Dead Pixel Policy not legal.

[McMav]

Just had a legal student up whop has an IBM laptop away for a replacement screen for 1 dead pixel. The laptop is 4 weeks old and IBM said the usual see ISO blah on number of pixels required to be faulty for it to be classed as faulty. She then quoted some sections to them from the Sale of Goods act paying special attention to MINOR DEFECTS. IBM are now replacing the screen as when they hummed and hawed about it she said she would take them through small claims court and that she would win. Obviousdly she would have as IBM are replaceing the panel.

So if you get a tft with a dead pixel and not enough as stated in the ISO you should be able to get it replaced as it is a Minor Defect.

[Howard]

I've always thought that even one dead pixel is classed as a fault, but I've also always thought that this ISO standar stating that it must be 3 within 4 inches of each other or whatever was strictly enforced... Well that's good news I guess

[McMav]

Yeah but one threat of court and IBM are replacing the panel. I'd have thought they would offer her the chance of a refund but they obviously wanted to keep her 1300 quid.

[Steve B]

only a small minority of the returned panels actually get re-used, be it sent to a company for pixel-fixing or being re-sold as b-grade. the majority of them just get thrown in the bin, which is a shame, as i would pay perhaps 2 thirds of the price, if it only had one stuck pixel.

[dave87]

I've been rather lucky with my purchases, haven't had a dead pixel yet (which I was majorly worried about on my new laptop -1680x1050 15.4" Widescreen)

The other way round it is if there are two stuck pixels next to each other, its considered a manufacturing failure and replaced immediately

Dave

[blknoel]

If things are as you described Steve B, then it's not a healthy thing to do, dumping instead of recycling means damages to the environment =(.

Well, PC components are hardly recyclable...

[Steve B]

yeah, i think its just the panels that get dumped, not the actual monitor casing and stuff. I saw a program about it a few months back, it was about a company who tried to fix them

[BlindMelon7]

I have 3 stuck pixels on my screen. I got totaly ripped off with it, £170 for a 17in lcd that shows blacks as greys

[Steve]

I would imagine a consumer's rights have slightly more weight then that of a business, which will probably have to put up with what the ISO standards define.

[JPreston]

I'd be very surprised if there was any legal basis for her letter apart from it being written in legalese, but all the same looking at it from the company's perspective the only other option would be to prepare a case and send someone along to the small claims court to argue the toss. This would be much more expensive than just giving out a replacement, so they take the cheaper option.

[bigblue]

Originally Posted by JPreston

This would be much more expensive than just giving out a replacement, so they take the cheaper option.

I tend to agree with that. I don't necessarily think IBM thought they would lose, more that they couldn't be arsed with the claims process.

From my understanding of the Sale of Goods act (which could be entirely wrong, it's been a while...), the difficulty in these types of cases is proving it is a defect, daft as that sounds. If said "defect" is covered by ISOwhatever as a typical occurence or acceptable tolerance then it isn't a "defect"

On the retail side of things I've had to argue the toss with a few customers about what is/isn't acceptable under those dreaded headings "within manufacturers tolerances", "refer to ISO...", and the classic "limited warranty" and more often than not if someone stamps and shouts enough (without getting arsey) they get a replacement. It's just easier all round.

[SilentDeath]

Originally Posted by bigblue

I tend to agree with that. I don't necessarily think IBM thought they would lose, more that they couldn't be arsed with the claims process.

From my understanding of the Sale of Goods act (which could be entirely wrong, it's been a while...), the difficulty in these types of cases is proving it is a defect, daft as that sounds. If said "defect" is covered by ISOwhatever as a typical occurence or acceptable tolerance then it isn't a "defect"

On the retail side of things I've had to argue the toss with a few customers about what is/isn't acceptable under those dreaded headings "within manufacturers tolerances", "refer to ISO...", and the classic "limited warranty" and more often than not if someone stamps and shouts enough (without getting arsey) they get a replacement. It's just easier all round.

"within manufacturers tolerances" is exactly right. IBM should have taken it to court - as usually the loser has to pay costs (or is that not true with small claims? but then our legal system would be pretty messed up as noone would bother).

There is no way she could prove it is a defect, its documented in the spec sheets for *every* tft manufactuer, basicly saying if you need a defect free screen (ie milatary and medical use) you should pay them more for one that has gone through more expensive qualilty checking.

[BlindMelon7]

From now on I will always buy LCD/TFTs in shops where I can check first . Incidentaly, what IS the difference between TFT and LCD?

[tickedon]

Originally Posted by |SilentDeath|

"within manufacturers tolerances" is exactly right. IBM should have taken it to court - as usually the loser has to pay costs (or is that not true with small claims? but then our legal system would be pretty messed up as noone would bother).

There is no way she could prove it is a defect, its documented in the spec sheets for *every* tft manufactuer, basicly saying if you need a defect free screen (ie milatary and medical use) you should pay them more for one that has gone through more expensive qualilty checking.

The Sale of Goods Act does cover minor defects. Until someone actually goes to court and hammers this out, we won't know for sure.

99% certain small claims court you each pay for your own legal costs.

[Funkstar]

Originally Posted by BlindMelon7

Incidentaly, what IS the difference between TFT and LCD?

TFT is a type of LCD.

LCD is the underlying technology, TFT is an enhancement to that technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD

[McMav]

Originally Posted by tickedon

The Sale of Goods Act does cover minor defects. Until someone actually goes to court and hammers this out, we won't know for sure.

99% certain small claims court you each pay for your own legal costs.

Exactly could you imagine the gate it would open had IBM contested it and lost. Every TFT manufacturer would be left wide open. Hence they probably took the easier and safer option of replacing this one panel and keeping it quiet.