DSLRUsers.com

Hi all,
We own a 42" Panasonic Plasma TV and recently it developed two vertical bars down the middle of the screen, one black and the other a light blue. We purchased the TV on the 22.12.08 so it's less than 3 months out of the standard Panasonic one year warranty. I have followed the correct channels thus far and paid for AWA (Panasonic service rep) to take the TV away, provide a quote and advice re repair. I had to pay $145 for this quote to happen and for them to physically take it away.
So, today I was notified via phone and email that the TV will cost more to repair than it would to replace and that I should take the issue up with Panasonic. I called Panasonic and the first thing the customer service chick said was "were you offered extended warranty' at purchase time. I was honest and said yes, however declined the offer. She told me that I then needed to provide via email a scan of the original receipt + a copy of the email from AWA service. I have done this and await their response. Although the TV is out of warranty, I believe there is a term called 'fit for service' and I am desperately hoping that Panasonic come to the party and replace the TV for me. I hope it is smooth sailing and they do the 'right' thing by the customer. I made them aware in my email that I had been a loyal Panasonic customer for many years and listed what I had owned/bought in the past (not sure if they give a flying hoot but thought it was worthwhile to mention).

Anyway, I will keep you advise as to the developments but I fear it may be a battle. Blergh!

I do wish you luck Geoff.

#1 Out of warranty
#2 Panasonic may decide to replace as the cost of these has dropped considerably since you purchased in ’08

For example a PANASONIC 42" HD PLASMA TV can be had for as low as $1299.00

Thanks Chris.
Yes, they certainly have dropped in price significantly.
We paid $1900 for this unit in 2008.

sirhc55 wrote:I do wish you luck Geoff.

Fingers crossed for you. Sounds like a classic manufacturer's defect. They need to repair it for free.

Geoff,

"Fit for the purpose for which it was intended" is one of the expressions, the related expressions being that the goods be "of merchantable quality" and yes, at three months out of warranty, you have a right to expect that, regardless of the warranty provisions, Panasonic should fix this unit for you.

The bottom line here is that regardless of the warranty term, when you are spending the sort of money this TV cost, you have an expectation of a trouble free life of a certain period. That period is not defined, but it should be reasonable and commensurate with the cost of the device. Thus the question becomes one of at $1900, would a product life of just 15 months be reasonable? With a product failing at such a short lifespan, the question of merchantable quality comes into play.

sirhc55 wrote:For example a PANASONIC 42" HD PLASMA TV can be had for as low as $1299.00

Actually, they were showing some at HN's on TV last evening for around PP795, but it was unclear if they were full HD or just HD.

For those wishing to buy now, be aware that 3D TVs from Samsung and Panasonic are about to be released, with Sony's efforts hitting our stores in June. Prices will be higher (and will only include one or two sets of glasses) but won't be stratospheric. You'll need a 3D BluRay player to take advantage of the format, but it is quite a good experience. Current sets are not 3D compatible.

There was a story about this type of thing on ACA/TT a few months ago.
Law protects consumers regardless of the manufacturer warranty. It basically looks at what's the reasonable time a product costing $X dollars should last. Eg. Is it reasonable that a $2000 plasma only lasts 15 months? I'd say no.

Have a search for the story. It might be useful.

shucks, thats just bad luck. I own the same tele, i've had no issues with it, and i brought mine in october 08 as well, i might begin to keep an eye out incase something begins to show on mine!! I definately agree with everyone else, its only fair that they replace it, after spending that sort of $$ you expect a lot more. I too own a lot panasonic equipment so that the viera technology all works together so i would be very disapointed if the tele dies! keep us up to date on the results.

Wink wrote:There was a story about this type of thing on ACA/TT a few months ago.

Actually, they run that sort of story about once a week.

A warranty implies that if something goes wrong with your goods a manufacturer/distributor will (at their discretion) either replace or repair said goods.

A warranty is a defined period of time and anyone that believes that they can circumvent implied warranties are, to put it mildly, f^cked in the head. If a manufacturer/distributor, in their wisdom, decide that a fault outside of warranty will be handled as an ex-warranty responsibility then I would take my hat off to them.

When any manufacturer recognises a fault in manufacture (i.e. Toyota) that runs through a whole series of the same model then it is certainly a problem they have to address. But, if the fault is not general then it is up to the manufacturer/distributor to decide on a course of action and NOT the purchaser or for that matter a photographic forum.

