In recent days, mr. Jiangmen's quick complaint to sino-hangdong indicated that he had purchased a philip television set two years earlier, that black screen problems had arisen in march of this year, that philips had been officially identified as a television leak, that the user was liable for no warranty, and that he had to pay more than $2,600 in maintenance costs, one half of the price on the television market。
In response, philips responded that the screen body failure caused by external fluids did not exclude human damage and that the company provided the lowest price to the consumer but was not accepted. In counsel's view, “leakage” is still a strange professional concept for ordinary consumers, and it is necessary for traders to provide early declarations of human damage and exemption from warranty obligations, otherwise the consumer's right to know may be violated。
It's gonna cost $2,600 for a two-year black screen
On 17 march 2018, a black screen problem arose with the philips television machine purchased by mr. Cheon, which was sold to the official authorities for immediate repairs. According to mr. Chew, this television was purchased in kyoto in june 2016 at a value of $5299 and the product was under warranty until september 2019. On 22 march, the maintenance staff of the jiangmen acoustic service arrived and returned the television to the station for maintenance. In april, the station informed mr. Tshou that the television set had only a one-year warranty and was not. When mr. Zhou showed an official certificate of 39 months of warranty, the station stated that the television had been tested and found that the leak was artificially damaged and was not covered by the warranty, and requested mr. Zhou to pay approximately $2,600 for maintenance。
In this regard, i wish to express to you my disagreement: “they have no explanation other than `human damage'.” after a period of stalemate between the two sides, the station again stated that it could reduce maintenance costs to $800, “they said they would help me make a discount”, but wished mr. Chairman a second refusal。
The warranty period for the television, provided by the consumer
“televisions will not be leaked under normal conditions”, mr. Philips believes that the warranty duty will be waived. He recalled that, this year, “going back south”, two television screens in his home had beads on their screens, but that, after a day of normality in the room, the front-line liquid crystal-colored electricity had become more and more problematic in the hall. In mr. Chew's view, the black screen of television stems from the quality of the product and requires the manufacturer to fulfil its obligation to guarantee the television set free of charge。
At the service station, it says damp is not leaking
On 11 july, sino-hangdong made a complaint to the eimen acoustics service, a designated maintenance station in philips, and the maintenance technician, ray, explained that the television leak was caused by external entry of liquids, which in turn corrupted the liquid crystal panels and that “no television leaks are caused by external causes such as humidity”. Master ray stressed that the lcd panels themselves did not cause leaks and did not exclude improper use by consumers, such as wipe screens with wet rags or inadvertently allow liquids such as juice and soup to flow into the screen。
Mr. Ray added that, according to normal working procedures, service-station repairers would conduct on-the-spot testing and explain the reasons for the maintenance to consumers, while more than 2,000 maintenance costs were normal offers based on the model and size of the product, “most users would understand”。
On 12 july, mr. Chen, the customer manager of philips, responded that the television in question had caused screen body failure due to external fluids, which did not exclude human damage and could not be repaired. He indicated that mr. Tsai would have had to pay $2629 for maintenance, but that, in view of the satisfaction of consumers with their own maintenance, they had been given a minimum discount price of $800, which was never accepted by consumers。
The breakdown of the television was provided by philip
Counsel: philip will provide an ex ante statement of human damage and exoneration, which could otherwise violate consumer knowledge. Rights
Article 8 of the consumer protection act provides that “consumers have the right to know the true circumstances of the goods they have purchased, used or the services they have received”. According to counsel, liu yingxing, the law firm of guangdong ugo, “spill” is a strange professional concept for ordinary consumers, who generally do not know what is “spill” and why it is caused. Therefore, if a business is to classify a professional “leakage” as human damage, it should explain the “leakage” phenomenon in the product description or warranty statement in advance, indicate which human operations may result in a television screen leak, and declare in advance that the leak is a human cause that should exempt the business from its warranty obligations。
In counsel's view, if there is no advance written explanation of the “leakage” phenomenon, it is all the more necessary for the business to explain to the consumer what the leak is and why it is man-made damage, if it is not possible for the consumer to accept the “leakage” as artificial damage, which is more likely to violate the consumer's right to know。
Due to the relative specialization in detection and identification of “leakage” issues, counsel recommends that consumers request further assistance or complaints from institutions such as the iac, business, etc., requesting the vendor to explain the cause of the “leakage” and to provide a statement of the conclusion of the damage found to be artificial. In the event that the merchant ultimately fails to understand why the “leakage” is man-made, the merchant is not exempt from liability and is subject to warranty obligations。
"new guangdong gdts02"
