Tragedy!

[Jules]

Thanks for the support everyone. My husband (he bought the camera for me) has talked to the retailers this morning and is taking it in to them today. He'll be pushing for the camera to be replaced, given the fact it's still very new, so I'll keep my fingers crossed. That said, I have accepted that it may be sent to Canon NSW for repair or at least assessment to prove the fault, and be gone for a few weeks. Lucky I still have my trusty little 450D.

[Fantasyphoto]

You will find an explanation of the law as it applies in NSW on this page http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/Co...arranties.html

Other states would have a similar policy.

[bigdazzler]

Nope, it is consumers choice provided the goods are proven faulty.

Retailers will often try and bluff their way thru a repair as that way they are passing the problem onto the distributor.

fair enough ... thats good to know. Cheers mate.

[mongo]

Mongo is sorry to hear this Jules. It is very off putting.

It is repair or replace unless it is not of merchantable quality in which case it will be replaced. However, you have the onus of proving that. If it cannot be preplaced – then a refund

Even if it is repaired, if you put sufficient pressure on them (you do belong to a group of nearly 9000 member/potential buyers), you may be able to get , say, an additional period of warranty out of them (above and beyond the normal period of warranty that came with the camera) to give you peace of mind over a product that you now do not feel so confident about.

Additionally, keep records (times, dates, events etc) of any other problems (particularly the same problem if it occurs). This may give you a better argument for replacement or refund down the track should that happen.

[Steve Axford]

You will find an explanation of the law as it applies in NSW on this page http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/Co...arranties.html

Other states would have a similar policy.

Are you sure that this doesn't just apply to items that have a fault when bought? Items that fail after a month fall under the warranty, which (as far as I am aware) does not guarantee new item replacement.

[Scotty72]

Mongo is sorry to hear this Jules. It is very off putting.

It is repair or replace unless it is not of merchantable quality in which case it will be replace. However, you have the onus of proving that. If it cannot be preplaced – then a refund

This may vsry from state to state but, in NSW at least, Mongo is not correct.

As Fantasyphoto points out, it is the customer's choice. The link he provides goes on t back this up.

In the first instance, the customer may demand a refund; the sale is a form of contract to provide you with a merchantable good free of defects etc for a reasonable time (this is regardless of stated warranty period). By selling a faulty product (1 month suggests it was a faulty product), they have breached this contract and you are entitled to cancel the contract and demand your money back.

Consumers may ask for a refund if the goods purchased:

• have a basic, serious fault that was not known by the consumer at the time of purchase

Consumers and traders may negotiate other solutions such as a repair or replacement but under these circumstances a consumer has a legal right to cancel a contract (rescind) and receive a refund if there is a breach of that contract.

Remember, no matter what the retail tells you (and many will try to bluff) you can ask for your money back on the spot. Generally, they will not want to do this so offer them the opportunity to maintain the contract by replacing it with a brand new item.

Don't allow them to try to tell you it is the manufacturer's fault for the delay... the manufacturer has no contract with you - not your problem. The retailer has the responsibility - then they chase the manufacturer.

If this takes more than three days for Canon to 'assess' (two days to get it there - one to look at it) then go after the retailer. Demand a new camera and tell the retailer it is them with a contract with the manufacturer, not you and you will not suffer for the lack of promptness in a contract you do not have.

Scotty

[Scotty72]

Are you sure that this doesn't just apply to items that have a fault when bought? Items that fail after a month fall under the warranty, which (as far as I am aware) does not guarantee new item replacement.

Not at all...

Warranty periods really mean nothing in this case.

Assuming Jules hasn't used his camera as a football etc.

For a camera (which most people expect to have a lifespan of 2-3 years, at least), for a fault to develop within a month indicates the camera was sold with substandard workmanship or parts. Unless it was sold as a factory second, then the product was not sold in a condition fit for its purpose - including lasting more than a month.

Even if you get something go wrong a week after the warranty expires, you are still entitled to seek a replacement (from the retailer - don't bother to call CANON - they have zero obligation). After 2 years, you have less of a case but after 13 months, would any reasonable person expect a $3000 camera to have lived out its life. (a $100 camera - probably yes)

I wish I could find it but, I remember a decision where a washing machine / dryer (or similar) broke down just out of warranty. The person was smart enough to have kept the catalogue that suggested you would get 'years of service' from the machine. It was decided that the retailer made a claim and needed to honour it.

