ACL Rights. JBL Speaker Stopped Working

nickbose on 17/06/2020 - 17:59
Last edited 17/06/2020 - 18:11 by 1 other user

I have a JBL Authentic L16 which I bought 3 years and 6 months ago at $1,115. It now stopped working - not turning on.
I contacted JBL (Harman). They dismissed my request for repair, stating warranty is over.

I respectfully pointed out that it's actually not up to them to say how long the warranty is. Rather a product should last a reasonable period of time as per ACL and I don't think 3.5 years is reasonable for a $1,115 speaker. The manager replied, asking me to have it assessed at one of their service agents. That would be a $70 assessment fee and it's about 40 minutes drive from my home.

Question is: Should I pay for this or should I ask Harman to bear the assessment cost?

Poll Options

  • 300
    I should pay
  • 62
    Harman should pay
Electrical & Electronics

Comments

    • x d on 18/06/2020 - 18:34

      Then it's people who argues for ACL protection that leads to companies raising the costs to cover for the warranty repairs outside of stipulated warranty terms. Next time you buy the product, it will be $1500 instead of $1115 that it should cost to cover the estimated claims for 2-3 yrs or whatever this item was meant to be under.

      If I buy a $300K car, am I expected to have the car not have one component fail for 70 years because it costs more than a $30K Kia which has a 7 year warranty?

      It's really stupid in my opinion. If a brand is unreliable then don't buy it anymore. Choose a brand that is, or buy extended warranty.

      • callum9999 on 18/06/2020 - 21:49

        And those pesky people insisting on paying staff the minimum wage are responsible for price increases too I suppose…

        No, a $300k car isn't expected to last for 70 years, and no one has said it is. But you're correct, it is a stupid point.

        • x d on 18/06/2020 - 22:42
          +4

          How in the heck in the world does the minimum wage have anything to do with price increase?

          Do you not understand how the cost of a product warranty and repair is built into its price?

          JBL could warrant the speakers for 10 years with replacement with a new item no matter what happens. Do you think it will then sell these speakers for maybe $1116 instead of $1115?

          The fact that the speakers are relative more expensive does not also mean that it should last longer than a cheaper speaker. Do you think a cheaper speaker would sound as good? If I pay for a really fast GPU card at $800, should it last 2-4 times as long as a slower $200 GPU card?

          It's Karens like these who will raise the price of products for others.

          Frankly I hope JBL will just keep on stalling the process.

          Buy another brand, or buy extended warranty.

          • stewy on 18/06/2020 - 23:56
            +2

            @x d: Maybe if JBL spent a few dollars per unit extra on engineering and building a quality unit then they wouldn't have to worry about products carking it within the time frame that ACL covers.

            Instead they engineer in planned obsolescence which saves them a little bit on manufacturing and ensures consumerism stays strong.

            My parents still have a Japanese stereo from the 80s sitting on top of some multi-disc CD player from the 90s and both are still going strong. Their first washing machine, microwave, dishwasher, TV, etc all by far outlasted everything else they bought after it.

            Appliances used to be made to last, where as now they are made to get to landfill as fast as the manufacturer can get away with.

            • [Deactivated] on 19/06/2020 - 08:02

              @stewy: Then their cost price would increase.

              The cost to manufacture is the baseline cost of a product. It is typically a fraction of the RRP. Perhaps 10% of it. The rest is marketing, logistics, storage, profit margin of several middlemen, cost of retail…

              Also when manufacturing, the product is built to a budget. If every competitor has a similar offering at $1000, the starting point of the design is to build a speaker than will retail at that price. It's not as simple as "swap out the cheap part".

              If you want an item that is more likely to last longer and thus have a longer warranty, the cost may very well double. This is of course not a problem on its own as there are buyers at this price point but then again, within that group of buyers may be someone who expect a reasonable implied warranty of 7 years.

              Where does it end?

              • callum9999 on 19/06/2020 - 12:00
                +1

                @[Deactivated]: Anyone who makes the "where does it end" argument about anything automatically loses all credibility in my book…

                Firstly, there doesn't need to be a defined "end point" of consumer protection. In fact, the current method of having an ambiguous law is great for the manufacturers you're so obsessed with protecting - very few people actually fight for their rights.

