How do retailers/manufacturers get away with no burn-in repairs/returns?

titanman

Active Member
I have just bought a Sony OLED TV and am not one of the people who is concerned about burn-in. I will also take steps to protect the TV from burn-in.

My question is more out of curiosity and how they get around not covering burn in. Under the consumer rights act, it states:


(1)Every contract to supply goods is to be treated as including a term that the quality of the goods is satisfactory.

(2)The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of—

(a)any description of the goods,

(b)the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and

(c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5)).

(3)The quality of goods includes their state and condition; and the following aspects (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—

(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are usually supplied;

(b)appearance and finish;

(c)freedom from minor defects;

(d)safety;

(e)durability.

(4)The term mentioned in subsection (1) does not cover anything which makes the quality of the goods unsatisfactory—

(a)which is specifically drawn to the consumer’s attention before the contract is made,

(b)where the consumer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or

(c)in the case of a contract to supply goods by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample.




Under Section 9.2.a it says that the fitness should be be the same for all purposes of goods of that kind (i.e. TVs). Also that the quality is satisfactory for a reasonable person.

Therefore, I do not understand how a reasonable person would hold burn in as 'satisfactory'.

The only grounds I can see that the retailer could hold is point 4.b:

(a)which is specifically drawn to the consumer’s attention before the contract is made,

Now there is a lot of information online, but you have to think about the many, many people (maybe the majority), who buy a TV without sufficient research and just expect it to work and be 'satisfactory'.

Unless the retailer can prove that burn in was discussed at point of sale (or specifically mentioned in the purchase process online). how can they get away with not covering it?

Outside of any warranty not covering burn in, I am not sure how a retailer can reject a claim against this. Also, if you pay by credit card, I don't see on what grounds your credit card company could get back to you and not protect you.

As mentioned, this is out of interest really, as I am not someone who is concerned about burn-in, having done the research etc.
 

fluxedman

Well-known Member
Completely agree with you and really retailers and manufacturers shouldn't get away with it.

If push came to shove and a direct quote from the uk consumer act doesn't give you an exchange or even a free repair of your burn in, then a solicitors email or phone call may push it better.

From what I have heard worst case scenario a small claims court the judge has always looked at it this way, a OLED TV that cost £1000+ should easily last 5 years and be fit for its intended purpose and of a satisfactory good quality.

A burn in on the screen doesn't fit either of those so the judge wins it for the TV owner usually.

This is why Retailers when pushed often give up but it does require a fair amount of arguing sadly, some manufacturers know this so LG have a panel replacement service for £250, some got it free but most had to pay. I think its good LG done this but technically it should be free for at least 5 years. Really also LG don't appear to openly say they offer the panel replacement service they only mention it if you have complained and not accepted their we dont cover burn in line.

If you want to avoid the above John Lewis offer a burn in cover for £140 though.
 

titanman

Active Member
Completely agree with you and really retailers and manufacturers shouldn't get away with it.

If push came to shove and a direct quote from the uk consumer act doesn't give you an exchange or even a free repair of your burn in, then a solicitors email or phone call may push it better.

From what I have heard worst case scenario a small claims court the judge has always looked at it this way, a OLED TV that cost £1000+ should easily last 5 years and be fit for its intended purpose and of a satisfactory good quality.

A burn in on the screen doesn't fit either of those so the judge wins it for the TV owner usually.

This is why Retailers when pushed often give up but it does require a fair amount of arguing sadly, some manufacturers know this so LG have a panel replacement service for £250, some got it free but most had to pay. I think its good LG done this but technically it should be free for at least 5 years. Really also LG don't appear to openly say they offer the panel replacement service they only mention it if you have complained and not accepted their we dont cover burn in line.

If you want to avoid the above John Lewis offer a burn in cover for £140 though.

I guess it may be a similar journey as when you buy a TV with 12 month guarantee. You are actually covered for the reasonable amount of time that a TV should last, which I believe TV manufacturers have all claimed is 5 years.

Outside of the first 6/12 months, you would have to prove that you didn't create the fault. So if a technician says the burn-in was down to the user, I still don't see how that can be used as an argument on the retailer's side unless "(a)which is specifically drawn to the consumer’s attention before the contract is made,".

The retailer cannot claim that the user watched TV 'in the wrong way'. What is the wrong way? By watching 9 hours of sky news? If that same user watched 9 hours of movies per day instead, they would be fine.

And again, how can they prove the user watched 9 hours of Sky News? Or watched movies with subtitles constantly (this one would be particularly discriminatory).
 

fluxedman

Well-known Member
Heard some court cases in the past with both those points, one judge suggested if a TV cost £300 you could make a case it should last at least a few years, something £500-800+, 5 years. I think the judges are splitting the cost average per year almost. This is why OLED customers tend to win since the oled was 1K+ normally.

Yeah some manufacturers have said you can't leave it on bbc news with the logo in corner, but when the customer has told the judge I did not know a £1000+ tv would not handle bbc news for more then an hour or two per day, judges again sided with customer since its a bit of a joke reasoning.

Fair point with new or a movie with subs, technically it shouldn't matter, one can argue you watch foreign movies with subtitles.

I think all oled owners should take a picture every now and then of there tv settings with logo luminance or similar snapped on phone at least showing proof you enabled the manufacturers safety burn in proof features.
 

The latest video from AVForums

AVForums Movies Podcast: We review Dune and ask which is the best decade for horror movies?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom