PorkedPie's Acer Laptop

[PorkedPie]

Hi Blueskies,

 

Where can I find out more about the cases where you say...."Over time various products cases have been tested in court and it is generally accepted that a substantial purchase such as a laptop should last a period of 3-4 years from purchase given reasonable use."

 

Where can I find Savill Vs PC World court case (and other laptop cases), I've searched the web but have been unsuccessful.

 

I have an Acer Travelmate 803. The graphics card failed (twice). The first time within a month. I sent it back to Acer for repair. Acer then lost this in their system and finally replaced it with another Travelmate 803 from another souce. The replacement started failing just outside it's 1 year warranty, then finally failed soon after. That means it lasted around 2 years. I was quoted £900+ from Acer to replace motherboard.

 

A £1,600 laptop should be expected to last more than 2 years.

 

I am taking court action against the credit card company under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (section 75). If anyone can tell me their stories with this model or other Acer, post here and I'll get back to you.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

Under the Sale of Goods Act any product can be expected to last a 'reasonable period of time'. This isn't defined in the act and what is reasonable for one product, say a computer, will not be reasonable for another, say a bic pen. Over time various products cases have been tested in court and it is generally accepted that a substantial purchase such as a laptop should last a period of 3-4 years from purchase given reasonable use.

 

Remember that this refers to your statutory rights and these are over and above any warranty offered by the manufacturer.

 

It is also worth noting that the Sale of Goods Act refers to contract between you and the retailer, not the manufacturer and it is the retailer that has the legal obligation to repair or replace goods.

 

A retailer is perfectly entitled to take into account any use you have had of an item when considering offering you a refund if you have had a couple of years use from a product then the retailer can take that into account and give you a proportion of the money back. A court would almost certainly reject any claim that was not reasonable (someone demanding all or nearly all the money back).

[fred2009]

you can use your rights against a credit card company to seek compensation. But you will find it hard seeking refund/repair from the seller especially after this length of time. I would suggest contacting a high up level of the company. Not the sales team or the stock checker, but a complaints department or head office.

 

One phonecall can save hours prepping and going into court.

 

Was the product bought from a store or online from acer?

 

Im afraid you cannot use the original fault from one month of purpose as proof of fault from production as that laptop no longer exists so it will not be classed as a linked fault. Due to the fact of the replacement because of their loss.

 

You could still fight the seller under SOGA, i would avoid low level employee's / call centres as they only have permission/expereince and authority to deal with manufacturer guaranteed items.

 

i'd suggest taking the matter higher.

 

if bought in a store you will get little to no response from store staff unless you use threats. some staff would simply cave in and some, which they are legally allowed to, will ban you leaving you to find a more distant/different entity of the company to deal with the issue. Retail chains CAN ban you because they are not a sole entity/destination so they know that you can still get the issue dealt with legally by the company. Just not by the person you insult/threaten.

 

The same with call centres. dealing with low authority sales department / stock checker will just end up with you getting hung up on.

 

Your rights are with a company as a whole not only the entity of purchase. Id suggest after the 12 months guarantee contacting the complaints department.

 

yes gyzmo we know you dont care, you just believe that a store staff have legal responsibilty to deal with it. But we can argue all year and so ill just leave you to continue insulting me and my spelling/grammer while you continue to offer bad advise in the form of demands and threats against minimum waged staff.

 

Im afraid its the company who have a legal contract with the buyer not the individual employee instore or on the phone. The company have departments who are authorised to deal with it. Abusing the wrong people or not even bothering to contact the right people will just cause you hassle and stress. The other entities that dont have authority, experience or qualifications can deal with it but they can be helpful and pass it onto the right department on your behalf. But being a bad and ungreatful customer will lead that minimum wage staff member to not want to waste their time and just leave you to deal with the right department direct.

 

again retail staff can refuse to deal with it if they dont have the authority, parts, time, experience or qualifications. it is then upto you to find an entity of company that can deal with it or take them to court. The retailer can use the fact that you did not contact the correct department against you. Especially if their is proof that you knew/ been informed about the said department.

