Sony VGC-VS2 - Please come back

[Dags11]

Hi

My 2 day old vgc-vs2 failed, 4 weeks later it is still with Sony.

Asked Sony Style for a new vs2, refused me! Cost me £1750

Ever seen a grown man cry?

Dags11

[seb21__]

Your VAIO is 2 days old. And it's broken?

Hey, you have a W A R R A N T Y.

[Dags11]

A warranty, of course.....

Anyhow, Sony' pitch is that they do not have to give me a new one since 'we will fix it'.

I have asked repeatably for a new model, no luck.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Dags11

[kee-lo_]

Hi Dgas

Sadly they don't replace the whole machine, they feel that changing a component is best, and I can't help but agree with this. Sure they could fix it and put it back out on the market when you get a new one, but Sony would rather fit a new part to yours.

I do feel they could get a move on though!

[Twisted-Rizla]

You've got to look at in in a similar way to a new car. If the engine blows up the manufacturer will simply put a new one in rather than giving you a brand new car.

It's the same with PCs too I'm afraid:smileysad:

[rich912]

I would have thought that if it failed two days after purchase you would have every justification in claiming that it was inherently faulty and therefore entitled to a replacement.

Manufactures rely on the fact that most people can¿t be arsed to go through the small claims procedure.

Sale of Goods Act, Fact Sheet.

[Twisted-Rizla]

I agree with you Rich but even in the Small Claims Court you wouldn't have any more of a result.

Under consumer law goods not only have to be 'fit for purpose' but must also be of 'merchantable quality' .

In this instance Sony have, rightly, replaced the affected component and therefore have stayed within the law. If they had refused to repair the machine you would then have some legal recourse but they haven't and, presumably, when it comes back from Sony it should then be 'fit for purpose' and everyone's happy.

Well, almost...

[rich912]

I know very little about consumer law but I took this:

' If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)'

to mean that if the goods were inherently faulty (and I am not sure how Sony, or the retailer, could argue that they weren¿t in this case) then the consumer had the right choose between a repair or replacement.

[Twisted-Rizla]

'Inherant fault'. Very difficult o prove.

Like you said earlier who's going to be bothered taking it to the courts - more importantly, who can afford to?

[kee-lo_]

I agree with TR, anyway whos to say the new part won't make the VAIO good as new and never break down for years?