By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
bowspearer on 27 April 2010
Edit Thread
Wlakiz said:
bowspearer said:
 

If by "magical consumer right" you mean consumer protection laws, then those of us in Australia and the EU don't just believe it exists, we know it's there as fact. You refer to time limits, but the EU demands that marketed features which were deciding factors in a purchase remain present for a minimum of 2 years from the date of purchase, in Australia, the minimum period is the warranty period. These are indisputable facts. If you wish to argue with them, then the only one living with "magical belifs" is yourself.

Just curious on the status of the legal lawsuit? Whos actually filing the lawsuit? ACCC or your legal represenative(s)?

You may have a case with warranty violation, so I think they should refund your PS3 if you still have your recipet and still have warranaty. My 'magical consumer right comment is directed at the people who no longer have warranty and want to file against bait advertisement which I don't think holds water due to the time limit.

Looking at: 

"

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 68A

Limitation of liability for breach of certain conditions or warranties

             (1)  Subject to this section, a term of a contract for the supply by a corporation of goods or services other than goods or services of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption is not void under section 68 by reason only that the term limits the liability of the corporation for a breach of a condition or warranty (other than a condition or warranty implied by section 69) to:

                     (a)  in the case of goods, any one or more of the following:

                              (i)  the replacement of the goods or the supply of equivalent goods;

                             (ii)  the repair of the goods;

                            (iii)  the payment of the cost of replacing the goods or of acquiring equivalent goods;

                            (iv)  the payment of the cost of having the goods repaired; or

                     (b)  in the case of services:

                              (i)  the supplying of the services again; or

                             (ii)  the payment of the cost of having the services supplied again.

             (2)  Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a term of a contract if the person to whom the goods or services were supplied establishes that it is not fair or reasonable for the corporation to rely on that term of the contract.

             (3)  In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) whether or not reliance on a term of a contract is fair or reasonable, a court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to the following matters:

                     (a)  the strength of the bargaining positions of the corporation and the person to whom the goods or services were supplied (in this subsection referred to as the buyer ) relative to each other, taking into account, among other things, the availability of equivalent goods or services and suitable alternative sources of supply;

                     (b)  whether the buyer received an inducement to agree to the term or, in agreeing to the term, had an opportunity of acquiring the goods or services or equivalent goods or services from any source of supply under a contract that did not include that term;

                       whether the buyer knew or ought reasonably to have known of the existence and extent of the term (having regard, among other things, to any custom of the trade and any previous course of dealing between the parties); and

                     (d)  in the case of the supply of goods, whether the goods were manufactured, processed or adapted to the special order of the buyer."

 

So basicaly Section 3C, should be a cause for concern on your case. You need the court to be convinced that the  "the person to whom the goods or services were supplied establishes that it is not fair or reasonable for the corporation to rely on that term of the contract."

Actually I'm not suing them and to my knowledge the vast bulk of people aren't directly suing them. What's happening is that they're lodging a complaint with the ACCC. Basically it's the equivalent of going to the police and pressing charges for a more direct and personal case of theft or fraud. What happens from there is that the ACCC investigate, pass rulings and can from there, if they find Sony has breached the law, they can fine Sony, order restitutions and recalls to be paid out and in extreme cases, they even have the power to revoke a company's trade licence here, which should by some turn of events (say Sony being fined and ordered to compensate customers through retailers and refusing to cooperate with the ACCC) result in it being illegal for Sony to trade in Australia in any way shape or form, until that revocation of their trading license was overturned. That's how much power the ACCC has in this situation.

I realise I'm using the most extreme outcome possible, but I want people here to understand that this isn't merely a case of a lawsuit as in civil proceedings, but rather undertaking criminal proceedings against Sony through a government regulatory body.

From there, I suspect people will proceed with lawsuits based on a successful outcome. To answer your question about my situation, I shouldn't comment on the situation right at this minute.