L
Lawyer237
Guest
Proving the shearing occurs is easy (by the way remember that under sections 48A-D of the Sale of Goods Act it is for Tiny to prove that the plasma is not defective), just get a video cam and record it. I managed to get by plasma working long enough yesterday to get video on DVD and Sky that really is an eye opener....and then just to make my day as I was filming the plasma cut off completely
.
So far as Mr Warrens comments in relation to the model number being just the bezel are concerned he seems to have neglected to answer these points: (see http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180302&page=11&pp=15)
"Dear Mr Warren,
Thank you for your comments. Doubtless there will be a written response sent to those of us that may have contacted Tiny by letter (some of us via lawyers) dealing with these and the other issues that have been raised. It is, however, very encouraging to see that someone has take the time to respond and your comments are indeed very useful.
You say:
Lawer237 has mentioned Screens from Powerchinese and is comparing these to ours as though they are the same screens"
I can only suggest that re-read what is said as that is not accurate at all. Firstly, please note that reference is also made to Prima. Secondly, I have been very careful to say at some length that Tiny may have an answer to the issue raised. Whether the answers you have provided are an answer in law is another matter but one I am, as you may know, addressing directly with Tiny and so I do not currently intend to debate that question here.
You say:
the PS42-D8 to which he refers, and a few others have also noted, this sticker is also on the back of your screens relates to the part number for the bezel (the screens casing) from the company that manufactures them, Prima. It is unfortunate that another company appears to have decided to name their range after the bezels manufactured instead of creating a unique name for their range name
In other words you seem to be saying (and please do correct me if I am wrong) that the reference to PS42-D8 simply refers to the case. Perhaps you would care to look at the following link:
http://www.xoceco.com/eweb/products/PDPTV.asp
Please note that Prima manufacture a model that has the same specifications as the one represented to me as a PS42-D8, they are not just referring to the case but to a specific model.
Please also see the following link:
http://www.xoceco.com/eweb/service/contactus.asp
Harwa is simply the German branch of Prima. A friend of mine who is a lawyer in Hong Kong is trying to establish exactly who Power Chinese Limited are.
Please see this link:
http://www.harwa.de/disp_whatsnew.php?Page=20041224
You will see that Harwa (who are Prima) also produce and sell an assembled model known as a PS42-D8 and an SKD of that model.
Yes, you are right the case is indeed one part of the SKD supplied but the issue is whether, as you seem to suggest, it is the only part from Prima that forms the plasmas supplied by Tiny.
We all share the common interest of clarifying exactly what we have purchased and so please can you help us further: I dont mean to be rude but these are simple questions and will help enormously to resolve this issue:
1. Are you saying that the plasmas supplied to us are not SKDs from Harwa/Prima.
2. What major component (apart from possibly the screen) is not supplied from Prima/Harwa.
3. Why are the instructions provided by Harwa for the Harwa Model PS42-D8 virtually identical (right down to some of the same sketches and diagrams and pictures) to the instructions provided by Tiny for a Tiny plasma.
4. Why do the assembly instructions for a Harwa SKD (available from Harwas site) deal with each of the processes you refer to.
5. Why is the GUI on a Harwa Model PS42-D8, apparently, identical to that on a Tiny plasma (again this is clearly apparent from the assembly instructions).
6. Why is the remote control on a Harwa Model PS42-D8 is identical (save for the removal of a Harwa identification).
7. Why are so many of the other parts and components supplied by Harwa as part of SHK so surprisingly familiar (Please see
http://www.harwa.de/SKD%20assembly/PS-42D8S/Processing/J-03Accessory%20processing%20(Remote%20control).doc
You say:
Therefore when we state that an item is assembled in the UK, it is.
Please then can you help me, you say you make and design, what do you make and what do you design. Whilst it is entirely a matter for Tiny if you can not make out each of those claims then I urge you to remove them from your advertisements. As it is, it remains to be seen exactly what you do assemble.
Tomorrow I will ask my firm to forward the letters that have been sent to your Mr Boys and your Managing Director in the hope that they can be responded to satisfactorily before the time limits identified in them expire. If you have the facility I will also send you a copy of the AVI footage of the plasma failing in various and different ways.
However, please remember that in relation to a number of the matters raised in these posts it will not be for me (and others) to show that the plasma does not comply with the contract we have but for Tiny to show that it does.
