- This topic has 80 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Re: Indesit IDL500
Softus said;
gegsy wrote:
…Where is the litigation of “misrepresentation”.I have no idea what this sentence means.
gegsy wrote:
Its like buying a standard family car and taking it back saying that it was represented properly in the fact that it won’t beat a Maserati sports car.Do you mean misrepresented? Or improperly?
If so, then I don’t agree with your analogy. Car manufacturers clearly state specific performance figures, and nobody could rightfully expect a Mondeo, say, to outperform a Testerrossa in the way that you suggest.gegsy wrote:
I agree its not nice that the plastic disclours but its still doing the job it was intended to do.And yet it isn’t doing as good a job as millimog’s previous dishwasher. Moreover, this appliance is brand new, not ageing, and yet it no longer looks brand new, as a result of a design deficiency.
You have a right to disagree gegsy, but you’re not successfully explaining any factual or objective basis for such a difference of opinion.
Re: Indesit IDL500
Millymog said;
But it has developed a fault…the fault is that all the plastic turns pink and you arent warned of this!!
Ok, back to the car…what if the colour of the bonnet fades and you take it back and they say ALL OUR CARS FADE…would you be happy with that?
Re: Indesit IDL500
Kwatt said;
The debate that you are having is whether the goods sold were “fit for purpose” or not.
So, first define the purpose of the dishwasher, which is logically to clean dishes. If it does that then the cosmetic appearance is secondary, especially on such a minor component that is internal and not part of the actual look of the machine.
You must also give the retailer (as it is them that are responsible in law, not the manufacturer) time to make proper redress by way of a repair or replacement product. Pursuing any course of legal action without exhausting all reasonable methods first would be folly and ultimately be frowned upon by any court.
Basically, give them a chance to put it right first.
And, just to carry your analogy of the car further, just because one car goes through brake pads in 10,000 miles and your previous car’s lasted for 15,000 does not necessarily mean that there is something wrong, body parts falling off is a bit strong a comparison to make in this case.
K.
Re: Indesit IDL500
Softus said;
kwatt wrote:
The debate that you are having is whether the goods sold were “fit for purpose” or not.Er, no it isn’t. You’re the first person to use that phrase, and you’re the only person debating it.
kwatt wrote:
Pursuing any course of legal action without exhausting all reasonable methods first would be folly and ultimately be frowned upon by any court.Basically, give them a chance to put it right first.
Nobody has suggested going to court without writing to the retailer first. You give the impression of not having read the topic properly.
kwatt wrote:
And, just to carry your analogy of the car further, just because one car goes through brake pads in 10,000 miles and your previous car’s lasted for 15,000 does not necessarily mean that there is something wrong, body parts falling off is a bit strong a comparison to make in this case.It’s a dishwasher. The whole car analogy is pointless and fallacious.
Re: Indesit IDL500
Alex said;
millymog wrote:
Its the principle of the matter
Why should i pay over £200 for a product.
Its like buying a pair of curtains with a hole in the middle of them or they have discoloured. Great!!! they still work but you wouldnt settle for the flaws so why should i with the dishwasher?
£200, less than a weeks wages. Just cast your mind back. How long ago did you buy the previous machine, what did it cost you at the time, and how did it compare to your earnings at that time? Machines have cheapened rapidly in the last few years. We all want as a consumer society to be able to pay less, but we forget that these things are price driven and somewhere along the line there will be compromises. The quality of the plastics would be an example.So what can you do? reject the product, what would that achieve, another machine identical, same problem. So, upgrade perhaps, spend another £150 and then find you could have the same problem.
Regards the analogy with the curtains, yes if there was a hole, a retunable or reject situation, as you don’t need a spy hole. Again if discoloured as you bought the curtains for the aesthetic effect. Yet with the D/Washer it was bought to clean dishes; something which it seems to able to do, hence the removal of colouration from the goods. Plus the fact that the only time YOU see this is when you load/unload the product.
Honestly I cannot see what the fuss is about. A cleaning session with finish D/Washer cleaner will improve the appearance somewhat, and you could just rinse off any plates/casserole dishes that were used prior to loading.
Sorry if this does not seem to be a positive response, but it is something you will have to live with, and won’t affect your life in any shape or form.
Alex
Re: Indesit IDL500
Alex wrote:Honestly I cannot see what the fuss is about.
Here’s an idea – don’t post on a topic if you can’t see what the fuss is about.
Alex wrote:Sorry if this does not seem to be a positive response, but it is something you will have to live with, and won’t affect your life in any shape or form.
