On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:13:08PM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
I believe that the laws have NOT changed, those laws were part of the Trade Practices Act quite some time ago..... the new ACCC notes / rulings makes people _think_ that the laws have changed. All of this was already covered by TPA.
yep. it was just a clarification in response to retailers deceiving customers and trying to avoid their obligations. you say that the ACCC's points were "completely unnecessary". Incorrect. They were necessary because there were numerous repeat offenders evading their legal obligations.
btw it completely astounds me when so much equipment is sold "cheap" from places like zazz.com.au and ozstock.com.au with LIMITED 3 month warranties..... if it is new equipment being sold in AU, then you are entitled to at least 12 months statutory warranty -- why are there exceptions? Why are batteries for mobiles and laptops only warranted for 6 months?
because many retailers, both online and offline, have never had any qualms about deceiving their customers about their statutory rights, or taking advantage of their customers' ignorance of the law, or putting obstacles in the way of customers' ability to exercise their rights (e.g. by making warranty claims such a PITA - lying, delaying, making unreasonable conditions - that most customers give up). this is why, for example, MSY were recently (in the last year or so) fined and required to display prominent notices in their shops that they, as the retailer, are responsible for warranty claims, they can't just fob the customer off and direct them to the manufacturer or the importer. in this country, that's illegal. if you buy something from a shop, that shop is where you take it back for warranty issues - they sold it, they are responsible for dealing with any problems. and in many cases, you have the legal right to insist on a refund or replacement on the spot, regardless of what the shop's policy is. one important thing that people need to remember is that company policies do not and can not override the law.
Old stock that is sold at greatly reduced pricing (which reflects the fact that it is old equipment already) should be exempt from the standard statutory 12 month requirement, but I don't think it is.
second-hand stock IS treated differently or exempted from statutory warranties. second-hand items are generally sold as-is, unless a particular warranty is offered by the seller. old but new & unused stock is treated the same as other new stock. this is as it should be. it's still new, and it's irrelevant that it happens to be a superceded model. you seem to be missing the point of consumer protection laws and trade practices legislation. their purpose, funnily enough, is to protect consumers from being ripped off and to regulate what businesses are allowed to get away with. this is a good thing. and I'm glad I live in a country with reasonably good (but far from perfect) consumer protection laws, rather than a country like the US where "caveat emptor" is considered to be an admirable business model rather than a warning against scumbags. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #250: Program load too heavy for processor to lift.