As a PS why do you think warranties can be extended up to 5 years or more? There is a reason you know

Jesus Chris, have you had your happy pills today?

sirhc55 wrote:A warranty is a defined period of time and anyone that believes that they can circumvent implied warranties are, to put it mildly, f^cked in the head. If a manufacturer/distributor, in their wisdom, decide that a fault outside of warranty will be handled as an ex-warranty responsibility then I would take my hat off to them.

Chris,

Your post has me slightly confused. You've used the term "implied warranties" here.

There are, in a typical sale such as the one of Geoff's here, a number of different warranties that will be applicable. The obvious one is the warranty provided by the manufacturer, often for the first 12 months of ownership. This is an express warranty. It may be supported by after sales or extended warranties, such as those we may buy at the point of sale.

And then there's the law, which happens to impose a number of implied warranties upon every such contract of sale. Amongst those implied warranties there is one of fitness for purpose, and another that expresses merchantable quality.

Fitness of purpose intends that the goods are suitable for the task intended: you don't buy a camera to mow the lawn, for instance, and if you went to a store to buy some sort of tool for mowing the lawn, and upon the advice of the salespeson you purchased a camera, then you'd be likely to have a claim under this warranty. I'd probably also be looking for a booking for you in a nearby mental health centre, but that's a different issue.

Merchantable quality deems that the goods should be of a suitable quality, given the facts of the case: it was recently held that a person who bought an expensive suit, but found that it was heavily and excessively worn after being worn just the once, had a claim under these provisions. In Geoff's case, the question is one of, for a TV costing PP1900, is a 15 month lifespan reasonable? Note that it's been suggested by the repairer that the tv should be replaced, and hence I suspect that the term reasonable lifespan might come into consideration here.

Chris,

Your post has me slightly confused. You've used the term "implied warranties" here.

I’m using the word implied in the context of “convey the impression” Rather tongue in cheek

There are, in a typical sale such as the one of Geoff's here, a number of different warranties that will be applicable. The obvious one is the warranty provided by the manufacturer, often for the first 12 months of ownership. This is an express warranty. It may be supported by after sales or extended warranties, such as those we may buy at the point of sale.

Agreed

And then there's the law, which happens to impose a number of implied warranties upon every such contract of sale. Amongst those implied warranties there is one of fitness for purpose, and another that expresses merchantable quality.

I would say that 15 months usage would cover fitness of purpose and PLEEEEEZE are we now saying that Panasonic does not present merchantable quality?

Fitness of purpose intends that the goods are suitable for the task intended: you don't buy a camera to mow the lawn, for instance, and if you went to a store to buy some sort of tool for mowing the lawn, and upon the advice of the salespeson you purchased a camera, then you'd be likely to have a claim under this warranty. I'd probably also be looking for a booking for you in a nearby mental health centre, but that's a different issue.

See my point above

Merchantable quality deems that the goods should be of a suitable quality, given the facts of the case: it was recently held that a person who bought an expensive suit, but found that it was heavily and excessively worn after being worn just the once, had a claim under these provisions. In Geoff's case, the question is one of, for a TV costing PP1900, is a 15 month lifespan reasonable? Note that it's been suggested by the repairer that the tv should be replaced, and hence I suspect that the term reasonable lifespan might come into consideration here.[/quote]

The repairer has no point in law to express their thoughts above that of the manufacturer. And, yes, 15 months is not a excessive length of time. But then again, neither is 12 months warranty but at least they do give 12 months. Some products on the market have a warranty of 90 days (suspect) and 5 years (excellent).

sirhc55 wrote:I would say that 15 months usage would cover fitness of purpose and PLEEEEEZE are we now saying that Panasonic does not present merchantable quality?

The general flow of consumer law, these days, seems to be of the opinion that for an item of this value, 15 months' life may perhaps not be deemed to be adequate.

Let's put it in a different context: a D300 comes to the market with a similar value, and holds a position of being Nikon's flagship DX format camera, and with a target market of advanced amateurs and professional photographers. Excluding extreme usage characteristics, which can easily be determined, a fifteen month life span for this camera would probably be deemed to be unacceptable. Indeed, I am aware of one case where this was exactly the argument put forth, and the camera was repaired under the (then expired) warranty.

So a little update.
I emailed in my original scan receipt of purchase and the AWA service order last Tuesday.
Hadn't heard anything by Friday so I called them and they said that it usually takes 5-7 business days to respond to these 'out of warranty' issues. I asked them what the usual outcome was in these situations and they said that they never replace the tv's when out of warranty but offer a 'significant' discount on a new model. I told them (calmly but assertively) that I didn't think this was the 'right thing' by me, the customer. They went on to say that they couldn't offer any more information as yet because my claim hadn't been properly processed yet and I'd hear early this week. I asked them then on what they class as a 'significan't discount'. Their response was that they couldn't discuss it yet, and each case was different.

