PC World Won't Repair/Refund After 28 Days

[StormWarrior]

Well. I guess another letter before action to the cartridge manufacture as a court ordered independent report proves the cartridges not fit for purpose

So next time, suppose the printer retailer doesn't want to go to court, cost too much last time, (remember he will never recover all his costs of defending himself, e.g. staff cover, loss of earnings, time to prepare defence, cost of reports, etc) and he knows that its the carts again. What can he do to prevent being held to ransom by the next customer, who has used the printer outside of its designed specifications. e.g. used a non-approved ink?

According to the law nothing! The customer can damage the printer by missuse, and because the retailer cannot prove it without an expensive court case he's pretty much screwed. Not very fair.
Especially when the manufacturer explicitly says do not use non genuine carts!

Rant over Can you guess this is one of those pet hates techie people have ??

[StormWarrior]

Pat, all I can say is ouch, those lexy carts are not cheap, esp if they didn't fix it
My big printer gets run up, at least once a week to keep the heads nice and clean. Although I'm looking at the new model, only £1600 :o

As for the

Replacing the non-Epson cartridges with genuine cartridges and head cleaning should bring it back to life.

Afraid it doesn't work like that. Damage is already done.

just not Epson ink!

I know that EPSON do not sell, licence or otherwise allow thier ink technologies to any one else. So if it's not in a genuine cart, it's not epson ink. Simple as that. The carrier solvents, pigment partical size, etc are all tightly controlled, so the hardware can be made to tighter tollerances. This gives better printing, (although to be honest, most people couldn't really tell on a normal print) The downside to all this is using ink that isn't "up to quality" is asking for trouble.
If you use sub-standard parts and they cause the problem, the fault is with the parts, not the original item.

Maybe we should all go back to ribbons remember them ??

[gyzmo]

The point of the fact is, and something that retailpointofview amongst others has (yet again, but unsurprisingly) missed is, as Pat and others have pointed out several times in this thread and others...

IT IS LAW that, within the first six months, the fault is deemed to have existed at the time of sale, and it is for the seller to prove otherwise.

Putting a disclaimer in is not good enough (nor, could it be argued, legal?). It may well be that the cartridge caused the problem. It may well be that green alien blobs caused the problem, or that the the Lord God Almighty Himself descended upon the Earth and deemed that all ink cartridges will fail and cause the printer to f**k up 2 days after purchase.

The point is, until six months have passed from the time of sale,
IT IS DOWN TO THE SELLER TO PROVE THAT THIS IS THE CASE. THEY CANNOT STRAIGHT AWAY BLAME THE INK CARTRIDGE, OR ANYTHING ELSE.


Can you PLEASE get this concept into your heads? It's no wonder customers are confused about their rights (and some stores with their responsibilities) with sh**e like this floating around.

If you don't know what you are talking about, don't say anything at all, unless it is to ask or learn or to debate a point.
After that, AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGG GHHHHHHHHHHHH!

[StormWarrior]

Gyzmo,

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGG GHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Chill dude, didn't say it wasn't the law, quite the opposite, just saying it's not always fair.

IT IS DOWN TO THE SELLER TO PROVE THAT THIS IS THE CASE. THEY CANNOT STRAIGHT AWAY BLAME THE INK CARTRIDGE, OR ANYTHING ELSE.

I totally agree! Never suggested that this wasn't the case.

Read my post !

The customer can damage the printer by missuse, and because the retailer cannot prove it without an expensive court case he's pretty much screwed

Not a hint of suggesting that the retailer is denying the law, just that in some circumstances the law does not work as intended!

Pass that one by your lecturer, next time your in class

And while they have been mentioned, I've always suspected that green alien blobs have a lot to do with computer related problem

As an aside for all those watching, Why could a manufacturer (or retailer) not put an 'approved accesories only' clause in? Given that they could demonstrate statistically, that non-genuine carts cause the problems.
I know they would have to make a point of it, at the point of sale, but there are plenty of situations where it would save so much grief.

[Bookworm]

Originally Posted by StormWarrior

As an aside for all those watching, Why could a manufacturer (or retailer) not put an 'approved accesories only' clause in? Given that they could demonstrate statistically, that non-genuine carts cause the problems.
I know they would have to make a point of it, at the point of sale, but there are plenty of situations where it would save so much grief.

I'm going to guess that it would create a monopoly, and isn't that the kind of thing that got Microsoft in trouble a few years back about their OS only working with their own software? (a bit hazy here, so feel free to correct me! )

[retailerpointofview]

hmm many things things to note.

1 The printer is not designed for non manufacturer based inks.
so by you using cartridges not made by the company that produced the printer it again is like putting deisel into a petrol engine.

2.Only using genuine ink cartridges in its printer is not a monopoly. only having one printer is!!

if you are not happy with epson ink prices may i suggest CANON. cheaper penny per page. also if it is costing over 28p per 6x4" photo may i suggest jessops or kodak processing centres.

customer using parts not intended for the unit are classed as damaging the unit. the inks the manufacturers use do not clog, their thickness is way below the pigment ink you get in refills so they dont block the prinhead either.

3. a print head is replaceable and manufacturers class this too as a consumable. they state after three cartridge changes the print carriage /head on printer should be changed to keep the high quality of their product.

4. pcworld have proved it not fault from purchase because it was noted that there were non genuine ink cartridges in the printer. and yet as a gesture of goodwill they replaced the whole printer.

