Re: Pixel policy
- From: "Agamemnon" <agamemnon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:55:57 -0000
"David Hearn" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:60op8aF1rkj6jU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Agamemnon wrote:
"David Hearn" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:60o8f1F1r7h9pU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Agamemnon wrote:
"tpow" <wd40@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_8ednZEfDsP9PjjanZ2dnUVZ8ternZ2d@xxxxxxxxx
is there one for new LCD TV'sUnless it is stated otherwise on the set, in the advertising and by the
I bought new Toshiba 40XF355 which was delivered on Friday and gained
one hot pixel over the weekend.
I have asked the suppliers customer service to comment.
I notice it every time now.
retailer before you make a purchase ALL LCD TV's are considered to be
ISO 13406-2 Class 1 compliant and therefore must not contain even a
single dead or lit pixel or sub pixel. That is what the ISO standard
states. In reality most screens sold are actually Class 2 compliant but
the manufactures and retailers deliberately hid that fact from you in
their literature and advertising and if that is the case you have the
right by the definition of the standard to expect a Class 1 screen.
If you have a dead pixel on your screen you have the right to a
replacement even if it turns out that the screen is only Class 2
compliant since unless you were told in clear terms that it was a Class
2 screen and could contain dead/lit pixels when you bought it you were
being sold a Class 1 screen by definition of the standard. If the
screen was not Class 1 then you have the right to your money back.
Can you provide evidence of this legal requirement?
I've not heard of ISO 13406-2 being a legal requirement of sale in the
EU. Whilst Wikipedia isn't an authoritative source, it makes no
reference to this - which considering how far reaching your suggested
legal requirement is - I would have thought it would have been mentioned
there. Particularly, the wiki article states:
"The application of this standard is a guideline; it is not mandatory."
and "As of 2007, most manufacturers specify their products as Pixel
Fault Class II."
Only at the back of the manual, not on the shelf. This will not stand up
in court. The ISO standard states a screen labelled is ISO 13406-2 is
Class 1 unless stated otherwise. If an online retailer states the screen
is compliant with ISO 13406-2 on their web page and does not clearly
state it is not Class 1 then the standard defines that it must be assumed
that the screen is Class 1. The retailers are therefore selling you a
Class 1 screen and if they provide you with one that is not Class 1
because it has defects then the are committing FRAUD!
The courts will not take kindly to that.
Okay, so the standard says that saying it meets ISO 13406-2 without
further clarification assumes Class 1 - fine.
Certainly sounds optional to me.
If the manufacturer states that it's Class 2 (in the manual which often
states all the detailed specifications, standards etc), then that should
be sufficient. Not every feature and specification needs to be
Nope. It has to be made clear to the customer every time the ISO 13406-2
standard is stated what class it is. If not the standard defines that the
screen must be Class 1.
Fine.
displayed to the purchaser and I would particularly be surprised if
Because of the definition of the standards the class of the screen must
be displayed to the purchaser otherwise he is being mislead into buying a
Class 1 screen, and that is fraud.
This is the point I cannot understand. If there is no mention of ISO
13406-2, then how can be mislead into purchasing a Class 1 screen, when
it's not being advertised or even stated as being ISO 13406-2 compliant?
As far as I know - and hence my original request for you to provide proof
(ie. a 3rd party independent source) - there is no legal requirement or
assumption that displays must be ISO 13406-2 compliant.
There might not be but a display advertised as compliant with ISO 13406-2
and no further disclaimer implies that it is Class 1 compliant according to
the standard, otherwise the retailer/supplier must specify otherwise. Almost
all web retailers say the displays comply with ISO 13406-2 but the do NOT
say Class 2 or any class at all on the page the display is advertised on.
This means that the display is Class 1 by default by definition of the
standard. If they end up supplying you with a monitor which is not Class 1
then they are committing fraud and violating the Trade Descriptions Act.