I look forward to an open response to these issues tomorrow, hopefully your further comments can provide us with some comfort as to what we have purchased.
Thank you"
however all of that is now an issue for the court and not this thread.
Lawyer
So far as Mr Warrens comments in relation to the model number being just the bezel are concerned he seems to have neglected to answer these points: (see http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180302&page=11&pp=15)
"Dear Mr Warren,
Thank you for your comments. Doubtless there will be a written response sent to those of us that may have contacted Tiny by letter (some of us via lawyers) dealing with these and the other issues that have been raised. It is, however, very encouraging to see that someone has take the time to respond and your comments are indeed very useful.
You say:
Lawer237 has mentioned Screens from Powerchinese and is comparing these to ours as though they are the same screens"
I can only suggest that re-read what is said as that is not accurate at all. Firstly, please note that reference is also made to Prima. Secondly, I have been very careful to say at some length that Tiny may have an answer to the issue raised. Whether the answers you have provided are an answer in law is another matter but one I am, as you may know, addressing directly with Tiny and so I do not currently intend to debate that question here.
You say:
the PS42-D8 to which he refers, and a few others have also noted, this sticker is also on the back of your screens relates to the part number for the bezel (the screens casing) from the company that manufactures them, Prima. It is unfortunate that another company appears to have decided to name their range after the bezels manufactured instead of creating a unique name for their range name
In other words you seem to be saying (and please do correct me if I am wrong) that the reference to PS42-D8 simply refers to the case. Perhaps you would care to look at the following link:
http://www.xoceco.com/eweb/products/PDPTV.asp
Please note that Prima manufacture a model that has the same specifications as the one represented to me as a PS42-D8, they are not just referring to the case but to a specific model.
Please also see the following link:
http://www.xoceco.com/eweb/service/contactus.asp
Harwa is simply the German branch of Prima. A friend of mine who is a lawyer in Hong Kong is trying to establish exactly who Power Chinese Limited are.
Please see this link:
http://www.harwa.de/disp_whatsnew.php?Page=20041224
You will see that Harwa (who are Prima) also produce and sell an assembled model known as a PS42-D8 and an SKD of that model.
Yes, you are right the case is indeed one part of the SKD supplied but the issue is whether, as you seem to suggest, it is the only part from Prima that forms the plasmas supplied by Tiny.
We all share the common interest of clarifying exactly what we have purchased and so please can you help us further: I dont mean to be rude but these are simple questions and will help enormously to resolve this issue:
1. Are you saying that the plasmas supplied to us are not SKDs from Harwa/Prima.
2. What major component (apart from possibly the screen) is not supplied from Prima/Harwa.
3. Why are the instructions provided by Harwa for the Harwa Model PS42-D8 virtually identical (right down to some of the same sketches and diagrams and pictures) to the instructions provided by Tiny for a Tiny plasma.
4. Why do the assembly instructions for a Harwa SKD (available from Harwas site) deal with each of the processes you refer to.
5. Why is the GUI on a Harwa Model PS42-D8, apparently, identical to that on a Tiny plasma (again this is clearly apparent from the assembly instructions).
6. Why is the remote control on a Harwa Model PS42-D8 is identical (save for the removal of a Harwa identification).
7. Why are so many of the other parts and components supplied by Harwa as part of SHK so surprisingly familiar (Please see
http://www.harwa.de/SKD%20assembly/PS-42D8S/Processing/J-03Accessory%20processing%20(Remote%20control).doc
You say:
Therefore when we state that an item is assembled in the UK, it is.
Please then can you help me, you say you make and design, what do you make and what do you design. Whilst it is entirely a matter for Tiny if you can not make out each of those claims then I urge you to remove them from your advertisements. As it is, it remains to be seen exactly what you do assemble.
Tomorrow I will ask my firm to forward the letters that have been sent to your Mr Boys and your Managing Director in the hope that they can be responded to satisfactorily before the time limits identified in them expire. If you have the facility I will also send you a copy of the AVI footage of the plasma failing in various and different ways.
However, please remember that in relation to a number of the matters raised in these posts it will not be for me (and others) to show that the plasma does not comply with the contract we have but for Tiny to show that it does.
I look forward to an open response to these issues tomorrow, hopefully your further comments can provide us with some comfort as to what we have purchased.
Thank you"
however all of that is now an issue for the court and not this thread.
Lawyer