Digital camera broke after 13.5 months

[xfox]

Purchased a Canon 20d camera on 9th of June 2005 from ebuyer.co.uk and camera developed a fault on the 1st of August 2006 (powering off and not coming back on for 24 hours). Sent it back to Canon and not sure if they will repair it for free.
If it's not repaired for free, what should I do exactly?
Send a letter saying it's not of satisfactory quality under Sales of Goods Act, and well within the 6 years?

If Canon refuse, issue CCJ via moneyclaim??

I've had a look at the forums, and found this quote "satisfactory quality. This has a much wider definition than merchantable quality. The test seems to be whether a reasonable person would expect a breakdown to occur within the timeframe in question. If they wouldn't then you have a cause for action. Read Bankfodder's threads and postings on this subject."


And this link here: http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/c...V0043-1011.txt

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) says that goods should be as follows:
Of satisfactory quality.

This means the goods must meet the standards that any reasonable person would expect, taking into account the description, the price and all other relevant information. In some circumstances, the retailer may be liable for any statement made by the manufacturer about the goods.

Satisfactory quality includes the appearance and finish of the goods, their safety and durability and whether they are free from defects (including minor faults)

[Rich44]

considering its a very expensive camera I wuould suggest to them it should definitely have lasted longer than that and should def be repaired for free

[blacksheep1979]

its not cannons problem - they didn't sell you it its ebuyer that you should be pursuing and yes you should be covered by the sale of goods act

[Bookworm]

Blacksheep is quite right.

However, ebuyer, if I recall, has agreements with certain of their suppliers where you can send the goods directly rather than going through ebuyer, is this what happened with you?

When did you send the camera? Have you had any response yet? Let us know.

[xfox]

Didn't bother contacting ebuyer, just thought I'd try and get Canon to fix it for free.

Sent it yesterday to Canon via Special Delivery. It's not really ebuyer's fault and would rather get it sorted via Canon.

If for some reason Canon want to charge me for the repair, do I really have to upset ebuyer?? Could I ring up ebuyer and say I sent the camera back to Canon already, and if ebuyer doesn't have a word with Canon on my behalf (whilst Canon have my camera) then I'm coming after ebuyer with a CCJ claim??

At the time of purchase, the camera cost £735.73.

When I spoke to the Canon service centre in Elstree, they said the 2 year EU warranty law doesn't apply to the UK yet - only Germany. Also they said they will allow a 1 months grace if the camera is just over it's 12 months warranty. They kept fobbing me off when I tried to explain 6 years SOGA. Thing is, my camera is a month and a half over it's warranty - grace period is only 1 month.

[Rich44]

There has been a lot of reported cases of problems with the 20d thats why our local camera guru shop wont sell them apparently, theyre made in a different factory to the other canon DSLRs or at least they were.

Anyway yes the initial problem is with ebuyer BUT theyre about as much help as a chocolate kettle in the sahara at midday so going direct to canon would probably be much quicker and ultimately theyre responsible.

So are they saying a camera costing over £700 they only expect to last 12 months?

[Niklowe]

The contact entered into when you purchased the camera, is with the retailer, and they are obliged to offer you a repair, replacement, or a refund. You should have returned it to them. The warranty from canon is only addional to your rights under the "Sale of goods act 1979 (As ammended).

While laws concerning sale of goods date back 100 years, the only phrase you need to memorise is 'The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)'.
The 'as amended' is important because it refers to laws which have extended the basic 1979 Act and using the phrase tells the trader that not only do you know basic consumer law, you know it has been amended too.
The Sale of Goods Act lays down several conditions that all goods sold by a trader must meet.
The goods must be:

• as described
• of satisfactory quality
• fit for purpose

As described refers to any advert or verbal description made by the trader.
Satisfactory quality covers minor and cosmetic defects as well as substantial problems. It also means that products must last a reasonable time. But it doesn't give you any rights if a fault was obvious or pointed out to you at point of sale.
Fit for purpose covers not only the obvious purpose of an item but any purpose you queried and were given assurances about by the trader.
If you buy something which doesn't meet these conditions, you have the potential right to return it, get a full refund, and if it will cost you more to buy similar goods elsewhere, compensation (to cover the extra cost) too.
Note, however, that the right to reject goods and get a full refund only lasts for a relatively short time after which a buyer is deemed to have 'accepted' goods. This doesn't mean that the buyer has not legal redress against the seller, just that he/she isn't entitled to a full refund.
Instead a buyer is first and foremost entitled to have the goods repaired or replaced.
If these remedies are inappropriate, then you're entitled to a suitable price reduction, or to return the goods and get a refund (reduced to take account of any wear and tear).
The act covers second-hand items and sales. But if you buy privately, your only entitlement to your money back is if the goods aren't 'as described'.
If goods which are expected to last six months don't, it'll be presumed that the goods didn't conform to the contract at the time they were bought, unless the seller can prove to the contrary.
In all other situations, it's for the consumer to prove their own case (that is, that the problem existed at the time of the contract). This will prove more difficult the longer you've had the goods. Subject to this, a consumer has six years from the time they buy something in which to make a claim.