                If there does need to be an end point, then it will simply be discussed and defined as reasonable, exactly the same as any other law is.

                There is very rarely two distinct options in life, there is almost always a spectrum between them. It's amusing to me how so many people are seemingly able to cope with that just fine in every other aspect of their life, then suddenly can't if the average point on the spectrum starts moving away from their preference…

                • [Deactivated] on 19/06/2020 - 12:41
                  -1

                  @callum9999:

                  ambiguous law is great for the manufacturers you're so obsessed with protecting - very few people actually fight for their rights.

                  No. It is not great for the manufacturer as what you're describing - people not exercising their rights - has nothing to do with ambiguity. If the manufacturer explicitly warrants a product unconditionally and forever, a consumer that doesn't exercise their right still does not have an impact as they simply aren't even a consideration.

                  If there does need to be an end point, then it will simply be discussed and defined as reasonable, exactly the same as any other law is.

                  And that's where this law fails. Laws are not infallible and some are ambiguous. This is a perfect example of an ambiguous law as it used "reasonable" as a "definition".

                  There is one way to have no ambiguity - defining a warranty period.

                  Anyone who makes the "where does it end" argument about anything automatically loses all credibility in my book…

                  I'm not sure why that would bother you so. If I said you need to contribute and you say you do, the next question would be how much? If I said more, you will say how much more.

                  Hence why the expression - where does it end?

                  • callum9999 on 19/06/2020 - 13:56

                    @[Deactivated]: It has EVERYTHING to do with ambiguity. If the consumer legislation said that products need to last for 5 years, everyone would claim for any breakdown within 5 years. The fact it says "the duration that a reasonable person would expect" means that people default to assuming that the warranty is all that matters. People therefore don't claim when they could have, ergo manufacturers (or more accurately I believe, retailers) benefit.

                    I'm well aware it's an ambiguous law, hence why I keep calling it that. I have no idea why you decided to tell me that? Defining a warranty period would indeed remove that ambiguity - THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE. Manufacturer (or retailer) warranties are ONLY in addition to consumer protection and cannot supersede them.

                    It bothers me because it's ludicrous and dishonest. Perhaps you're not aware of how that phrase is used, but it actually means "if we accept this line of argument then it's conceivable that you'd ask for more - we therefore shouldn't allow any change at all". If you're just genuinely asking for the end point to be defined - fair enough. The only issue I'd have with that is the practicality.

            • Zephyrus on 19/06/2020 - 09:25
              +2

              @stewy: No appliance manufacturer does "planned obsolescence". I work for one, and have colleagues come from others and not once has anyone even mentioned it. It's all cost cutting, but that doesn't really affect reliability.

              I've also worked for a company making equipment that would run for 30 years in an in industrial environment. If it was a consumer good, you'd pay $500-$1000 for it, we were selling for around $15k. I think you might change your mind when your blender costs $2000 instead of $100.

              • 91rs on 19/06/2020 - 10:08

                @Zephyrus: Especially on a site based around people who's life's goals are to pay as little as possible for everything they buy.
                People won't pay the money, everyone wants cheap cheap cheap.

              • x d on 19/06/2020 - 18:05

                @Zephyrus: Exactly, I wonder if some of the characters on here would try to claim ACL protection on a failed WD green HDD after 2 and a half years if they used it in a NAS, just because a lot of folks with a WD Red HDD is still running after 5 yrs or more!!!

          • TilacVIP on 19/06/2020 - 08:23

            @x d: Well said, seems that fool doesn't.

            • callum9999 on 19/06/2020 - 12:03
              +1

              @TilacVIP: Yawn. I suggest you actually read the legislation before pronouncing I'm a fool…

              As I've said before, you can whinge about how it shouldn't be the case all you want, however, it IRREFUTABLY is.

          • callum9999 on 19/06/2020 - 11:51
            +1

            @x d: It's very basic common sense… If employers pay less to their staff (and many absolutely would - it's why minimum wage exists) then the product will be cheaper.

            Do you not understand the cost of staff is built into it's price?