I called again this morning and was told that I would be receiving a call later today, or more likely tomorrow. The 'fun' is beginning. Ergh!

Seems like your avatar will be appropriate for dealing with this mob, lucky you've already pulled all your hair out. But I can see that hands on head expression coming in useful when dealing with such peanuts.

So I got a call from Panasonic this morning....
They have offered me a new replacement 42" plasma TV for $580.
I didn't like that offer and told them. I said that I was dissapointed that they wouldn't even consider replacing the TV for nothing, considering it was only JUST out of their warranty period. I went on to tell them that you don't purchase a nearly $2000 TV expecting it to last just 15 months. They (said) they sympathised but it wasn't company policy to replace a TV for nothing if it was/is out of warranty.
They then asked me what I thought was a reasonable price to pay for a brand new replacement TV with a RRP of $1799 (saw the same model in JB Hi Fi today for $1271!!). I thought about it and said $200 (as I knew they definitely weren't go to give me a free new model). They put me on hold and came back and said the very best they could do was $400 with 24months warranty. I have had some time to mull this over and have accepted their offer. It's not TOO bad I suppose and I don't have the energy at the moment to fight it out. $400 for a new full HD plasma TV isn't horrendous.

Thanks all for your input and suggestions. Much appreciated.

Geoff wrote:So I got a call from Panasonic this morning....
They have offered me a new replacement 42" plasma TV for $580.
I didn't like that offer and told them. I said that I was dissapointed that they wouldn't even consider replacing the TV for nothing, considering it was only JUST out of their warranty period. I went on to tell them that you don't purchase a nearly $2000 TV expecting it to last just 15 months. They (said) they sympathised but it wasn't company policy to replace a TV for nothing if it was/is out of warranty.
They then asked me what I thought was a reasonable price to pay for a brand new replacement TV with a RRP of $1799 (saw the same model in JB Hi Fi today for $1271!!). I thought about it and said $200 (as I knew they definitely weren't go to give me a free new model). They put me on hold and came back and said the very best they could do was $400 with 24months warranty. I have had some time to mull this over and have accepted their offer. It's not TOO bad I suppose and I don't have the energy at the moment to fight it out. $400 for a new full HD plasma TV isn't horrendous.

Thanks all for your input and suggestions. Much appreciated.

I know that some people will think that you should have kept wrangling them for a better offer (and I think so partly) but if you are satisfied with the result then it is fine by me. On the flipside....$400 with double warranty for a new unit is not a bad offer in my books (not taking in account the 15months that the last one survived). Could you get it fixed for less than 400? (I dont think so)

Geoff, their offer could be worse, at least you didn't get told to take a flying leap.

A semi acceptable result. I think you wouldn't have to pull your hair out after all. Perhaps time to change that avatar....

Too true Glen...too true.

Geoff,
In this day and age it sucks to be a consumer....

A reasonable result IMO.

Out of interest, was your original panel HD or Full-HD...and are they replacing your model with a Full-HD one (as indicated in your previous post) ?
If so, not a bad upgrade for $400 (if you want to look at it with a "glass-half-full" attitude)

You should have asked if they're also willing to offer an "extended warranty".....being that your last panel lasted the length of the warranty they are offering you now.

personally, i think the offer is pretty damn good. in a perfect world they'd replace it in a heartbeat but more often than not the manufacturer will happily roll the dice with consumers saying "bad luck, warranty is over so suck it up." and just bank on the fact that 99% of customers wont take it any further. Panasonic have come to the party and i reckon you did a great job handling this.

Thanks guys!
Our replacement TV was exactly the same as our old TV (just a newer version). i.e full HD. I think the new one has 4 HDMI things rather than 3...ha. All good.

Geoff,

I think this is a reasonable outcome. They've come quite a way towards addressing the situation, and that's the whole point.

My only observation is that, during the negotiation phase, one might also consider whether one is comfortable to again deal with the organisation in question. Their offer means that you are buying from them again, and that might be a point of contention. With the doubled warranty on the new item, I think that this alleviates my concerns in this realm somewhat, but that remains a point we all need to consider if and when we're placed into such a position ourselves.

2 points:

One, the replacement will not be the same as the old as it is a newer iteration

Two, to obtain a brand new TV for that costing is exceptional and something that they did not have to do

Third point - well done Geoff