disappointed with scan RMA

[Advanced]

No, they aren't.

The two year thing is the result of an EU directive that's been widely misinterpreted. It means that all EU countries must implement legislation to harmonise minimum standards in consumer rights across the EU. It is NOT about minimum warranty/guarantee periods, or at least, not in relation to how those terms are interpreted in the UK. If you read the actual directive, it's much clearer in what it actually means than the way it's often portrayed.

This EU directive was implemented into UK law by Statutory Instrument, The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002. It was implemented by amending the 1979 Sale of Goods Act, which is the primary legislation giving rise to the rights I mentioned in my last post, about the requirement of goods to comply with contract.

But it didn't change the UK law in relation to two years at all, because it required a minimum two year period to enforce those rights, and that period had been six years in the UK, at least since the 1980 Limitations Act.

In short, :-

1) It's about the right to sue for breach of contract, not the guarantee period
2) It imposes a 2 year minimum on all EU states, but we already had 6 years so it didn't affect us (in that regard).

Ohhh.. I was always under the impression that the EU had made it a mandatory requirement that in all member states manufactures of consumer goods had to provide a two year warranty. EU Directive 1999/44/EC to be precise which came into affect January 2002 and has been mentioned in one of Bretts articles.

[Saracen]

Yup, that's the directive, but if you read it, it's referring to a minimum standard for consumer rights rather than guarantee. It's a VERY common misconception though.

[Advanced]

Yup, that's the directive, but if you read it, it's referring to a minimum standard for consumer rights rather than guarantee. It's a VERY common misconception though.

I see and here is me thinking I have an extra year guarantee on all my electrical appliances, and if the companies refuse slap a law suit on them, but no they manage to find a loop hole to wiggle out of the system every time. But normally companies will provide this service free of charge as a good will gesture, I am surprised Scan have not done this, as I have quoted this many times and have got up to 5 years accepted for a laptop, not from Scan but other companies.

However I can not guarantee this as I am not a lawyer, and don't even know that act that well so don't do anything on my advice might just be worth you looking into.

[Saracen]

For anyone that wants (shudder) to read it, the link on Eur-Lex is this

See para 17) in the Intentions

(17) Whereas it is appropriate to limit in time the period during which the seller is liable for any lack of conformity which exists at the time of delivery of the goods; whereas Member States may also provide for a limitation on the period during which consumers can exercise their rights, provided such a period does not expire within two years from the time of delivery; whereas where, under national legislation, the time when a limitation period starts is not the time of delivery of the goods, the total duration of the limitation period provided for by national law may not be shorter than two years from the time of delivery;

and para 1) of Article 5)

Article 5

Time limits

1. The seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods. If, under national legislation, the rights laid down in Article 3(2) are subject to a limitation period, that period shall not expire within a period of two years from the time of delivery.

[Saracen]

I see and here is me thinking I have an extra year guarantee on all my electrical appliances, and if the companies refuse slap a law suit on them, but no they manage to find a loop hole to wiggle out of the system every time. But normally companies will provide this service free of charge as a good will gesture, I am surprised Scan have not done this, as I have quoted this many times and have got up to 5 years accepted for a laptop, not from Scan but other companies.

However I can not guarantee this as I am not a lawyer, and don't even know that act that well so don't do anything on my advice might just be worth you looking into.

The relevant law for the UK, though, isn't the EU directive .... it's the SI I quoted earlier that amends the Sale of Goods Act.

EU directives don't have a direct effect on national laws. What they are, effectively, is a directive to national governments, binding because of treaty obligations, to implement provisions into national law. That's what the UK government did with that SI.

If you want to read what our law actually is, read the SI and the SoGA1979 (and others), not the EU directive.

[Advanced]

The relevant law for the UK, though, isn't the EU directive .... it's the SI I quoted earlier that amends the Sale of Goods Act.

EU directives don't have a direct effect on national laws. What they are, effectively, is a directive to national governments, binding because of treaty obligations, to implement provisions into national law. That's what the UK government did with that SI.

If you want to read what our law actually is, read the SI and the SoGA1979 (and others), not the EU directive.

Ok, I don't know much about the laws but surely there is a way that Scan could at least review his RMA, I was just under the common miss-conception that as the United Kingdom a member of the EU, it would follow the EU laws, but obviously not, it is true when they say you learn something new everyday..

But surely Scan could at least review his RMA.

[Madafwo]

But surely Scan could at least review his RMA.

I was thinking that, the OP hasn't posted in this thread for a week, what's been done, If anything? Has the OP got a resolution to this or not?

