The problem with the consumer law is that there is no definitive answer on what are reasonable exceptions of fault free life of a product is. They also know that even if their decision on an claim is disputed, they still don’t really need to follow through with any independent ruling for this individual claim. It also takes much time and effort to make a claim through State Agencies/Tribunals which may won’t do as the reward possible is less than the actual cost.
The retailers and manufacturers know this and will often dig their heals in and refuse to deal with out of manufacturer warranty periods, saying that at such time the customer takes on the full risk. But this should not be the case.
Examples like the Tataka airbags where in effect many vehicles (some manufactured in the early last decade) warranty on such products have been extended from say 3 years (which was the norm 15 years ago for new car warranty) to over 15 years due to a design/manufacturing fault associated with the airbags.
I have raised with Choice in the past that possibly more work should be done to determine what is considered, by a reasonable person, the expected life of products…including fault free periods. Such for common consumer products (white, electronics and other major purchases such as furniture, vehicles, caravans, water heating solar etc and common in Australian households) would allow consumers to challenge some of the nonsense coming from retailer and manufacturers. Such could also be used to dispute responses from retailers/manufacturers where products have been used normally and not abused.
Food for thought,
