PC World Won't Repair/Refund After 28 Days

[Bookworm]

And a second-class one at that.

[Bookworm]

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! )

[Bookworm]

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".

[Bookworm]

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.

[Bookworm]

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

 

Try now, or at least when you read this. ;-)

[Bookworm]

Holy Mary mother of God :o

 

I *think* that might be the best one yet.

 

These posts should really come with a warning, they are so wrong it's unbelievable.

 

[Bookworm]

 

most of you have admitted this so far.

that you have received TRAINING. another poster admits that he has to talk to his lecturer. another has eperience of retail. out of the 5 people that complain most about my post 3 are not fully trained solicitors. two (atleast) of which dont have degree's and you are on about spouting bad advice. Everyone thinks they know the law but depending on the situation and the context is is used CAN be interpretted differeintly.

And you have so far given as your "qualification", a) that you have a shop, b) that you know 3 judges.

Well, *I* know 1/2 dozen doctors, that doesn't qualify me for practising open heart surgery. :grin:

 

You can say what you like, (and seemingly do), but the fact remains that every piece of "advice", and in your case, I use the word very loosely indeed, has been aimed at reducing the retailer's liability at the detriment of the customer. Thankfully, there are people whose advice is both accurate and clearer. The fact that you try to denigrate their qualifications to make yourself look more authoritative says it all, really.

[Bookworm]

Is anybody else getting personal messages from retailpointofview that are irrelevant to the point they made?

 

If that is the case, can you forward them to me so I can deal with it, please?

[Bookworm]

Folks, I'm going to have to say this:

 

I think you should stop answering him. Eventually, he will get bored and move on.

 

If you see him "advising" someone wrongly, by all means, post the correct information up so that OP can get the help they need, but otherwise, let him argue with himself. He is so convinced of his own knowledge that you will never get him to see sense, so don't bother. You know he's wrong, we know he's wrong, all we need to make sure is that some innocent doesn't get caught in his rhetoric.

 

If it gets too bad, hit the report button.

[Bookworm]

It just seems to convenient to me that everyone is having so many problems with PC World.

 

Could it be because you're in the PC World forum?