It's just been talk on EU Directives and the SoGA for a week now.

[Saracen]

Ok, I don't know much about the laws but surely there is a way that Scan could at least review his RMA, I was just under the common miss-conception that as the United Kingdom a member of the EU, it would follow the EU laws, but obviously not, it is true when they say you learn something new everyday..
.

Well, an EU "directive" isn't law, and besides, the EU isn't a nation state to have laws.

But the member states have treaties that, as states, they have to honour. If one (or more) of those treaties requires member states to implement EU directives into law, then while the EU directive itself doesn't have force of law in member states, the principles they require to be embedded end up as law.

But even then, it's a mixed bag. If you read through that directive, or most others, you'll find a series of statements that say "the member state shall ....." and "the member state may .....". The inference is clear. Some of the contents of that directive are mandatory, but some are optional, or advisory.

It's a pretty fine distinction, though. If the EU directive expresses a mandatory requirement on something that is subject to treaty, then member states are in breach of treaty if they don't implement them. That is what people are on about when they talk about "loss of sovereignty" with the EU. It's not about having the Queen's head on our currency. It's about who makes the laws we live by .... and who they're accountable to. And it;s also what has made things like the Maastricht treaty, and the Lisbon treaty so important, while seeming so banal and irrelevant. But if you hand law-making powers over in a treaty, they get used.

[Advanced]

Well, an EU "directive" isn't law, and besides, the EU isn't a nation state to have laws.

But the member states have treaties that, as states, they have to honour. If one (or more) of those treaties requires member states to implement EU directives into law, then while the EU directive itself doesn't have force of law in member states, the principles they require to be embedded end up as law.

But even then, it's a mixed bag. If you read through that directive, or most others, you'll find a series of statements that say "the member state shall ....." and "the member state may .....". The inference is clear. Some of the contents of that directive are mandatory, but some are optional, or advisory.

It's a pretty fine distinction, though. If the EU directive expresses a mandatory requirement on something that is subject to treaty, then member states are in breach of treaty if they don't implement them. That is what people are on about when they talk about "loss of sovereignty" with the EU. It's not about having the Queen's head on our currency. It's about who makes the laws we live by .... and who they're accountable to. And it;s also what has made things like the Maastricht treaty, and the Lisbon treaty so important, while seeming so banal and irrelevant. But if you hand law-making powers over in a treaty, they get used.

Woah, your clued up. So who will you be voting for in the general election this year then?

[Saracen]

I was thinking that, the OP hasn't posted in this thread for a week, what's been done, If anything? Has the OP got a resolution to this or not?

It's just been talk on EU Directives and the SoGA for a week now.

As far as I can see, the EU directive didn't get mentioned until about 4 hours ago.

The SoGA was mentioned because there'd seemed to be some difference of opinion as to how it applied. But after the initial discussion, nobody at all posted for some five days, and I then did because I was asked for an opinion.

As for whether there's a resolution, dunno.

....

But surely Scan could at least review his RMA.

Well, they could. The law determines what they must do (and it seems to me they've done it), but doesn't say they can't be a lot more generous if they wish to.

But if it can't be directly replaced or repaired, and according to LG it can't, then Scan aren't likely to either be able to repair it or have a spare one laying about so they can't do that either. They offered an alternative monitor, and that didn't seem to be acceptable, because it wasn't as good a spec. Then they offered a partial refund, and the law allows a deduction to be made for any benefit the buyer's had of the product.

It's hard to see what they can reasonably be expected to do that they haven't already offered to do. So, review the RMA .... how???

Besides, just because it hasn't been resolved in this thread doesn't necessarily mean it hasn't been resolved. Maybe the RMA has been resolved and closed. We wouldn't necessarily know.

[Advanced]

As far as I can see, the EU directive didn't get mentioned until about 4 hours ago.

The SoGA was mentioned because there'd seemed to be some difference of opinion as to how it applied. But after the initial discussion, nobody at all posted for some five days, and I then did because I was asked for an opinion.

As for whether there's a resolution, dunno.

Well, they could. The law determines what they must do (and it seems to me they've done it), but doesn't say they can't be a lot more generous if they wish to.

But if it can't be directly replaced or repaired, and according to LG it can't, then Scan aren't likely to either be able to repair it or have a spare one laying about so they can't do that either. They offered an alternative monitor, and that didn't seem to be acceptable, because it wasn't as good a spec. Then they offered a partial refund, and the law allows a deduction to be made for any benefit the buyer's had of the product.

It's hard to see what they can reasonably be expected to do that they haven't already offered to do. So, review the RMA .... how???