Everything I've seen so far (apart from yourself) hasn't even
suggested/hinted it is mandatory. As I said, the Wikipedia entry states
that it is not mandatory. If it actually is (in the EU) then might I
suggest you update the entry for it, including the necessary 3rd party
references to get the update accepted.
every ISO spec it meets must be displayed on the device, advertising and
by the retailer.
I would agree though that if the retailer, when asked, says it's a Class
1 display, then it should be a Class 1 display, and any proof otherwise
(eg. a dead pixel) would fit into the "Not fit for purpose" clause
(purpose being a Class 1, no dead pixel, display).
If the retailer does not make it clear to you he is selling you a screen
which HAS defects, then you have the right to your money back.
It's not a defect if the manufacturer states that it's normal production
tolerances.
The can't get away with saying that. You pay £3000 for a display and you
expect it not to contain dead or lit pixels. Unless they stated clearly at
the time the display is sold that the display WILL HAVE a specific number of
dead or lit pixels then you have the right to return the display and have a
full refund. If they say that you are taking a chanced that the display
might have some dead or lit pixels then they are asking you to gamble with
your money and that is illegal and also fraud.
If he says it MAY have defects he is asking you to gamble with your money
and you still have the right to your money back if you are not satisfied
with it because it has defects.
Again, what if the manufacturer says it's not a defect.
It won't stand up in court. When was the last a manufacture sold a display
directly to a member of the public in a shop and told you it WILL contain
dead or lit pixels? Unless you tell you the exact number of dead or lit
pixels and allow you to look at the display before buying you have the right
to take it back and get it replaced or your money refunded.
Look at it another way. Say you buy a shirt or a dress from Marks and
Spencer and when you take it out of the wrapping you find out that one of
the seams is frayed, Marks and Spencer will take if back even though the
manufactures might state that this is not a defect and a certain proportion
of their shirts or dresses might be frayed. Similarly if you by a shirt or a
dress for your partner and you find out it doesn't fit around the neck then
Marks and Spencer will take it back because it was sold under the term of
customer satisfaction.
So even if you are told it is Class 2, you can still have
your money back. You are not supposed to know what Class 2 means.
So you're required to display on the device that it's a Class 2 device,
but that isn't sufficient because the purchaser might not know what that
means? What about putting SVGA/XGA/WSXGA+ on displays? How many people
know what that means?
If its a standard and the device which is sold does not comply with it then
you have the right to your money back. If the advertise the display as ISO
13406-2 with no further disclaimed then the standard states that it is a
Class 1 monitor. If its not the retailer is committing fraud. Even if they
say it is Class 2 the customer is not supposed to know what that means. He
or she assumes that if it complies with a standard then it will be of good
quality. If your expectation on seining that is complient with a standard
was that it would be free of dead or lit pixels, is of what Class 2 actually
means, you have the right to your money back. It's the retailers duty to
make it clear to you at the time of purchase that the screen will contain
dead pixels and specify the exact amount and the locations, which is the
equivalent to letting you inspect the display in the shop or put on a shirt
in Marks and Spencer to see if it fits.
You have the right to expect a defect free screen under the Trading
Standards Act despite the retailers or the manufactures claims, because
of the 30 day satisfaction clause/cooling off period in the act.
Never heard of a universal 30 day cooling off period (nor actually the
No. It's a 7 day cooling of period under the Distance Selling Act and a 30
day statutory right to return defective or unfit goods and demand a refund.
After 30 days you have the right to a reasonable period of warranty,
irrespective of what the manufacturer says.
Trading Standards Act before). Can you provide more details?
D
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Pixel policy
- From: Mark
- Re: Pixel policy
- References:
- Pixel policy
- From: tpow
- Re: Pixel policy
- From: Agamemnon
- Re: Pixel policy
- From: David Hearn
- Re: Pixel policy
- From: Agamemnon
- Re: Pixel policy
- From: David Hearn
- Pixel policy
- Prev by Date: Re: OT Where did all the DAB car stereos go?
- Next by Date: Re: Pixel policy
- Previous by thread: Re: Pixel policy
- Next by thread: Re: Pixel policy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