 

If a company has zero, nil, none departments which deal with complaints, repairs or issues then you will have to go through the courts.

 

i have seen many threads where people tell consumers to go to store, kick up fuss and the threat trading standards/consumers direct action or small claims.

 

But none advise contacting a complaints department or repair centre or HQ of companies who definetly dont want bad press. Store staff and telephone sales operators dont care because they are on minimum wage.

 

Complaints departments, Chief executives etc where their livelyhoods depend more on dealing with these issues, will be more helpful.

 

back to the main point. you can use the said act against the credit card company but you can also try the retailer as well.

 

some credit card companies will just re-imburse you without inspecting or taking the faulty unit away. in which case you can then go to seller and use SOGA for replacement/ partial refund also.

 

if you deal with the right departments you could end up better off.

[patdavies]

 

some credit card companies will just re-imburse you without inspecting or taking the faulty unit away. in which case you can then go to seller and use SOGA for replacement/ partial refund also.

 

if you deal with the right departments you could end up better off.

 

There's a word to describe following this advice - FRAUD

[PorkedPie]

Yes thanks Fred2009. I have already tried the top man at Acer UK and Taiwan, they did not help. Also the company I had originally bought the Acer laptop from has since gone bust. I have been left with no alternative but to go to the credit card company. I don't see 2 years as being too long to challenge the faulty product that cost me £1600....

 

*So where can I find out more about the cases where it was mentioned ...."Over time various products cases have been tested in court and it is generally accepted that a substantial purchase such as a laptop should last a period of 3-4 years from purchase given reasonable use."

 

*Where can I find Savill Vs PC World court case (and other laptop cases), I've searched the web but have been unsuccessful.

 

*This would be most useful for me if someone could help on this.

 

Thanks ppl.

[Bookworm]

Moved to its own thread, as hijacking someone else's thread.

[PorkedPie]

I guess I'll never find this out?

 

[PorkedPie]

BTW, this Acer Laptop was not bought from PCW. It was bought from ShopAcer. I just want to learn of other cases with laptops and Savill Vs PC World court case was of interest.

 

Can anyone tell me????

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Blueskies,

 

Where can I find out more about the cases where you say...."Over time various products cases have been tested in court and it is generally accepted that a substantial purchase such as a laptop should last a period of 3-4 years from purchase given reasonable use."

 

Where can I find Savill Vs PC World court case (and other laptop cases), I've searched the web but have been unsuccessful.

 

I have an Acer Travelmate 803. The graphics card failed (twice). The first time within a month. I sent it back to Acer for repair. Acer then lost this in their system and finally replaced it with another Travelmate 803 from another souce. The replacement started failing just outside it's 1 year warranty, then finally failed soon after. That means it lasted around 2 years. I was quoted £900+ from Acer to replace motherboard.

 

A £1,600 laptop should be expected to last more than 2 years.

 

I am taking court action against the credit card company under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (section 75). If anyone can tell me their stories with this model or other Acer, post here and I'll get back to you.

 

Thanks.

[gyzmo]

No cases recorded thta I could find- didn't think there would be. The problem is that most cases involve high value goods - cars, boats etc, and most test cases came abou when the Act was first introduced (as they often do) and way before laptops were about.

[Bookworm]

Savill v PCW was the thread you were hijacking, not an actual court case, this is what the OP had called his thread. :-?

[PorkedPie]

OK, Blueskies said:

 

"Over time various products cases have been tested in court and it is generally accepted that a substantial purchase such as a laptop should last a period of 3-4 years from purchase given reasonable use."

 

So where can I find evidence of the 'various cases'?

 

Or is it just 'talk' on this Consumer Action Group site? Not great advice or comments if not backed by anything substantial. I thought the site would be better than that!!

 

Can anyone come up with some real evidence to back the Blueskies comment. Show me the site(s).

 

[gyzmo]

 

yes gyzmo we know you dont care, you just believe that a store staff have legal responsibilty to deal with it. But we can argue all year and so ill just leave you to continue insulting me and my spelling/grammer while you continue to offer bad advise in the form of demands and threats against minimum waged staff.

