00 (the apparent value of our set now) made against a new purchase was offered as a gesture of good will which he advised me to do on boxing day (wonder why!) He also advised me of “a little known fact” that Comet are about to launch a SKY HD offer for existing Sky customers where the set could be discounted by a considerable sum. An offer only currently available to new customers.

· I showed him the advert and expressed my opinion that I could not see how anyone could interpret the ready to receive HD visual content any other way.
· I informed him that I did not think it was reasonable to have a set that was advertised with an emphasis on high definition to be obsolete within 3 years.
· I conceded that having had the set for 3 years, that there would be an amount of negotiation required in respect of any agreed amount but that a solution that amounted to more expenditure by me was not exactly a good will gesture by Comet.
· Comet had a responsibility under the SOGA to make reparations in light of the misleading claim in the ad and the way the set was setup in store.
His response was one of “that is something that you would have to take up privately” ????

A Summary

My feeling is that Comet have jumped the gun with it’s HD claims for this set. They were in fact selling it as such before the industry had even ratified it’s specification. So I do not see the advertising claims as malicious, just premature and unfortunately incomplete. Indeed the term “HD Ready” as understood today was not in existence. The fact remains though that I have a TV set that falls short of the minimum requirement for using the current and future crop of HD devices which I was not expecting. My dilemma therefore is, do I:

· Accept that I have limited / alternative connectivity to the HD Sky service through the sets “HD compatible” component sockets.
· Accept that I have no connectivity to any other form of HD device (DVD player, games consoles, Blue Ray DVD etc. (which I bought the set in preparation of!)
· Accept an offer of £300.00 against another set meaning additional outlay and what to do with a set that no-one may want.

Or
· Insist with Comet that they are responsible for prematurely extolling the virtues of a TV that ultimately is not capable of providing the sevices that I was expecting it to.

The big question

· Does Comet have a valid argument that the TV is able to receive HD visual content albeit though an alternative connection. (so substantiating the advertised claim)

As the “Experts” my argument is that I was relying on them to advise me of the suitability of the product, and that advice led me to believe that the set I was buying would be capable of a mainstream connection to HD content though mainstream sources like DVD’s & Satellite. Not that I would be under any restriction of service due to the level of compatibility.

· Would Comet be able to substantiate the fact that they are not at fault in this regard due to the fact that the industry has incorporated a different mechanism for displaying HD content that was not known at the time.
· Would they have an argument that the offer they have made was reasonable in the sum of £300.00 as a figure of “current value” for the set even though my loss is the greater figure of the £1,999.00 original price.

The reality is that I had bought the set in preparation of the forthcoming HD services and content and that I truly believed that I had purchased a set that was ready to do exactly that job. I had relied on their advice which unfortunately has turned out to be inaccurate and was issued (I feel) too soon.

Is the fact that the industry has moved the goal posts by implementing HDCP protocol merely a case of Buyer beware and should I accept the offer of £300.00 off a new set.

Any qualification of the facts as you see it would be extremely helpful.

PS:
In case any one is wondering why it took 3 years for me to find this out……
Very simple.

No reason whatsoever to assume that I had a problem looming until I finally took the plunge to go for a HD service in the form of a SKY HD box.

Yours hopefully

Dean

[MATTYFEZ]

I think the tricky thing here, is that you were told it was HD, and HD is just a collective term, that can be used for a number of standards.

I think if you were not specificly told it was HDCP compliant, they haven't mis-sold it.

"In case any one is wondering why it took 3 years for me to find this out……"

I think HDCP was pretty much unheard of 3 years ago, especially in projection T.V's Its a standard thats only really hit mainstream in the last 12 months.

[DeanJL]

Thank you for the reply.

I have thought long and hard about that exact point.

My black and white head is telling me that I went into comet to buy a tv and the tv I brought was sold as such that I could connect to HD services when ready to do so.

My grey head is telling me to find out if the argument would stand up to scutiny if taken further where there is obviously an amount of connectivity but such that I am placed at a disadvantage when the standard is hardly even off the ground! I was hardly behind the times at the time of purchase and was mindful of what I believed I could do in the future.

The issue is would Comet's argument hold water that they have sold a product to me which is fit for purpose.

Did they have a responsiblity to draw my attention to the fact that the standard was not ratified. In order that I could make a more educated decision.

In all other respects the set is excellent but this is a significant downgrade in my eyes.

Any thoughts on the legal point of view?

Regards

Dean

[StormWarrior]

It sounds like 'early adopters syndrome'
The standards for connection have moved on and left you, as an early adopter, behind.

[gman35]

Originally Posted by StormWarrior

It sounds like 'early adopters syndrome'
The standards for connection have moved on and left you, as an early adopter, behind.

I agree. Could you buy a betamax player then claim for not being able to play VHS tapes? To me it seems like exactly the same situation. I highly doubt that the court would hold comet liable for not predicting the future of HD devices. Simply put the TV is HD, which is the reason you bought it for however isn't HDCP compliant, a thing which i assume you did not directly ask for or knew about at the time.

[EnglandRugby]

Hi Does your tv have a VGA input?
If so there may be a relatively inexpensive solution, an adaptor called #HD Fury"
Here is the link:

HDFury 1080p HDMI to VGA Converter (Green Version) HD Fury - £72.99 : thegametrain.com

Hope it helps.

[Lula]

Well done England Rugby, an excellent suggestion


p.s. you should have bought Panasonic, we were looking at Samsung as we were recommended them too, looked at which magazines and when it came down to it, 42 plasma 1080p got the Sky HD thingy, good lord, the picture is absolutely mind blowing, have you tried recording the Arts HD Aquariavision at night and then watching it, superb.

[gyzmo]

Whether a statement is misleading or not depends on its context. If a reasonable consumer could reasonably infer something from a statement, then that statement is misleading even if in fact it actuallly is not.

Unfortunately it is subjective and therefore a matter of fact for teh court to decide. I would promptly contact Consumer Direct and ask for Trading Standards to call you (or pay a visit to your local Trading Standards if they operate a walkin centre - google (well, use CAGS search engine!) your local authority name followed by teh words "trading standards" to get more info.