Casio G-Shock shop - G-shock's aren't meant to take unexpected shocks

[InsertNameHere]

I had a Casio G-Shock watch for about 8 years and it was fantastic, the thing was harder than any Tonka toy. Very annoyed at myself for losing it last week but, as I live not far from the Casio G-Shock shop in Carnaby Street, all was not lost. I was able to nip in last Thursday, find a new watch I liked, fork over my hundred quid and come away contented.

 

On Sunday evening some numpty decides to get out of the off-side door of a cab without checking the road and opens the door onto the front wheel of my bike as I was passing, knocking me off balance and, as the road was wet, the wheels slipped out from under me and I went over sideways & hit the deck (I'd seen the cab pulling over so I wasn't going past it at more than about 10-15mph). Since there was no immediately-obvious damage to me or my bike (even the cab door was undented, that's how slow-speed it all was) I had a bit of a swear and we all went on our way. When I got home, I realised the main multifunction LCD screen on the watch had cracked, the liquid crystal had leaked, and the screen was now black and unreadable.

 

Took it to the shop today and was told by the manager that as it was "accidental damage" it wasn't covered by the warranty and they would not therefore give me a replacement there and then whatever the law said. It would have to go to head office and they would decide what to do.

 

I pointed out that as it's called a g-shock and specifically marketed on the strength of its shock-absorbing abilities I expected it to, you know, withstand a shock, which was what it had completely failed to to. I also pointed out that we were having this conversation in the shop under a big sign saying "The toughest watches in the world" and did he not see any discrepancy or irony between that claim and the actuality in this instance? He acknowledged my point-of-view but returned to the "company policy" schpiel.

 

I then drew the manager's attention to SoGA and SaSoG (or whatever its' acronym is) and that as we were well within 28 days since purchase I believed I was entitled in law to a replacement there and then whatever his company policy was. He apologised and repeated the stock phrase once more. It drives me nuts when companies try this sort of caper, like their company policy takes preference over the law.

 

I've successfully argued the toss over this numerous times in the past, so I'm fairly confident of my position with these lot. I was just posting this for reference really and wondering is there anything in the new unfair trading regs that further strengthens my arm?

 

Cheers

[ukaviator]

I would call customer services on this number and see if they will repair or exchange it:

 

020 8452 7253

 

If all else fails in getting the result you want, you may have insurance for it under your home insurance, personal belongings.

[InsertNameHere]

Naah, no insurance. I should do really, but it's one of those things on the must-get-around-to-sometime-or-other-but-not-at-the-moment list.. Since we had kids I'm no longer allowed to ride a motorbike, and household ins frequently includes public liability, which is handy if you ride a pushie the way I do!

 

Thanks for the quick response and the 'phone number as well, I'll give it a try in the morning. The guy in the shop said they only send stuff up to HO Mondays, Weds & Fri's so I'll prob get in there before they've even seen the watch!

 

BTW, the best tactic I've found for ensuring a quick attitude adjustment (and when you've exhausted all other options) is a final letter with a copy N1 "to be lodged at court in the likely event you refuse this last option to honour your obligations", and in the remedy on the N1 I state I want the company ordered to re-train all their front-line staff in correct understanding of consumer protection law so that no other customer has to suffer the distress I have endured .

 

It seemed to be the only thing to sting my ex-mobile phone company into action, and it got me out of the remaining 9 months of a contract, a brand-new W800i to replace the two naff brand-new ones (not refurbs) they'd sent me previously and I got to port my existing mobile no to my new network all FOC. That was a good day's work!

[MrShed]

These things are shock RESISTANT, not shock proof. While I sympathise, I wholly agree with the store's position. They are not obliged to replace etc based on the non manufacturer damage. Quite frankly, you should have exchanged details with the person in question, as it is their responsibility not the stores. The fact that you didnt exchange these details is neither the stores fault nor responsibility.

[Bookworm]

I then drew the manager's attention to SoGA and SaSoG (or whatever its' acronym is) and that as we were well within 28 days since purchase I believed I was entitled in law to a replacement there and then whatever his company policy was. He apologised and repeated the stock phrase once more. It drives me nuts when companies try this sort of caper, like their company policy takes preference over the law.

Well, that actually showed that you DON'T know SOGA, I'm sorry to say.

 

The 28 day thing will be the company's own policy, and it is in addition to your statutory rights, so where the policy is better than SOGA (like in Argos' 14 days no quibble refund/exchange guarantee, for example), great, but where it is less than your statutory rights, then SOGA rules.

 

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)

 

• Fit for the purpose that goods of this type are generally sold. They must also be fit for any specific or particular purpose made known to the seller at the time of the agreement.
  

• As described - goods should correspond with any description applied to them.
  

You are not entitled to anything if you caused the damage yourself, which would seem to be your case (yes, I know it wasn't you as such, but it would be treated as such, as Mr Shed said, you should have got the details of the person responsible).

