[Brad Lockyer]

When you buy a television, it’s reasonable to expect it will last at least a few years. In fact, according to consumer group CHOICE, a budget TV should last around five years, a mid-range TV around eight years and a high-end TV up to 11 years.

So when a Reddit user purchased a $1750 LG flat-screen LCD TV in June 2019, which then failed in September 2022, he was satisfied when LG replaced the TV with a new one.

His problems started when the replacement TV also failed within six months. Thinking he could get another replacement from LG he contacted the company. But their response stunned him.

“We have considered the Australian Consumer Law and given the age of the product; LG considers that the TV has been of acceptable quality for a reasonable period of time,” the company said in an email to the customer.

“As such the consumer guarantees no longer apply and LG does not believe that it is liable to provide you with a remedy under Australian Consumer Law.”

Comments under his post were encouraging him to take the matter to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) for arbitration. Under Australian consumer law, customers have right to choose either to have the item repaired or replaced if the item is damaged or doesn’t function as intended.

Would you be taking this matter further?

[KSS]

I absolutely would have taken this further. They cannot replace a three-year-old TV and then refuse to replace the replacement less than six months later. Six months life on a ‘new’ TV is well below the expectations of a reasonable person. I would also expect a new warranty to come with the new TV, not just a continuation of the old one, which, in any case, is likely to have already expired on a three-year-old TV.

[David Ryder]

I had a Sony 65 inch TV fail after two years. It came with the standard one year warranty but I expected a big brand name TV to last for several years at least. So I contacted Sony and the best they would do is sell me another one at a big discount. Unacceptable I told them.
So it went to the dump and I purchased a lesser known cheaper brand that came with a full three year warranty plus as a special offer the retailer added another two years for free making it a five year warranty.
And I only buy appliances now that come with a long warranty. Last year I scored a seven year warranty on a new refrigerator and five years on a washing machine both being mid range brands. The washing machine has already had two free service calls to fix minor faults under the warranty.
The standard one year warranty is not enough today because even the big brand products are poor quality and don’t last.

[Cosmo]

Our first TV a National Panasonic wes still working perfectly nearly 30 years later when digital was introduced. Unfortunatly when the National was made VCRs hadnt been invented so it had no ports for a set top box. By contast the smarts of our our current Samsung smart TV failed after four years.

My expensive camera failed a year after the two year warranty expired. The manufacturer refused to replace it because the warranty had expired. I pointed out that the Trade Practices Act stated that goods needed to be warranted for a ‘reasonable period of time’ and if they advertised this as a three year life camera, consumers would consider this an unreasonable life and would not buy it. The company asked me if
I would accept the latest upgraded model as fair settlement.

I belive if a $1750 TV was advertised as having a two year life, nobody would buy it because that is not a reasonable life. That should be the test.

[Author]

Posts