That’s for millimog to say, not you or anyone else.
Re: Indesit IDL500
softus wrote:Er, no it isn’t. You’re the first person to use that phrase, and you’re the only person debating it.
No, but under The Sale Of Goods Act the reason for rejecting any goods is on the grounds that they were not “fit for purpose”.
And we have changed cosmetic spares due to customer misuse, discolouration and all manners in the 20 years I’ve been doing this, it’s a fact of life I’m afraid that we all have to live with that some things do age. To get ageing or discolouration like this could be attributed to all sorts of factors. The detergents used, water supply, food residues can all have a bearing on the internals. Without examination and finding the cause for it it is a total folly to carte blanche attribute this solely down to a result of being “result of a design deficiency” as you stated (as I read this thread).
Without proper diagnosis of what the problem is and how it is being caused you simply cannot put the blame anywhere, either with the owner or manufacturer.
I’d also point out that the new dishwasher will not be the same as the old one by a long way, believe it or not technologies move on, I admit slowly in the whitegoods industry, but they do move. That means that the plastics used could be an entirely different compound to those used previously and most likely will be after so long. Also, as Alex quite rightly points out appliances have been massively cheapened and that logically means that the components used are not of equal quality to what you paid, in real terms, almost double for 10-15 years ago.
And that I’m afraid Millymog and Softus is the crux of it, if you buy cheap goods then you should not expect top notch quality or performance, just as with almost any other consumer product.
softus wrote:It’s a dishwasher. The whole car analogy is pointless and fallacious.
Correct.
K.
Re: Indesit IDL500
kwatt wrote:
softus wrote:
Er, no it isn’t. You’re the first person to use that phrase, and you’re the only person debating it.No, but under The Sale Of Goods Act the reason for rejecting any goods is on the grounds that they were not “fit for purpose”.
I take it that you mean “yes”, not “no”. Notwithstanding that, you’re the first person to mention the Sale of Goods Act on this topic – perhaps you can tell us why?kwatt wrote:And we have changed cosmetic spares due to customer misuse, discolouration and all manners in the 20 years I’ve been doing this, it’s a fact of life I’m afraid that we all have to live with that some things do age.
Here’s an idea – you live with it, and leave others to get on with making changes for the better.
kwatt wrote:To get ageing or discolouration like this could be attributed to all sorts of factors. The detergents used, water supply, food residues can all have a bearing on the internals. Without examination and finding the cause for it it is a total folly to carte blanche attribute this solely down to a result of being “result of a design deficiency” as you stated (as I read this thread).
Your curiously tangential opinion is noted.
kwatt wrote:Without proper diagnosis of what the problem is and how it is being caused you simply cannot put the blame anywhere, either with the owner or manufacturer.
I didn’t put blame anywhere. I recommended that the millimog tell the retailer that he is rejecting it.
kwatt wrote:I’d also point out that the new dishwasher will not be the same as the old one by a long way, believe it or not technologies move on, I admit slowly in the whitegoods industry, but they do move. That means that the plastics used could be an entirely different compound to those used previously and most likely will be after so long. Also, as Alex quite rightly points out appliances have been massively cheapened and that logically means that the components used are not of equal quality to what you paid, in real terms, almost double for 10-15 years ago.
Your point being….?
kwatt wrote:And that I’m afraid Millymog and Softus is the crux of it, if you buy cheap goods then you should not expect top notch quality or performance, just as with almost any other consumer product.
You’re easily frightened then.
Re: Indesit IDL500
Okay Softus, I get the impression you’re just out for an argument regardless of the subject by the looks of it. 🙄
If you look up consumer law you’d see that almost everything is governed by the Sale Of Goods Act, therefore, if you want to go that step further then you have to operate within that framework. I use it as a term of reference as I’ve seen quite a few cases like this over the years in this industry, probably far more than you have unless you are in the industry or happen to be a barrister. To that end, I’ve seen where problems like this go, how it goes and how they are resolved on many occasions, have you?
And here’s an idea for you, try not to get personal in a debate as it only cheapens the argument as well as the impression of the person that has to resort to such measures in an effort to make a point. If you have a point to make please make it and not infer that I could not care or have a desire to improve products as you have no idea of my intent.
From “Your curiously tangential opinion is noted. ” I will assume that you conced the point and admit that the comments are correct.
Rejecting the appliance on what grounds? What chance has been offered to put the product correct?
What would you say if you found out it was some cheap own-brand detergent reacting badly with the plastic that cause the issue, who’s at fault then? The retailer for selling the dishwasher? The customer for using a non-recommended brand? The supermarket chain (or whoever) for the poor qality detergent?
