Mr. Pao, who lives in the haupto region of shanghai, at the new people's evening news (journal hae-hyun), called the 962555 readers' hotline to report to new people's help noon that two years ago he purchased a sharp tv on the eastern shopping platform, 60 inches on the screen. At the beginning of june, the television was suddenly black-screened and detected as a result of leaks. Mr. Bob asked sharp for a warranty, but the other one said: the electrical leak is not a performance quality issue and is not covered by warranty and requires maintenance at a fee. "no falls, no bumps, no cracks on the screen. I don't think it's an improper use." mr. Bo considers that the failure of sharp to prove damage was caused by consumers and that it would be unreasonable to insist on a “refusal”。
It says, "citizen bob's sharp tv set, now black screen, can't be used properly."
Mr. Pao said that turning on the tv was now a black screen, and there were several pencil stripes on the screen that could not see anything. He stressed that the television had been hanging up the wall and there had been no damage on the surface, that he and his family had never had to wipe it without water, and that liquids such as juice and milk had not flowed into the screen. In accordance with sharp's three packages (repair, replacement, return of goods) the display screens, back-light components etc. Were repaired for three years in normal use of the product. Upon completion of the repairs, the doorman determined that the leak was the cause of the damage and recorded on the maintenance table that it was “outbreakable due to external force” and was not insured. On the spot, mr. Pao refused to sign. “a possible `may' is added, which is not established on the list as a result of improper consumer use.” mr. Pau stated that at that time the maintenance staff had also failed to check whether there was a crack on the screen, whether it was a quality problem or why the consumer was using it, and that it was not possible to determine whether it was a problem. He is therefore not in a position to agree to this “deprivation” ground。
Journalists have contacted the official service hotline in sharp. One client responded that the non-performance quality of the product was not guaranteed by the manufacturer, in accordance with the three national packages. She added that a background query had found that mr. Pao's maintenance records showed that the black screen leak caused the maintenance staff to come to the door again to find the cracks on the screen。
So is there a crack on the screen? In mid-june, journalists made additional calls to the network for maintenance. The person in charge explained that mr. Bau's television was an internal leak, that the break point was inside the screen and that there were no cracks on the surface. According to the other party, with regard to leaks, the vast majority of cases were for reasons of use by consumers themselves, again denying that the black screens on mr. Bau's television set were of poor quality. It is worth noting that, in communication, the repair site also fails to prove “a leak caused by improper consumer use”。
Prior to the deadline, mr. Pao had intervened with the client service at sharp's headquarters and still received a “refusal” response. He resorted to the seller's eastern shopping, but the marketing platform to contact sharp was still unsuccessful. Currently, a total of around $2,500 is required for the maintenance of network points and the replacement of screens for leak resolution. “it is felt that the manufacturer is playing tricks, asking for evidence, but not providing it.” in view of the uncertainty of the responsibility for leaks, mr. Pao hoped that sharp would come up with a more friendly solution that valued consumer perceptions and actively addressed the dispute in order to bring about early reconciliation between the parties。