Besides, just because it hasn't been resolved in this thread doesn't necessarily mean it hasn't been resolved. Maybe the RMA has been resolved and closed. We wouldn't necessarily know.

By review RMA, to clarify I meant to check his request of an RMA, and see what they could do as to be fair to Scan they would loose a lot of money if just give a new Monitor away, as the only reason for RMA is so company can replace, it should be LG doing the doing the dirty work, Scan would loose money instead if LG can't deliver the monitor the monitor obviously was not fit for purpose.. Scan shouldn't suffer but nor should the consumer, but if I was the consumer I would not like all this aggro, and would rather it be sorted out quickly other than gapiong on, lets just end it there if there is no more feedback from OP, and hope things kave been resolved.. Sound good?

[Madafwo]

As far as I can see, the EU directive didn't get mentioned until about 4 hours ago.

The SoGA was mentioned because there'd seemed to be some difference of opinion as to how it applied. But after the initial discussion, nobody at all posted for some five days, and I then did because I was asked for an opinion.

My point was more that there has been only been discussion about what the law's and directives say about a situation than Scan or the OP reaching a conclusion within the last week, and possibly finding out what has happend, if anything.

Being a mere peon and not an admin I know I don't have a right to say what is discussed in a thread, but I would imagine being in a Scan care forum the thread would be about what Scan are doing to care for their customers, not discussions about the legal rights and wrongs (which do have a bearing I admit, but it's going above and beyond these that makes a company care).

[Saracen]

My point was more that there has been only been discussion about what the law's and directives say about a situation than Scan or the OP reaching a conclusion within the last week, and possibly finding out what has happend, if anything.

Being a mere peon and not an admin I know I don't have a right to say what is discussed in a thread, but I would imagine being in a Scan care forum the thread would be about what Scan are doing to care for their customers, not discussions about the legal rights and wrongs (which do have a bearing I admit, but it's going above and beyond these that makes a company care).

The thread sat for 5 days without a post from either the OP or Scan. So answering questions that had been asked about the law is hardly detracting from the thread, is it?

Nor, for that matter, when someone suggests that Scan have to offer a 2 year warranty because EU law says so is it detracting to point out that it simply isn't the case, and that they don't have any such obligation. It may even be that such an answer is better coming from someone outside Scan. That way, they can't be accused of trying to dodge their duty.

Also, the more people understand what their rights are, and perhaps more importantly, aren't, the better customer service we all stand to get. It's been suggested in this thread that a new monitor was epxected. Well, a warranty might offer that, but Scan aren't liable for it. It's been suggested that a partial refund isn't good enough, so it's relevant to point out that that's what consumer law says the OP is entitled to. How much of a deduction is made from the full price is up to negotiation and, if no agreement was reached, ultimately to a court.

All this stuff is directly relevant to the situation.

As for "mere peon" or admin, you have the same right to discuss that I do, and we both follow the same rules. If, however, you mean that as a "mere peon" you don't have the right to dictate what others, including admins, choose to post about, then you're dead right.

I didn't tell you you can't have an opinion, did I? You expressed a point, albeit with with some exaggeration, and you're entitled to do so. I answered it, and whether you or I are "peon" or admin has no bearing on it. So what's all this "mere peon" stuff about?

And yes, it would be nice to find out what happened, and whether or not this was resolved. But I can't post for Scan or the OP, and for about five days, neither of those parties have posted. And only they can change that. Meantime, others have posted, asked questions, expressed opinions and had replies, all of which are in some way about the subject of this thread, and have been raised because of it.

[Madafwo]

*snip*

The whole point of my post was to try and get Scan or the OP to let us know what's going on. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Saracen]

The whole point of my post was to try and get Scan or the OP to let us know what's going on. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then wouldn't it have been simpler to just say that, instead of commenting on what others have been posting, and then moaning about "mere peons" not being allowed to have an opinion as if because I'm an admin I'm somehow suppressing your views?

[Madafwo]

Then wouldn't it have been simpler to just say that, instead of commenting on what others have been posting, and then moaning about "mere peons" not being allowed to have an opinion as if because I'm an admin I'm somehow suppressing your views?

I wasn't moaning, I was just commenting saying that for the past week it's been talk about the directives and laws and not what Scan have been doing to resolve the issue, which is why this forum is here, for Scan to go ABOVE those laws and directives. But as neither the OP or Scan has posted in a week we don't know what has been done to go above and beyond the laws and directives set in place.

Anyway, us continuing to post with regards to the reasons behind why we are posting is going against why I posted, to get the OP or Scan to let us know what is going on.

Peace.