Frankly there’s too many variables in this debate and not enough fact to draw a conclusion.
I am not easily frightened by a debate at all but I note that you have no arguiment for the point made, only a short comment.
K.
Re: Indesit IDL500
kwatt wrote:Okay Softus, I get the impression you’re just out for an argument regardless of the subject by the looks of it. 🙄
You read a lot into what I’ve written.
kwatt wrote:If you look up consumer law you’d see that almost everything is governed by the Sale Of Goods Act, therefore, if you want to go that step further then you have to operate within that framework.
Not so. We have the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, and the Misrepresentation Act 1967, not to mention Contract Law and a plethora of common law points of precedent. BTW, what on earth does “almost everything” mean? Doesn’t it just mean “not everything”, but put in a very confusing way? Clearly you’re no lawyer.
kwatt wrote:I use it as a term of reference as I’ve seen quite a few cases like this over the years in this industry, probably far more than you have unless you are in the industry or happen to be a barrister. To that end, I’ve seen where problems like this go, how it goes and how they are resolved on many occasions, have you?
Yes. But I have no intention of entering into a competition about your experience and mine.
kwatt wrote:And here’s an idea for you, try not to get personal in a debate as it only cheapens the argument as well as the impression of the person that has to resort to such measures in an effort to make a point. If you have a point to make please make it and not infer that I could not care or have a desire to improve products as you have no idea of my intent.
Correct – I have no idea of your intent, and have never claimed otherwise. BTW, I don’t think you know the meaning of the word infer – you’re drawing all the inferences here.
kwatt wrote:From “Your curiously tangential opinion is noted. ” I will assume that you conced the point and admit that the comments are correct.
If you prefer to assume that I concede a point without seeing me concede it, then that it is your right, but this has no bearing on my thoughts or actions, and certainly is not the successful bait that you probably expected it to be.
kwatt wrote:Rejecting the appliance on what grounds? What chance has been offered to put the product correct?
I don’t know – why don’t you ask millymog instead?
kwatt wrote:What would you say if you found out it was some cheap own-brand detergent reacting badly with the plastic that cause the issue, who’s at fault then? The retailer for selling the dishwasher? The customer for using a non-recommended brand? The supermarket chain (or whoever) for the poor qality detergent?
This looks like an argumentative question, to which the answer is “I don’t know”. You’re introducing a hypothesis in an attempt to undermine my advice to millimog, but I believe that it is an unsuccessful attempt.
kwatt wrote:Frankly there’s too many variables in this debate and not enough fact to draw a conclusion.
IMHO, this isn’t actually a debate. And I dropped the name Frankly after all the trouble back in ’82.
kwatt wrote:I am not easily frightened by a debate at all but I note that you have no arguiment for the point made, only a short comment.
If you’re not frightened, then it’s unwise to state “I’m afraid”.
To answer the nub of your last posting, my underlying gripe with all of your postings (on this topic) is that you’ve diluted the earlier postings with some pretty unhelpful, and largely irrelevant, information. I use the term “information” loosely, but you’re really just presenting opinions, and negative ones at that. If you don’t want me to make a personal critique, then present facts instead of opinions.
Re: Indesit IDL500
softus wrote:If you don’t want me to make a personal critique, then present facts instead of opinions.
I did, based on many years of industry experience which you state that you do not wish to debate. Instead it would appear that you would rather just challenge the value of that experience.
It’s your opinion only as far as I’m concerned.
K.
Re: Indesit IDL500
kwatt wrote: unless you are in the industry or happen to be a barrister. .
Re: Indesit IDL500
Hello
Thanks for all your commentsFirstly this quote of “£200, less than a weeks wages.” Not in my household it isnt. Im a single mum so £200 is alot of money to me thats why i bought the thing out of a Catalogue
Anyway, everyone (well nearly) is going off too strongly on this argument
I know the dishwasher works and yes it cleans beautifully but, my argument is, YOU SHOULD BE INFORMED THAT THE DISHWASHER MAY DISCOLOUR AND THE HAVE THE CHOICE WHETHER OR NOT TO PURCHASE IT..that is it…end of!! 😕
Re: Indesit IDL500
millymog wrote:Hello
Thanks for all your commentsYou’re welcome millimog, and I apologise for referring to you incorrectly as “he”.
As I said earlier in the post, if you want to take the next steps down the litigious path, the first thing to do is write a letter to the retailer. If you want more help after that, and you can stomach the griping that goes on around it, then please post back here.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.