            The price absolutely does factor in to this, just not to the extent of your absurd example of a 70 year warranty… But yes, I'd absolutely support forcing companies to drastically improve the lifecycle of goods - especially in your bizarre example where it would result in a 0.1% price increase (who on earth would turn down an 8 year extended warranty on an expensive electrical device for $1!?). It's wasteful and damaging to the environment.

            I suggest you read some judgements on this matter. I couldn't care less if you simply don't like it (which seems to be the only argument you're all giving, completely oblivious to consumer law), it's how this country operates.

            • x d on 19/06/2020 - 18:45

              @callum9999: Ok I will play.

              "Do you not understand the cost of staff is built into it's price?" - of course I do. How in the world does it affect my argument that those who claims ACL on an item out of warranty will increase the price of the product in the future if companies are forced to cover for the expenses over and above what they planned initially with the published warranty? Also your original statement reads "And those pesky people insisting on paying staff the minimum wage are responsible for price increases too I suppose…". The logic there astounds me. If the pesky people insist on paying staff minimum wage instead of, it therefore leads to low prices and not price increase!

              "absurd example of a 70 year warranty" - hello, it's called exaggeration (is common sense present?). Lets say I exaggerate less - how do you think it would go if you claim a new engine 15 years into a 5 yr warranted $300K luxury car, after driving it for say 250000 kms? I also see that you failed to answer my question "If I pay for a really fast GPU card at $800, should it last 2-4 times as long as a slower $200 GPU card?"

              "I'd absolutely support forcing companies to drastically improve the lifecycle of goods - especially in your bizarre example where it would result in a 0.1% price increase (who on earth would turn down an 8 year extended warranty on an expensive electrical device for $1!?)" - did I claim that it would increase the price by 0.1% if the warranty is increased to 8 yrs? No! As somebody mentioned nearby, would you pay for a blender if it cost $2000 instead of $100 if it is guaranteed to work for 30 yrs instead of 3? I would hardly think so.

              I am aware of the existence of consumer law. It doesn't mean that it is right as it WILL lead to higher future buy prices.

              If a product is of poor quality, then buy a different brand, or buy extended warranty…

              • callum9999 on 19/06/2020 - 19:04
                +1

                @x d: Well, you say that, but you did just say "How in the heck in the world does the minimum wage have anything to do with price increase?". It's relevant to your argument because it establishes that some things are more important than getting the cheapest product possible. And I think it's beyond obvious that I was talking about them paying HIGHER wages because of the minimum wage (which therefore INCREASES the cost) - the irony of you whinging about "logic"…

                I know you were exaggerating… If your argument relies on an exaggeration then it's irrelevant. The question was ignored because it seemed to be the same thing as your weird exaggeration but no, price is not directly proportional to longevity. Nor has anyone said it is. In general a higher priced product should last longer - with something like a graphics card (where you're not paying for higher quality, you're paying for more power) I would say that's pretty minimal.

                Another direct quote (you know everyone can still see your original posts, right?): "JBL could warrant the speakers for 10 years with replacement with a new item no matter what happens. Do you think it will then sell these speakers for maybe $1116 instead of $1115?". No I would not spend 20x the price on a blender. Why can you not make a coherent argument without pointless exaggerations?

                You're quite right - I either misread your post or mixed you up with someone else. My apologies for acting like you're unaware of consumer law.

                The whole point of having consumer legislation is that you aren't necessarily going to know whether the product is poor quality or not. If it was obvious (and remember, a huge proportion of the country aren't going to be as smart as you are) then I don't think we would have this legislation at all.

                • x d on 19/06/2020 - 20:30

                  @callum9999: I like to use quote as it is a faster way to address points of arguments directly and logically.

                  "where you're not paying for higher quality, you're paying for more power" - thank you for agreeing with me that the $1115 for the speakers may be because it sounded and looked better than a set of $100 speakers, so that the warranty duration for it should be the same as the $100 speakers, and that the claim that it didn't last long enough should be rejected.

                  Consumer legislation in fact may hurt consumers as in the future, buyers may no longer be able to buy these JBL speakers for $1115, as the company will need to pass on unanticipated cost of the claims. Who's to say then that the same speakers bought at $1115 won't last 5 yrs or more for different buyers in different use environment?

