Are stuck pixels acceptable?

Hi

I know some suppliers do pixel checks and others don't seem to.

I also know that lower grade LCD monitors are allowed to be sold with a tiny percentage of stuck pixels.

So if I bought a PJ and found it had stuck pixels, what are my rights? There don't seem to be Grade A and B PJs. Do i have a right to return it to the supplier as faulty or broken? Or can I return it within distance selling regulations? Or is it accepted as the norm?

Cos I'm not going to be willing to accept even one stuck pixel when I pay out this much... so your experiences of returning PJs with stuck pixels much appreciated!

DM

 

there is a limit to the number of pixels that are classed as acceptable same as lcd monitors. Unless this is reached you wont be able to class it as faulty.

though under the distance selling act you can send things back. you get time to look and then send it back .you might be charged restocking im not sure.

why not buy from a source that checks it for bit extra

 

I bought an Epson TW-10h from Technoworld.com and the first one had one stuck pixel. I emailed them and they agreed straight away to replace it. They sent out someone to pick up the old one and a new one was delivered the following day. The new one was spot on and (touch wood) i've had no dead pixels problems to date after about 200 hours use.

 

Classed as acceptable by who, (start rant) just because a manufacturer says 3 dead pixels is acceptable doesnt make it acceptable under consumer rights law or the sale of goods act, ive returned various products over the years with faulty lcd panels (phones,cameras, pj's) and as far as im concerned if they have 1 dead pixel then they are faulty, I have taken this stance several times now and have always won . People should really get to know their rights when it comes to faulty goods etc , just because a manufacturer says something is company policy or within company gidelines doesnt make it correct, how many times do you see a sign in a shop that says no refunds or no exchanges, most people accept this but in fact it is illegal. Goods sold as new should be free from defects as stated in the sale of goods act , a dead pixel is a defect, if every pj produced had a dead pixel then it could be considered the norm, as most are fine it is unreasonable to expect someone to accept one that has a dead pixel. Also dont forget your statuatory rights . Look it up, there is so much consumer info out there im surprised people still dont know their rights. (end rant)

 

One question that has been on my mind for ages is... What do the shops do with projectors that fail the pixel check? Do they accumulate in a big pile of projectors with dead pixels!?!?

 

they pass it on to one of the other customers who didnt pay for a pixel check as chances are it wont be returned as some people dont bother returning things and also most people accept the "within guidelines" lie and others wouldnt even notice. theres nothing else the shops can do they can do since they are "within guidelines" so they cant return them. good advice is only buy pixel checked from a shop that offers pixel checks or buy elsewhere.

 

I did pay for a pixel check for mine as to me any stuck pixels is unacceptable, even though they may be in line with the m/fs tolerances.

 

ivojo do a dead pixel check as standard and the service is superb.
I would'nt use anyone else for a projector now.

 

We don't pass on failed projectors to other customers at all. What would be the point? If we detect any defect in the picture at all then the unit is returned to Sanyo. The idea that there are dealers up front enough to offer a pixel check but under handed enough to pass off failed machines to other customers is a little far fetched.

 

I suppose also it depends on your idea of stuck pixel. In my experience defective pixels range from bright green to the faintest red noticable literally only with a magnifying glass!

Choose your retailer wisely, the law won't protect you here. SOGA is filled with 'reasonable' clauses making it anyones guess what a judge would deem reasonable!

 

It is not far fetched there are much larger companies (and much smaller) than yourselves who are known to pass on returns etc as new. Glad you dont but its certainly not far fetched.

So one dead pixel and you return it to Sanyo as a "failed" (ie faulty) projector. This is good news for all those who are told one dead (or four dead!) pixels is within "guidelines" as now they can quote you in order to get a replacement regardless of what sanyo/dealer say.

What do sanyo uk do with the projectors from Ivojo - pass them on to other dealers who dont do pixel checks or sell them as refurbished or fix them? Hope its the latter but with the greed of sanyo uk and dealers alike I wouldnt be surprised if it was one of the former options.

 

Various consumer protection law will and does protect in cases of a bad pixel and to suggest otherwise is sheer nonsense. It is clearly unreasonable to buy something with a high purchase price with a clear defect on purchase.

If you have found yourself in this position take your retailer (not manufacturer) to court if they will not resolve the problems to your satisfaction. It is a very simple process and most retailers will settle in the circumstances we are considering here; if they don't you have an extremely high prospect of success and they have a high prospect of losing an extra £600-£1000 in legal fees and wasted management time which they cannot reclaim from you.

It takes ten minutes to file a legal claim nowadays (court fees are cheap): www.moneyclaim.gov.uk

 

You ask are stuck pixels acceptable Answer NO

 

On your first point I cannot comment as I have never experienced it.

