titanman
Established 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.
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.
Consumer Rights Act 2015
www.legislation.gov.uk
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.