                  I think I might also leave the arguments on "logic" for third parties to decide…

                  • callum9999 on 19/06/2020 - 23:04
                    +1

                    @x d: Yawn. Consumer legislation like this has been around for decades. You're just like the people who incessantly bang on about how having a minimum wage is going to make everything too expensive and make companies collapse - "it's been around for decades and hasn't caused major problems yet, but just you wait!".

                    I didn't agree with that whatsoever. Why am I bothering… I'd get more sense talking to a brick wall.

                    • x d on 20/06/2020 - 08:42

                      @callum9999: There are writings on this thread that people have had TVs refunded after 7-8 yrs. Do you think companies already put aside money for this and if not who do you think is funding the cost of producing those TVs, the fairy godmother?

                      I see claimning ACL in these scenarios being similar to a price error. Let's say if JBL mistakenly place on their website these speakers for $1.50 and 200,000 people placed the order (and please don't use the exaggeration card). If the law allows people to proceed with the claim, do you think that's right? If then you don't think the consumer will eventually indirectly bears the cost of the loss, then I think you would have to be living in Lalaland.

                      I think we will agree to disagree on the philosophy of ACL…

                      PS. Re reading the posts, I can see your rationale in the argument about wage and RISING minimum wage affecting the cost. I still don't see how that is related to my points in ACL claims however. In any case the reason perhaps I missed your logic is because I personally wouldn't be interested in paying staff minimal wage, but rather appropriate wage that would entice increased productivity and thus company profit (though I don't claim to have any experience in the workings of a large corporation).

      • trapper on 19/06/2020 - 00:40
        +3

        Companies shouldn't be producing or selling low quality items that die earlier than would reasonably be expected.

        I wouldn't pay $1,115 for a speaker that I expected to die in three and a half years.

        There is no reason for electronic goods like this to die before they are obsolete and on the verge - and still in working order.

      • ProlapsedHeinous on 19/06/2020 - 03:03

        Then some may argue the original price wasn't the price is should have been in the first case then? based on our laws.

    • Pratty on 19/06/2020 - 20:51
      +2

      I agree with you. A speaker of that value should last longer than three years (in my “reasonable” opinion). It should be assessed for free in the first instance. If it’s deemed OPs fault, no leg to stand on and inspection charge should apply. If manufacturer fault, should be fixed free of charge. Manufacturer warranty does not replace rights under ACL.

      • Ezekiel2320 on 20/06/2020 - 18:48
        +2

        I'm honestly shocked at the number of OzBargainers that don't know/understand/agree with Australian Consumer Law. For a bunch of penny pinchers I'm surprised that these people would rather buy a new X every 13 months rather than chase up their consumer guarantees (that are often spouted as the cause for the Australia Tax)

  • BBear53 on 17/06/2020 - 19:17
    +7

    For expensive speakers I'd expect a longer life out of them. Seeing the relatively short warranty period would have put me off buying them in the first place though. Doesn't seem very good when the company doesn't even back their product for a decent amount of time.

    • dizzle on 17/06/2020 - 20:17

      Almost every brand of speakers has a 1-2 year manufacturers warranty. Most TVs have a 1 yr manufacturers warranty - Those that have longer warranties tend to be the brands I don't trust as much (ie not not the big 4 - Sony/Panasonic/LG/Samsung).

      The cheap brands tend to have longer warranties. Because they make them so cheap they can afford to replace them several times. Better brands put more money into quality so it gets expensive to make promises.

      I'm not saying they aren't still covered by ACL though.

      • YTW on 18/06/2020 - 17:12
        +3

        Wouldn't be expensive to make promises if the quality was actually there…if they're putting more money into quality then there should be a much lower failure rate.

      • stewy on 19/06/2020 - 00:00

        The cheaper and not as highly regarded brands offer longer warranties as a means of giving consumers more confidence to buy their products.

        Samsung offered a decent warranty early on in the LCD era, but once they built their brand reputation up they cut back on their warranty.