On your second point, why would quoting me on our procedures help anyone else? When we return a projector, it is repaired (at our cost), returned to us and we then sell it as a refurbished unit.

On your last point, why is it you insist that Sanyo and Sanyo dealers are greedy? Price fixing is illegal so for all of us to be making the unreasonably high profits you are assuming, we would have had to have had a mass meeting of all the dealers in the country, all agreed to an artificially high price and then every single one of us would have had to stick to that price.

 

As to the first point ring up any trading standards in the country and note the recent prosecution of a high street retailer for the same which was widely reported.

As to point two, you have not mentioned the additional information until now. However the additional points you mention make the hypothetical legal case even stronger and demonstrate market practice. It would help any claimant as it shows that even authorsied dealers do not not consider single pixel defects as fit or satisfactory since they do not sell them and instead return them for repair and sell them as refurbished.

On your last point let me not assume any more - tell me your profits. You won't as you have something (excessive profits) to hide.

 

Not that anyone accused you of price fixing in the first place but oddly enough heres one of your main competitors who along with yourself suddenly adjusted prices in tandem. This is probably just one of you copying the other on price though, right?

http://shop.nexnix.co.uk/NexNix_Online_Shop_Sanyo_248.html

 

Point 1: As I said, I've not experienced it so I can't comment. I'm afraid I don't really have the time to investigate the practices of the retail trade in general.

Point 2: Not at all. We offer a pixel check as an option. It generally delays delivery by 1 day so some people take it, some don't. If a customer wishes us to do a pixel check, we will, if not, we won't.

Point 3: Why should I? I don't know who you are, how much you earn or anything about you and - quite frankly - it's none of my business. If I was making the excessive profits you assume then I can assure you I would not still be sitting at my desk at 7:15pm having started work at 8am.

 

I'd say thats healthy competition, the price is being driven downwards, all be it the same

In my mind price fixing is where every dealer has the price fixed at rrp.

 

If the price we buy at drops, then the price we sell at drops.

 

matched to the penny with your competitors...

 

1) At the risk of being labelled obtuse, your comment isn't necessary. The fact of bad retailers is well known to consumers if not to retailers such as yourselves.

2) The fact you offer or dont offer a pixel check as an option is entirely irrelevant. Anyone can now print out what you have written in this thread (unless you edit out your posts) - sign it with a statement of truth that it is what was published - and use it in proceedings against any retailer in cases of a single pixel failure as an example of market practice in respect of single pixel failure being unsatisfactory and not fit for the purpose. Thank you for assisting, albeit unwittingly, the consumer in this regard.

3) If your not greedy and if the margins are low you would share them. Whatever you say the fact is you hide your margins.

 

sainthalo,

Steady on, the original poster asked whether a dead/stuck pixel is acceptable, having a go at a dealer with accusations of greed, demands to know what their margins are etc. isn't really serving any useful purpose. As for the claims that individual dealer's policies give guaranteed grounds for litigation, I'd have to disagree. If a dealer sells you a projector based on pixel defects being in acordance with manufacturer's tolerances, then it's a matter for you to accept or reject that as a condition of the sale. If a dealer is prepared to do a pixel check for a small charge and use the funds to offset the repair and lower selling price of a "B" stock item (in the manner described by Ken Davies), then that's a selling point that the adopt in the course of business, no more and no less.

The reality is if a projector is within the tolerances set by the manufacturer, and that is an implicit condition of the sale, then the fact that you or anyone else feels that the tolerances are unacceptable is not relevant insofar as the terms of the sale are concerned. The fact that some dealers might be willing to remedy the issue as a matter of goodwill does not create a legal precedent on which a third party could rely in litigation, it's simply a sign that different dealers approach customer service differently.

Prices changing downwards across the market at broadly or exactly the same time is a sign of healthy competition - if the wholesale price falls then retailers anxious to attract customers in a contested market will seek to take advantage of price or other conditions.

The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is is that the option to pay for a pixel check is there with forum sponsors like Ivojo or Discounttv, and it's well worth paying for.


S.

 

I responded to the original poster, I made a tiny aside using one word (greed) which clearly irked some very sensitive retailers. Everything written in respect to their margins etc is due to their response to the tiny aside.

The individual dealers policy shows an example of market practice in relation to a single bad pixel. This very clearly has evidentiary value in proving the non-sat and unfit because an authorised retailer will not sell what the manufacturer tells them is fine and in fact will repair it to a proper standard. Indeed the very fact they repair it shows it was faulty. This in itself does not provide a successful case but very clearly and obviously strengthens the case for the claimant. That combined with the general unreaonableness that retailers expect customers to put up with bad pixels on devices which can cost thousands makes a very powerful case which would be won. If anyone finds themselves in such a position, write to the retailer rejecting the goods as not fit and unsatisfactory, then spend ten minutes issuing on www.moneyclaim.gov.uk and in the unlikely event you need to attend a court for trial ensure you serve the comments from Ivojo relating to their practice with a statement of truth. You will win.

It is not an implied condition of sale firstly as it is impossible to say everyone is aware of such before sale. Secondly the conditions of sale are supplanted by the statutory rights of consumers as against retailers. With respect, your comments on legal precedent detail a basic lack of knowledge of the law. A legal precedent is commonly when a case is reported and that case determines an issue which lowers courts must follow - clearly this has not happened here. Here we are discussing the evidential value of Ivojo's practice in a hypothetical case of a claim for a single bad pixel.

The ideal scenario would be that there would be no need to pixel check as all the manufacturers rejected units with bad pixels or accepted they would deal with such fault.

 

RE Precedent. Clearly you have no knowlege of the ECJ's decision in favour of the UK's position on product defects or the 'state of the art' defence. Or the mechanisms of statutory interpretation, distinguishing on facts or the concept that the law is not certain. It really isn't certain, no one would know until a case came before the court with the exact same facts, plus the minor problem that such a low status court does not create precedent anyway. Fancy taking a case for dead pixels to the high court? hmmmm.

Although I broadly agree. I would like to see manufacturers QC improve so pixel problems are erradicated

 

I have no wish to extend this discussion any further than is necessary, but I am well aware of what constitutes a legal precedent, as well as the impact of statutory rights vis-a-vis conditions of sale. You are making a case that there is an evidentiary value to the practice adopted by Ivojo (among other dealers) who charge for a pixel check (which in itself displays that the pixel check is a service additional to the sale of the projector) and I don't agree that, as such, it has the evidentiary value you ascribe to it.


Again, the bottom line is to buy from a dealer who will do a pixel check and has a proven reputation for sorting out issues - Ben Miller at Discounttv, Ken Davies at Ivojo on this thread, other forum sponsors like Audiovisiononline and Nexnix, regular members and surfers here will have read the opinions of buyers from forum sponsors like these and will know that they're dealing with reputable and competant dealers.

 

If you're discussing The Consumer Protection Act 1987 (the CPA) and the Product Liability Directive (85/374/EEC) then your mention of it in this instance is entirely misplaced and whilst you are aware of this legislation and the directive you have displayed that you are not in a position to interpret or understand them. Both are applicable to PRODUCERS only; here we are discussing a consumer - retailer relationship not a consumer - producer relationship. They are therefore entirely irrelevant and warrant no further discussion relevant to this thread (and even if they were applicable, which they are not, the defence they provide and to which you refer would still be irrelevant since a bad pixel is a clearly visible defect and thus does not fall within the defence requirement of a defect which the state of scientific and technical knowledge was unable to detect at the time of production).

When giving opinions on a claimants case one can assign a prospect of success, what I am saying here is that there more than a real prospect, there is a likelihood of success and what has appeared in this thread has clear evidential value. What in addition I am conveying is that there is a further likelihood of tactical success against the retailer who will not wish to spend several hundred pounds defending such a claim.

If you would quite seriously like to have a test case on dead pixels please PM me to discuss further.

 

This was a late night reference to a piece of legislation from memory. I do actually think it carries persuasive relevance in regard to defining defective. I am in a perfectly good and legally informed position to interpret legislation and have access to people who are in an even better position than either of us.

If you think 99% of the population never mind techophobe judges would be bothered in the slightest by a very marginal red pixel on the extremity of the screen not viewable from more than 12 inches away then quite frankly you are dreaming!

My question is why are you so aggressive towards retailers and manufacurers?

Anyway as ever SeanG is the voice of reason on this and we should both yeild to his comments.

 

I actually bought my projector from Discount Electrical and it had the free pixel check, i tend to agree with SaintHalo that when you pay that sort of money for a product you are entitled to expect no dead visible pixels on the screen, as consumers we should be entitled to nothing less than a replacement or full refund without any fuss and i totally disagree with the practice of putting projectors which have failed a pixel test back on the market ( at any price ) i have always preferred quality over quantity and believe consumers can often suffer when they do not know their full consumer rights.

The service off Discount was great and i would have no hesitation buying from them again but dead pixels would sure annoy me if i spotted them on my screen ( thankfully i haven't although edge enhancement on films is a big annoyance )

Talking about edge enhancement ( thats something which by all rights shouldn't be there ) i wonder if consumer law allows a return of something like a DVD based on the fact it has annoying edge enhancement which technically doesn't belong there.