Hope this helps. It worked for me in getting my son's laptop repaired after he had had it 17 months

[sleepz]

I had a simlar problem with a Sony mp3 player ... except I dropped it on the concrete and it broke ... took it back to the shop where i bought it (claiming I didn't have a clue what had happened, it didn't have any major dents or anything and looked ok). They told me I had to send it back to Sony. I went into the Sony store and they said they were just trying to fob me off and it is the stores responsibility to repair or replace.

In the end, to save hassle, I just sent it off to Sony, got it back a week and a half later, fixed, shiny and new.
I did have to send them proof of purchase though, I didn't have a recept, but luckily enough i bought it with a credit card, so asked the credit card people to send me back statements, highlighted the one that looked as if it might be it (it just said "House of Fraser, Glasgow" with a price next to it), and that seemed to be fine.

They even told me what was wrong with it ... broken Hard drive in case your interested

[StoneLaughter]

Originally Posted by sleepz

I had a simlar problem with a Sony mp3 player ... except I dropped it on the concrete and it broke ... took it back to the shop where i bought it (claiming I didn't have a clue what had happened, it didn't have any major dents or anything and looked ok). They told me I had to send it back to Sony. I went into the Sony store and they said they were just trying to fob me off and it is the stores responsibility to repair or replace.

In the end, to save hassle, I just sent it off to Sony, got it back a week and a half later, fixed, shiny and new.
I did have to send them proof of purchase though, I didn't have a recept, but luckily enough i bought it with a credit card, so asked the credit card people to send me back statements, highlighted the one that looked as if it might be it (it just said "House of Fraser, Glasgow" with a price next to it), and that seemed to be fine.

They even told me what was wrong with it ... broken Hard drive in case your interested

Clearly you should have paid for the repair. This site (and most of it's members) will not endorse criminal activity. And from your own statement quoted here, it's clear that you either:

1) Obtained a pecuniary advantage by deception,

or
2) Defrauded Sony of the cost of repair by denying knowledge of what happened.

This is clearly a criminal act and cannot be endorsed by CAG. If you wish to get an item repaired then you should be 100% honest in your dealings with the people you bought it from.

----------------------

XFox -

NikLowe is absolutely right, your contract for a reasonable quality item is with the seller, and it should have gone through EBuyer. The situation you're in now is, that unless Canon have already issued a statement accepting responsibility for the particular fault you describe, or unless they subsequently admit to you it's their fault, they have absolutely no obligation to you, to do the repair FOC. Further to this, as you did not contact them about the problem at all, EBuyer have absolutely no responsibility under the SOGA to pay for Canon's working on it; they may well have simply replaced the item or refunded your cost minus a reasonable usage allowance.

I'm sorry but it looks like your pooch is well and truly screwed; unless Canon agree to repair it as a goodwill gesture.

[sleepz]

I understand what your saying, and I apologise if that's the impression I gave.

However, it was my second Sony mp3 player and I do believe that it was their product that was at fault, Yes, I did drop it, but I think that is to be expected in the case of small portable devices such as an mp3 player.

I feel that the product should have been sturdier and able to withstand certain "punishment" through what I consider to be expected an everyday accident. I did withhold the fact that I had dropped it (when I sent it back), however this information was never asked of me so I don't perceive myself to have had lied or mislead anyone. Sony looked at the mp3 player and decided there was a fault, im sure they know what happened to it based on their experience and knowledge of the product, however they did not ask for more information or question what had happened in any respect.

Anyway, I apologise.

[Rich44]

OT but tbh they would have looked and if there was no sign of an obvious impact then they would have just replaced the drive theres no way of finding out whether a drive has failed from impact damage or faulty bearings or actuator or anything else a dead drive is a dead drive (short of expensive dismantling and checking)

[Niklowe]

On a slightly divergant note, My son's Digital camera which packed up was bought from Amazon, they refunded the purchase price with no quibble at all. This is a company that seems to have taken customer care onboard.