  • contrafibularities on 17/06/2020 - 19:52
    +9

    OP has a point. The consumer guarantees operate over and above the express warranty that comes with the product. Of course an expensive speaker should last longer than 3.5years, so one could argue it didn’t meet the guarantee as to acceptable quality under s54 of the Australian Consumer Law. The ACL specifically says a product had to be free from defects and durable. In assessing these matters regard needs to be had to the nature and price of the goods amongst other things.
    So the only challenge is proving that the product has stopped working because of a defect or flaw in the product rather than misuse. In the circumstances you should explain to them that they should assess it for free because of the operation of s54. However it’s a negotiation and you should play on their reputation “surely these things are meant to last longer than 3.5 yrs”. If that doesn’t work you can take it to an independent repairer pay for their assessment of the fault and take it back and insist on a repair if the independent report shows the product had a fault. After that it’s off to small claims. ( note this does not constitute legal advice) cheers

    • Gronk on 17/06/2020 - 21:03
      -2

      I think it's fair to argue that if OP got 3.5 years usage from the speaker it was free from defects at the point of sale, so on to the point around durability.

      Here's a quick link to JBL's warranty info.

      There's a big difference between the warranty offered for active speakers vs passive, OP's falls into the active category.

      • contrafibularities on 17/06/2020 - 21:54

        I’m no expert on speakers but not all defects are immediately obvious and in some products may develop over time. As to different warranty periods I don’t know the difference between active and passive speakers but the warranty period doesn’t really matter, I note for example that in NZ they offer 1 year on both types of speakers.
        The question is what would an ordinary consumer expect to be the working life of such a product and I’m sure no one would have bought one thinking it could suffer a major failure after 3.5 years. The only challenge is proving it wasn’t misuse.

        • 91rs on 19/06/2020 - 10:39

          Sure problems can occur over time, heat and use can kill or shorten the viable life of electronics.
          Devices stuffed in tight cabinets where they dont breath or with no ventilation will impact the lifespan, that's not a warranty issue, that's an issue with the environment its in. That shouldn't be an ACL issue as its improper use which has shortened the life span.
          Anything major or ELF trends often end with recalls on products where something has been identified that would unexpectedly shorten the lifespan, this does not seem to be the case, this is just an unlucky product failure.

          Active speaker = powered, it has a built in amplifier that will run the speaker so you can get volume and only need a source (signal), requires power from an AC outlet or internal battery otherwise it will not run or produce output.

          Passive speaker = unpowered, no power input or internal battery, the type that needs to be driven by an amplifier or a device, headphones for example are passive, many bookshelf speakers that would connect via wire to a main component that had a CD/Tape/Receiver in them as a set.

          The second is a very simple product, a passive speaker in a home on a shelf should last much longer due to simplicity than something much more complicated involving more parts and variables.

        • Gronk on 20/06/2020 - 12:18
          +1

          and in some products may develop over time

          Are you familiar with the concept of wear and tear?

          • contrafibularities on 20/06/2020 - 14:31

            @Gronk: Yes am familiar with the concept of wear and tear that is a different issue. According to the OP the product failed completely that’s unlikely to be wear and tear, a button getting stuck for sure or a headphone jack not working ok but the whole thing going kaput unlikely. Of course none of us have assessed the product and we don’t know if it’s been misused that of course is a possibility. However I have many speakers at home the oldest are 25 years old and going strong. I’ve got 10 year Sonos speakers that if they had failed after 3.5 years I would be having a very serious conversation with Sonos about. The fact is if a product should be expected to be working after the contractual warranty runs out then the retailer should repair or replace it. Simples.

            • Gronk on 20/06/2020 - 17:14

              @contrafibularities:

              Yes am familiar with the concept of wear and tear that is a different issue

              No it's not, but we can agree to disagree on that point because I see no point in getting involved in a back and forth with someone who's already admitted they don't know the difference between an active and passive speaker.

              that’s unlikely to be wear and tear
              but the whole thing going kaput unlikely

              I'd argue that only a qualified professional should make that determination, not necessarily a rep from Bose, just someone who possesses relevant domain knowledge and can provide an impartial opinion.

              • contrafibularities on 20/06/2020 - 20:49
                -2

                @Gronk: Agree and I see no point going back and forth with someone who doesn’t understand the basics of Australian Consumer Law.

    • [Deactivated] on 18/06/2020 - 23:04
      -1

      Of course an expensive speaker should last longer than 3.5years

      Then why on earth was someone willing to part with their cash for said item when the expressed warranty was lower than expected?