 

again retail staff can refuse to deal with it if they dont have the authority, parts, time, experience or qualifications. The retailer can use the fact that you did not contact the correct department against you. Especially if their is proof that you knew/ been informed about the said department.

 

If a company has zero, nil, none departments which deal with complaints, repairs or issues then you will have to go through the courts.

 

i have seen many threads where people tell consumers to go to store, kick up fuss and the threat trading standards/consumers direct action or small claims.

 

But none advise contacting a complaints department or repair centre or HQ of companies who definetly dont want bad press. Store staff and telephone sales operators dont care because they are on minimum wage.

 

Complaints departments, Chief executives etc where their livelyhoods depend more on dealing with these issues, will be more helpful.

 

 

The usual diatribe I expect to see from you )apologies for massacreing your post but it was neceesary).

 

Firstly, I DO care hence all my posts (usually to correct your half baked theories) and the university degree I am taking in a consumer related field.

 

Secondly, staff should not refuse to deal with you - they should get someone who can if they themselves are not up to the task (in which case they shouldn't be working there).

 

Thirdly - what the hell do different departments matter? Are you saying tht if I have a complaint against a sole trader I must take the issue to court because he hasn't got a complaints department? (that is rhetorical - you did say it). Doing that is likely to see the case being chucked out as there is no attempt at resloution before court action. If a company said "well they didn't call the correct department", a judge would probably tell them its tought and the company should have put the person through to the correct department (if at all).

 

I cannot believe you have the audacity to accuse people of giving bad advice when it is you who consistently fails to grasp the most basic principles of contract law and consumer protection related legislation.

 

Are you just doing it to wind people up? Can you not see that there are people who want clear guidance and advice, but instead are met by your incoherent rantings on bypassing the very procedures put in place by Parliament to ensure businesses fulfill their legal obligations to their customers?

 

I've had enough - my signature is getting edited to warn people about you.

[gyzmo]

There - done it. Now I dont need to respond to you any more!

 

erm... where's the signature here? dammit!

[PorkedPie]

Erm...Can we get back to my question? Does anyone here actually know, or am I just wasting my time here?

 

[gyzmo]

I think I already answered - have searched on several legal databases and no specific cases dealing with laptops have come up. If you are looking to establish a point, it would probably be best to get an independant expert opinion - I doubt a point of law would be raised just because it is a laptop - the same principles apply as to any other goods and I would find it difficult to see how this could get put in the realms of precedence

[blueskies]

Hi PorkedPie,

 

I'm sorry for not getting back to you sooner but I have been offsite for a while and just getting back to normal. I am trying to find the source of the information I referred to in my post that you have quoted above and will get back to you as soon as I find it.

 

Under the Sale of Goods Act, goods must be of reasonable durability and regardless if I can find the information or not, it is quite obvious that 2 years is not a reasonable period of time for a laptop to last. Even if you point to the fact that a lot of the finance deals and extended warranties for laptops last 3 years (not saying that an extended warranty would be necessary but it is a good indicator of how long a retailer believes is a reasonable lifespan).

[PorkedPie]

Just to update you guys and gals... I took Acer to court. The pure arrogance of Acer was incredible. Acer would not rectify the faulty Acer laptop which cost me £1,650. Two people arrived at court, a solicitor and an Acer employee. I had no solicitor.

 

Even though Trading Standards had insisted my case was with my credit card company (remember Acer lost my original purchase and I had to fight to get a replacement which then also failed. Acer then became the supplier, NOT the credit card company), I had gathered together a 100 page (at least) document of dissatisfied customers, faults with Acer laptops, poor service, poor tech support, etc., etc., even previous employees of Acer. I also gathered together all correspondence between Acer and I. A report on the actual fault.

 

Anyway Acer failed in their defence, they simply could not defend it. As a result I won and was awarded an amount plus costs.

 

I'd suggest you fight and don't let companies like Acer get away wth what they do.

 

[gyzmo]

Well done! I really do not understand why Acer are allowed ot continue with so many problems they seem to have (well actually I do but thats another story). Out of interest, what did Acer say if anything? Would be interesting to see what their initial argument was.

 

Well done again.