[retailerpointofview]

again they were not monopolising the fact that only their own software works with their own operating system.

microsoft only make a few games such as flight simulator. and yet there are thousands of other manufactors that make pc games that work on windows. fry cry, doom, etc

along with office packages such as lotus open office ETC which all work on microsofts OS.

the whole monopoly is actually to do with the fact that microsoft were giving all new pc customer microsoft Office for free.

thus other manufacturers of office software like lotus would not get a look in as everyone stuck to microsoft office becaus lotus was not free.

now that it is not included at bought separetly at £100 for home and student version other companies such as lotus and open office have a chance.

microsoft also were going to be sued for their media player aswell because apple quicktime and real player had no chance. but this was dismissed due to the fact that apple and real players were free to download so consumers still had the choice, which to use without it cost any money to switch.

[StormWarrior]

Hi there Bookworm, there are other manufacturers who make printers, so no monopoly would exist.

The microsoft thinf was nothing to do with software compatibilty.
Check out my next reply

[Bookworm]

Originally Posted by retailerpointofview

1 The printer is not designed for non manufacturer based inks.
so by you using cartridges not made by the company that produced the printer it again is like putting deisel into a petrol engine.

Nonsense. Putting diesel into a petrol engine will cause your engine irretrievable damage very quickly. Some printers will go on for years on non-generic inks. This is the same kind of marketing rubbish we hear about washing powders, and I have to wonder about your vested interest in trying to convince anyone otherwise.

2.Only using genuine ink cartridges in its printer is not a monopoly. only having one printer is!!

Do you even KNOW what the word "monopoly" means? And I do not mean the board game!

customer using parts not intended for the unit are classed as damaging the unit.

You're missing the point AGAIN. Within the 1st 6 months, it would be down to the seller to PROVE that it was that which caused the damage. As you've now been told umpteen times.

pcworld have proved it not fault from purchase because it was noted that there were non genuine ink cartridges in the printer. and yet as a gesture of goodwill they replaced the whole printer

No, they haven't. They have an element of suspicion that the use of non-brand inks might have caused the damage, if it went to court, they would have to convince a judge that it was the use of those inks and nothing else that had caused the failure. A judge would then decide on balance of probabilities whether that was the problem or not. Nothing as clear cut as "proved", far from it. If the printer was 6 mths or 1 yr old, ten I migh tbe more inclined to lean towards PCW, but on a 2 months old printer? I would want a lot more evidence than "oh, he used generic cartridges, so that's why the printer failed at 2 months old".

[StormWarrior]

retailerpointofview, 1 out of 4, not a bad score for you

1 The printer is not designed for non manufacturer based inks.
so by you using cartridges not made by the company that produced the printer it again is like putting deisel into a petrol engine.

more like putting tesco petrol in
0 out of 1

2.Only using genuine ink cartridges in its printer is not a monopoly. only having one printer is!!

Correct,who told you that one? We'll give you a point
1 out of 2

the inks the manufacturers use do not clog, their thickness is way below the pigment ink you get in refills so they dont block the prinhead either.

erm, actually no, it's nothing to do with the thickness of the ink, well not according to the tech stuff I've seen. It's more down to the type of solvent that hold the pigments in suspension, and the pigment particle size.
But close no points 1 out of 3

3. a print head is replaceable and manufacturers class this too as a consumable. they state after three cartridge changes the print carriage /head on printer should be changed to keep the high quality of their product.

Not quite right again I'm afraid. Canon printheads are usually consumables, and therefore should be added to the cost per page, but HP carts have the printhead built in, new cart = new printhead. ( patent on the head also stops 3rd party carts being manufactured, refilled only)
Epson print heads are part of the printer, and may be a service item, but certainly not a consumable.
No points there I'm afraid 1 out of 4

4. pcworld have proved it not fault from purchase because it was noted that there were non genuine ink cartridges in the printer. and yet as a gesture of goodwill they replaced the whole printer.

Not even sure where tha tone came from so we'll just forget it!

[Bookworm]

Originally Posted by StormWarrior

Hi there Bookworm, there are other manufacturers who make printers, so no monopoly would exist.

The microsoft thinf was nothing to do with software compatibilty.
Check out my next reply

I did say I wasn't too sure about the Microsoft thing!

As to monopoly, check this out:

10.What are the standards for the determination of a "monopoly" adopted by the Fair Trade Commission?

According to Article 3 of the Enforcement Rules of the Fair Trade Law (hereinafter referred to as the Enforcement Rules), the Fair Trade Commission shall take into account the following when determining whether an enterprise constitutes a monopoly as referred to in Article 5 of this Law:
(...)

2. the possibility of substitution of the goods or services in a particular market, giving regard to considerations of time and place;

Of course, there are other printers, but if they all only made printers where you can not use any other cartridge but their own, then they are effectively locking in the customer to their product and no other.

[StormWarrior]

the whole monopoly is actually to do with the fact that microsoft were giving all new pc customer microsoft Office for free.

SO WRONG ITS UNBELIEVABLE


Just for the record, the whole Microsoft Monopoy thing was caused by a company called Netscape, who complained that as Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer wit hthier Windows OS's they could not sell thier product.
And as soon as the anti-trust suit was underway, Nutscrape, as they were known, started to give away thier product anyway.

It had nothing to do with Office, which has NEVER been bundled with any Microsoft operating system, not anywhere in the world.

In fact Office has never been part of any of the anti-monopoly cases.

Oh, one other thing, microsoft offered to put quicktime and realplayer into the OS package, Apple and Realtime declined!

[StormWarrior]

Why is there only one monopolies commission?

Sorry to everyone if some of my comment on this thread are a "bit close to the edge" but two of my pet hates have managed to turn up in the same place.

I assure everyone I mean not harm...



well not much..



ok, so maybe I do think all the microsoft haters should be forced to use Linux, and look after thier own tech support problems.


Bookworm, have PM'ed you a little nugget Apparently I haven't, it won't go

[reidnet]

LOL Storm.. Maybe a complaint to the Monopolies Commision in the pipeline..