All you need to say is that both laptops have failed (a major fault under ACL), and had you known that they were like this you wouldn’t have bought them. Therefore you would like a refund.
3 Likes
I admire your optimism. So far I have been given exceptionally vague advice from JB and expect I will have to continue arguing in the next step. Wish me fortitude 
2 Likes
It depends on the issue as whether a refund can be demanded. The ACL just says you have a right to a repair, replacement, or refund.
The initial remedy was a replacement. And that is fair enough. That replacement has proven to be a dud.
I am sure a company like Microsoft is not in the business of making and selling millions of devices worldwide that have intrinsic faults.
You have been offered another replacement for the failed one. Why not just accept that and move on. Better luck with the next device.
2 Likes
or file a case with your state CAT (Civil Tribunal, essentially a small claims court). There is a filing fee and requirement to obtain an ASIC summary to confirm the business details (they phrase it as assuring you are ‘serving’ the correct persons at the correct address).
You should write a formal Letter of Complaint (search the term on the Community, Choice, or ACCC site) to JB directed to a responsible manager, as well as to the CEO… It should be written using the tools available but also as if you are a silk arguing in front of a magistrate who understands nothing.
State your purchase and expectations, state what went wrong and when and the ramifications, state your rights under the ACL citing chapter and verse, state clearly what you want and by when. Keep all communications in writing (eg email) or logged notes taken during each conversation, including who, where, substance of conversation, and any outcome or pushback.
4 Likes
As @meltam indicated, both. The replacement is considered the same product as the new one bought over 2 years ago. It being replaced isn’t all that relevant under the ACL as the consumer guarantee started when you originally purchased it.
The challenge you face is the one you currently have wasn’t stock of JB Hifi but of Microsoft. JB could say they have no responsibility as it isn’t their product and serial number doesn’t match stock they sold - they might be correct but don’t know how it would stack up legally under the ACL. JB might say that ‘the problem with a service was caused by the actions of someone other than the(ir) business’ which is an exclusion under the ACL. I have a feeling they might be within their rights to ask you to go to Microsoft to resolve. This is particularly the case as it was your choice to go to Microsoft to resolve the laptop last year and you may be seen as choosing Microsoft as the responsible party under the ACL.
If you had gone to JB with the initial laptop fault, their obligations under the ACL would be clearer as they would have to resolve issues with the product they sold/supplied.
I would be arguing as indicated above and assuming the original fault was the responsibility of Microsoft’s product, that a medium to high range laptop should last more than two years fault free. You can use the Choice link on expected product life as grounds to say one would expect the laptop to have a serviceable life of 6-8 years. Your laptop (s) has only lasted third/quarter of this assuming the one you have can’t be readily fixed. If it can’t be readily fixed, then it would be a major failure under the ACL. I expect it can be fixed and thus would be considered a minor fault under the ACL and s refund can’t be requested.
What are your rights? Microsoft to resolve this under the ACL. It appears that they are willing to as…
This could be seen as being reasonable as they have offered you a replacement which resolves the problem you have.
Laptops are designed to be easily repairable (unlike other devices such as some smart phones or other products which are welded casings) and repairing or providing a replacement could be seen as reasonable.
If you take it further, Microsoft could withdraw this offer and argue it was done as goodwill. They might try to also argue that a heavily used laptop might develop some faults after 2 or so years. Such is sort of indicated on the Choice website. A tribunal might not give you a better outcome. This is a risk you face taking it further.
3 Likes
As MS is already offering the customer a remedy that is above that of their warranty terms, and appears to be complying with the ACL, what possible claim would be worth pursuing in a tribunal or court?
3 Likes
There have been a number of posted outcomes of CATs where (esp a multinational business) did not attend and a default judgement was made against them.
As for refurbs, my post in this other topic is germane to how it can go.
It can be a roll of the dice.
3 Likes
A company’s warranty cannot override a consumer’s rights under the ACL. The “warranty” in this case, covered 30 days after replacement, meaning that the overall warranty is less than three years. The consensus disagrees with this as being reasonable for a laptop. The “warranty” is frankly spitting in the face of consumers.
A major fault also means a consumer is entitled to a refund - this is not the decision of the company, but of the consumer.
2 Likes
Among other criteria, a product with a major fault “has either one serious problem or several smaller problems that would stop someone buying the product if they knew about them beforehand”. I would never have purchased this product had I known it would catastrophically fail twice. Hence my right to receive a refund. The offer of a replacement in this scenario is not therefore goodwill, but an attempt to placate me from seeking my full entitlement.
1 Like
No, the consumer is entitled to a remedy according to the ACL.
That can be a repair, or a replacement, or a refund. Which one is largely up to the goods supplier, and up to circumstances.
If, for instance, the goods did not meet indicated specifications, then it would be not fit for purpose. No repair or replacement would remedy that, so yes, refund time.
But your laptop issue was a failure of a device that was fit for purpose. After all it did what it was supposed to do.
The first one lasted past the warranty period before by the sound of it got ‘bricked’ by a firmware change failure. Not a problem that cannot be repaired by competent technicians.
The replacement was a dud, as I said earlier. So if the offer is for another replacement, demand a new unit.
2 Likes
Yes that is a criteria under the ACL, but, it doesn’t apply to every fault or problem which occurs with products or services. If it did, no matter how minor the fault, a consumer could ask for a refund as they could argue they didn’t know the product would have a particular fault before buying it. This is not the purpose of this statement but is more about buying ‘lemon products’ where it is known a product has a fault and/or the same fault repeats over the like of the product.
Your laptop(s) possibly doesn’t currently meet this criteria. I haven’t been able to find reports online that 2020 model Surface Laptops are a ‘lemon’ product. There are reports of some hardware failures which are readily fixed (noting that about 25% of pre-2017 models had a hardware fault after 2 years and caused the US consumer reports to stop recommending them - more recent models haven’t had similar reports online ) Your laptop could possibly be fixed and the two faults you experienced aren’t the same and haven’t occurred on an ongoing basis.
The offer of a replacement is goodwill as the laptop could be sent away for repair (which is common practice for laptops) which might take time to be returned. This is particularly the case at the moment where there are known supply chain issues still resulting from Covid. Microsoft is offering a replacement to potentially minimise inconvenience to the customer. While the ACL may apply to the fault, the laptop is outside the manufacturer’s warranty and as @Gregr indicated in an earlier post, Microsoft have stepped outside their standard warranty conditions to try and resolve the issue you have. This is why it is goodwill.
Some questions, were you been happy with your Surface Laptop before the ‘brick’ fault occurred? I assume you possibly were. Do you see the fault as an opportunity to get an new(er) laptop since the one you have is getting a little age to it an may experience further problems in the future? If this is yes, this is unreasonable and taking advantage of the situation. If no, and you have been happy with the Surface Laptop, the offer by Microsoft to replace it seems reasonable.
Under the ACL, consumers are not to be left worse off as a result of a fault with a product. Microsoft is within their rights to offer a reconditioned laptop of the same age of the same specifications as a remedy under the ACL. If you don’t want a replacement, you may be able to negotiate to get the existing one repaired. If you do negotiate a repair, ask for timeframes for the laptops return to make sure you are happy with how long it will take.
2 Likes