  • greyeye on 18/06/2020 - 07:43
    +9

    Wait, WHAT? $1150 speak is an expensive speaker?
    Expensive speakers are $10,000+, mid-range ones would be somewhere around $3,000 or $4,000

    no, I'm not being sarcastic or silly, ppl's expectation seems to be just way off.

    • SetsunaFSeiei on 18/06/2020 - 09:11
      +6

      Thats a lot of money for me and most people…

      • dizzle on 18/06/2020 - 10:36
        +9

        $50k for a car is a lot of money for me and for most people. It doesn't stop it being a mid-range car.

        If you're looking at BT portable speakers - $100 would be low end, $300-500 would be mid range, $1000 would be high end.

        If you're looking at quality speakers, $10,000 is high end

        • SetsunaFSeiei on 18/06/2020 - 11:13

          It's all relative

        • greyeye on 19/06/2020 - 07:57

          but we only get 7 yrs max from car manufactures.
          how come we don't cry out for such a short warranty on such $50k item?

          Should this line be a law?
          "as a reasonable person, I want 5 years warranty for every $1000 I spend"
          then we need to scream at vehicle manufactures for not giving us 250 years warranty.

        • Kamsi on 19/06/2020 - 17:23

          Yeah I wish Hyundai can replace my Auto transmission free even though my car is just out of warranty.

      • 91rs on 18/06/2020 - 18:15
        +2

        Possibly, but the same people I know who'd bitch about an issue like this would also blow 5-10k a year in cigarettes and not even question the cost and unleash hell on you if you question their spend on said vice!

    • 91rs on 18/06/2020 - 18:13
      +1

      Was waiting to see if someone else chimed in with this. $1k is not in the expensive range for speakers especially for home audio.
      Its also not just a speaker, Its a soundbar with amp, BT, mp3 and other inputs for playback of audio. So again its cheap for the field it sits in.
      While its disappointing its not the retailer or Harmons issue outside of warranty by almost the period they provide warranty for.
      I'd pay the $70 and have it checked out. If its <$200 i'd have it repaired or just move on to other gear, possible stand alone components so if something goes down you don't have to scrap the whole thing and start over again.

      By the sounds of it, its power supply or something not far off thats got an issue or died, could be a cheap easy fix. I had a similar issue on a $4k Yamaha amplifier after 9-10 years. For the $250 odd dollars it cost to repair it was worth it.

      • [Deactivated] on 18/06/2020 - 23:07
        +1

        The price of the product shouldn't matter.

        If a $100 product advertised a ten year warranty, I'd be in full support of anyone making a claim.,

        Neither the manufacturer nor the consumer are being held at gun point to set a warranty period nor purchase the product.

        • greyeye on 20/06/2020 - 07:31

          I'm looking for a new power garden tool. Some vendors are claiming 5 yr warranty on their equipment when many offer only 2.
          But when you search for the reviews, you find that this particular vendor has 1 repairer which takes months to repair anything and support in AUS is terrible.
          So… is a warranty worth what's written in the paper?

          BTW, these are $500 - $1000 equipment. (trimmer, lawn mower, etc)
          I'm kinda exhausted every time I purchase something decent these days.

          You need to review not only the features, vendor's customer support network, how they handle warranty requests, reliability and so on.
          We all want a bargain but spending days just to validate vendors worthless claims is… Not sure who is losing here, consumer as a general?

          • [Deactivated] on 20/06/2020 - 08:47

            @greyeye: If a vendor is making frivolous claims, we as consumers should hold it against them.

            It will do one of two things.

            1. More people buying the item with better warranty will make the other brands improve their offering.

            2. Brands making frivolous claims will be perpetually dealing with warranty liability and would think twice before making bold claims.

            I love clearly defined expectations.

  • User2049 on 18/06/2020 - 08:20
    +4

    I'm with OP here the ACL clearly states that products should last a reasonable amount of time I would say 4-5 years.

    You will need to contact the ACCC, and the NSW something ombudsmen and complain, this will make them change their mind quickly.

    Did you purchase direct from JBL?