Scotty

[Fantasyphoto]

...... Remember, no matter what the retail tells you (and many will try to bluff) you can ask for your money back on the spot. Generally, they will not want to do this so offer them the opportunity to maintain the contract by replacing it with a brand new item.

Don't allow them to try to tell you it is the manufacturer's fault for the delay... the manufacturer has no contract with you - not your problem. The retailer has the responsibility - then they chase the manufacturer.

If this takes more than three days for Canon to 'assess' (two days to get it there - one to look at it) then go after the retailer. Demand a new camera and tell the retailer it is them with a contract with the manufacturer, not you and you will not suffer for the lack of promptness in a contract you do not have.......

Scotty, I fully agree with the first 2 paragraphs however I believe if you proceed with the repair as indicated in paragraph 3 then you have made your final choice (to repair) and would not be able to impose additional conditions such as allowing only 3 days. By now we all know it takes far longer to repair a camera or even get it assessed.

[mongo]

If the goods operated normally and were being used for the month (as opposed to not having been used for the first time until a month after purchase), it will be difficult to argue that the fault was there at the time of purchase. It looks much more like a fault which developed in the course of use and thus a matter which the retailer and the manufacturer can argue is covered by warranty.

Care should be taken not to always accept what is said on the Gov. website as gospel. It is a condensed overview and not necessarily precise.

Scotty and Mongo agree to disagree. :

[bigdazzler]

If the goods operated normally and were being used for the month (as opposed to not having been used for the first time until a month after purchase), it will be difficult to argue that the fault was there at the time of purchase.

makes sense to me ... although it is hard to swallow that something failing after such a short time wasnt somewhat defective in the first place. Sounds like something thats slipped through QA to me and took just that little bit of extra time to fail.

[Scotty72]

Scotty, I fully agree with the first 2 paragraphs however I believe if you proceed with the repair as indicated in paragraph 3 then you have made your final choice (to repair) and would not be able to impose additional conditions such as allowing only 3 days. By now we all know it takes far longer to repair a camera or even get it assessed.

I agree... That is why you:

a) don't agree to repair - I only meant 3 days to get it assessed to make sure you didn't kill it (they have that right), once assessed they tell the retailer it wasn't your fault then, new camera.

b) if you do agree to repair (not sure why you would), only agree on condition it takes no longer than xx days - after which you'll get a new camera or a loan camera for the duration.

Scotty

PS. Remember, retailers will often try every bluff to get out of it. I have always found Fair Trading very helpful in this regard. (the ONE thing the NSW govt gets right)

[Fantasyphoto]

No worries Scotty, much clearer thank you.

I hope the Department of Fair Trading don't look into the issue of our AP avatars as we would both be in trouble for misrepresentation

[mongo]

makes sense to me ... although it is hard to swallow that something failing after such a short time wasnt somewhat defective in the first place. Sounds like something thats slipped through QA to me and took just that little bit of extra time to fail.

If it can be shown to be a latent defect that was there from the get go and only materialised later, it is a little easier to argue it was defective from the time of purchase. This may still not be enough to convince the retailer but sometimes convinces a manufacturer.

Under NSW legislation the retailer is the “port of call” and has a responsibility to the purchaser. The action can be taken against the retailer (who may join the manufacturer if they wish). It can also be against the manufacturer and the retailer.

Also, whilst the contract for purchase is clearly with the retailer, the contract for warranty is not with the retailer. The retailer is the agent for the manufacturer whereby an agreement is created between the buyer and the manufacturer for the warranty component. You often fill out the little warranty cards later. That is your agreement for warranty with the manufacturer. Both the retailer and the manufacturer warrant that the goods are of merchantable quality. To this extent , the retailer gives a warranty but not necessarily beyond that.

In any event, as a practical matter, lodging a consumer claim and having it heard or initially conciliated will take many many weeks. Far longer than the 2 weeks to have it examined and repaired. Unless you are seeking replacement, or extension of the warranty etc , there is no utility in taking this course.