 

However, I disagree with Mr Shed as I believe that you do have a recourse. I think that the shock-proof/shock-resistance argument isn't good enough. In case of water-resistant/waterproof, it is easier to draw the line, as water-resistant means it can withstand rain and splashes, whilst waterproof can be immersed, but how do you draw the line with shock? :-?

 

Their advertising says:

G-shock's shock-resistant structure has proven itself time after time. Dropped from extreme heights, slammed against trees, concrete and rocks, G-shocks still plug along without complaint for over 2 decades.

So I think that you have a clear case that the watch is neither of satisfactory quality taking into account the description, not fit for purpose and I'd also say not as described.

 

Under SOGA, you are entitled to repair or replacement as the goods are deemed inherently faulty unless they can prove that you are responsible for the damage (after 6 months, it would be your responsability to prove that you didn't cause it) and in the case of something which is meant to withstand a large amount of abuse, they would have to prove that the damage you caused was above and beyond what their watch is supposed (and advertised) to withstand.

 

So, onwards and upwards, and quote their own literature back at them.

 

Let us know how it pans out.

[MrShed]

While I wholly disagree(I do not feel shock resistant would include basically landing on the watch and putting your whole weight behind it), ultimately the only way it could be shown for definite either way would be court.

 

I wish you luck.

[InsertNameHere]

Thanks for the replies and sorry, I'm a bit pants at this quoting thing)

 

I totally agree, MrShed, there has to be a limit on what one expects a product to withstand under "normal wear & tear", I understand companies have to protect themselves from excessive warranty claims. Equally, I understand the fault lies with the plum who opened the cab door without looking and myself for not being more thorough when assessing damage caused.

 

However, as I mentioned before, my previous G- was indestructible and it was a further buy-in to the technology with this new purchase that made me not even think of checking it before leaving the scene. The old one survived 2 motorbike crashes where bones were broken, numerous impacts of varying degrees directly to the case through building work, waterski-ing, coming off jetskis etc., and nothing in 8 years made the slightest damage. On Sunday all I did was, at a low speed, go from upright to a position 90 degrees to the right & my hand landing on the floor stopped me (or the watch) from actually hitting the deck. The only injury the watch sustained was the shock through my wrist as my hand hit the floor.

 

As the Casio literature posted by Bookworm (thanks for that!) makes clear - these things are meant to be tough. By comparison with the last G-Shock I had, this one should have had a big pink Barbie "B" on it, not a nice big G.

 

I'll let you know what they say...

[gyzmo]

Be aware of claims to "advertising puff" (such as Carlsberg's claim). If they are making definitive statements then they cannot use that as a defence (this is actually covered under the new regs (which believe it or not or going through another overhall) under the general prohibitions. if the watch was sold before the new regs came into force, it will be an offence possible under the Trade Descriptions Act.

 

It may also be worth examining technical specifications. If they have tested the watch under certain conditions, they may be able to use that. But it depends on a multitude of factors. It will be very interesting to see how this goes from a legal standpoint (from a personal standpoint, I hope they send a new watch!)

[InsertNameHere]

Over the course of two letters and two phone calls from me, and two letters from Casio, we've finally arrived at a point where my watch is now being repaired under warranty

 

 

As expected Casio were trying to make the case that, as an accident had occurred this had to have been the cause of the watch breaking, and it must therefore be accidental damage and thus outside the warranty. My contention was that the watch hadn't hit the cab or the road, and neither my bike nor the cab door were damaged in the impact anyway (and none of them were marketed as the world's toughest cab, bike or hand) and so I didn't think it was the cause and the repair should therefore be under warranty.

 

I think what clinched it in my favour in the end was asking what they base the claim of "world's toughest watch" on? They naturally exclude failure after deliberate or accidental damage from the warranty, so it can only be an implied resistance to accidental damage, and one small but significant part of the watch didn't resist it at all. Or possibly it was just more cost-effective for them to acquiesce. Either way, it hardly speaks well of their expectations for latter G-shock models if they're content to see a cosmetically unblemished but internally-damaged 4-day-old watch back for repair and not think to either deal with it quickly or with an emphasis on customer service. Their engineers never did determine what had caused the screen to leak, but whatever it was was my fault. I didn't think that was particularly fair either.

 

What a contrast though - I bought a second-hand Lenovo laptop late 2006, last week it developed a sticky "0" key. I rang Lenovo on Friday to see what my options were and a brand-new keyboard arrived this morning, provided under warranty. No questions even asked about why or how the button was sticking. I know whose brand I'm more likely to recommend in future.

 

Thanks to all for your comments and advice.

 

INH.

[gyzmo]

Well I'm glad it was sorted out without recourse to the courts (although that would have made for an interesting case).

 

Well done.

[ukaviator]

Well done. .

[Bookworm]

Cool.