[Scotty72]

If the goods operated normally and were being used for the month (as opposed to not having been used for the first time until a month after purchase), it will be difficult to argue that the fault was there at the time of purchase. It looks much more like a fault which developed in the course of use and thus a matter which the retailer and the manufacturer can argue is covered by warranty.

Care should be taken not to always accept what is said on the Gov. website as gospel. It is a condensed overview and not necessarily precise.

Scotty and Mongo agree to disagree. :

Fair enough Mongo but; I can tell you this, Fair Trading have been very good in the past little while at helping customers.

Whether the fault was there at the time of purchase is irrelevant. If the fault occurs within a period of time that wear and tear from normal use could not be an excuse (I think we all agree 4 weeks is not reasonable for a $3000 camera) AND Jules did nothing to contribute to the fault (mearely using the camera is not a fault) THEN, the camera did not live up to the expectations she had at the time of the contract (completely seperate from warranty). The camera was not delivered in a state fit to do its job for a reasonable period of time - the retailer has breached the contract - simple.

IMHO... The whole concept of warranty is a complete sham designed to distract people from legal rights.

Life has gotten much sweeter for me since Fair Trading have come on side .

Mongo looks scary - Mongo should start scaring retailers into honouring contracts.

Scotty

[Scotty72]

No worries Scotty, much clearer thank you.

I hope the Department of Fair Trading don't look into the issue of our AP avatars as we would both be in trouble for misrepresentation

Hey, that is a real photo of me... Sure, it was a while back whilst I was doing competition cycling... but, it is me - at least was LOL

[Scotty72]

In any event, as a practical matter, lodging a consumer claim and having it heard or initially conciliated will take many many weeks. Far longer than the 2 weeks to have it examined and repaired. Unless you are seeking replacement, or extension of the warranty etc , there is no utility in taking this course.

Ahh! But standing in a shop, waving your arms around and giving other, potential customers
pause to believe that these people may not honour your consumer rights takes far less time.

That is the advantage of dealing with a busy, long standing bricks and mortar shop.

[mongo]

Fair enough Mongo but; I can tell you this, Fair Trading have been very good in the past little while at helping customers.

Whether the fault was there at the time of purchase is irrelevant. If the fault occurs within a period of time that wear and tear from normal use could not be an excuse (I think we all agree 4 weeks is not reasonable for a $3000 camera) AND Jules did nothing to contribute to the fault (mearely using the camera is not a fault) THEN, the camera did not live up to the expectations she had at the time of the contract (completely seperate from warranty). The camera was not delivered in a state fit to do its job for a reasonable period of time - the retailer has breached the contract - simple.
Scotty

Scotty , Mongo does not disagree with you in many respects . The above are just some of those. However, when the FT Dept. get involved it is to try and assist a solution. It far from always convinces others to do what has been suggested in Jules case. The outcomes vary a lot. Ultimately, if the retailer does not wish to come to the party – they will not and the purchaser has to consider a consumer claim through a Tribunal.
This is where Mongo says, the rights people have are all very well and it’s great that they have them but they must understand what it takes to exercise them (time and effort etc). Then they have to be right legally if they do and have the necessary evidence as Tribunal operate on law and evidence. Mongo is not saying do not go down this track – he is simply saying we aware of what is involved before you do.

Mongo looks scary - Mongo should start scaring retailers into honouring contracts.

Scotty

No one really knows what Mongo does in his other existence – do they ??

[Fantasyphoto]

.....No one really knows what Mongo does in his other existence – do they ??

I always assumed it was eating stray felines and other small scrumptious furry creatures.

[mongo]

I always assumed it was eating stray felines and other small scrumptious furry creatures.

too right Fantasy ! and always will.

But Mongo meant that other secret Mongo's business (which of course, is secret)

[farmer_rob]

Queensland fair trading's website on refunds is much the same as NSW (look here). I think Jules has a fair case for a refund if she so chooses.

I thought

The trader you bought the product from must help you resolve the problem. The trader is obliged to organise an exchange, refund or other deal with the manufacturer on your behalf.

was worth remembering.

I've dealt with warranty issues for water pumps before, and there are clear cases of manufacturing defects appearing some time after purchase, and also clear cases of the customer breaking it. I'd suggest that the shutter button not firing the shutter is a manufacturing defect.