    • [Deactivated] on 18/06/2020 - 08:43
      +10

      ACL clearly states that products should last a reasonable amount of time whatever I dictate, I would say 4-5 years.

      FTFY

  • SetsunaFSeiei on 18/06/2020 - 09:08
    +5

    OP is 100% correct and should push this with ACL after failing to get anywhere with the manufacturer. This short 5 min vid from abc show the checkout is very thorough https://youtu.be/uE8BB-ioNRw . They explain durability can even be measured in decades. Corporations will obviously add a warranty on everything but it is inconsequential in light of your statutory rights provided by the govt, and put there as a means to dissuade consumers from coming back. Speakers should last AGES… Amps, subwoofers and speakers OFTEN last 10 years and more…

  • SetsunaFSeiei on 18/06/2020 - 09:10
    +2

    And according to that video, the manufacturer has to pay YOUR (reasonable) costs to get it there to be assessed…

  • User2049 on 18/06/2020 - 09:36
    +1

    Find who you need to contact here: https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-protection/where-…

  • ozbjunkie on 18/06/2020 - 11:16
    +3

    I'd pay for the assessment, but only because I'd understand the manufacturer would be suspicious regarding user error over the 3.5 year time span.

    If it is anything other than clear damage in your end, I'd be expecting a refurbished or heavily discounted new product.

    $70 inspection isn't too bad. 40min drive each way is more of an issue if you're time poor. Good luck, let us know how goes. I have lots of brand loyalty to JBL and am interested to hear how they resolve your issue. $1000+ for a speaker is nothing to sneeze at, and speakers are pretty simple devices, although Bluetooth ones are less so, obviously.

  • holdenmg on 18/06/2020 - 11:41
    +1

    or you could use the Troubleshoot from the Service Manual before paying anyone anything…
    https://servlib.com/jbl/audio/authentics-l16.html?start=11

  • Deals For Days on 18/06/2020 - 15:14

    I've had this issue with a Dell Computer. 1 year warranty from the Microsoft Store. Broke after 1 year (GPU issues). Because it was an expensive machine (XPS) store clerk agreed I was entiteled for a free repair/replacement given, as Aus Consumeer Law guarantees, price of the product should reflect duarbility and expectations for longievity.

    Now, 3.5 years for a speaker? I don't know. This XPS cost me $2,700 and the store clerk suggested the effective free warranty period was only 2 years (1 warranty + 1 from aus consumer law). So I think 3.5 years may be a bit of a stretch. That being said, I would do the assesment, and if it's a major issue and they quote anything over a couple hundred to fix, that's when you start pulling out the Aus Consumer rights card with the expectation of the product for the price etc. etc.

  • garanon on 18/06/2020 - 15:53
    +2

    You're totally in the right OP. It's completely reasonable that you expect it to be replaced or fixed and I would too. $1,000+ on speakers should last me well over 3.5 years, and the ACL will agree with you. You should offer to drive the 40 minutes for a free assessment. Do not spend money on them assessing their own faulty product. If they can't reach a resolution from you offering to drive it in for a free assessment, ask the Ombudsman's opinion.

  • ode1online on 18/06/2020 - 15:59

    After three years I think its reasonable to expect a cost to have it inspected if its faulty.
    However If the Cost of repair is prohibitive or the Item cannot be repaired then you have an argument with JBL and Harvey Norman for a replacement.

  • solidussnake on 18/06/2020 - 17:15
    +2

    Did you buy it directly through JBL or through a retailer? If through a retailer you need to go through them and push your ACL rights

    • 91rs on 18/06/2020 - 18:26

      No leave the poor retailer out of it, go straight to JBL/Harmon.
      Why ruin someone else's day over this matter!

      • solidussnake on 19/06/2020 - 06:20
        +1

        Because if it was purchased through the retailer they should handle it… my 5 Years selling Tvs at JB we always handled the warranties and customers ACL rights ! I've seen a Samsung that was 7 years out of warranty that had a full refund of $3.5k back so probably wouldn't hurt to ask them ?

        • 91rs on 19/06/2020 - 10:12
          -2

          If they're nice about it. Usually people aren't nice about it.
          Hence the don't ruin some poor retail worker day, they cop enough from people. Anything outside of warranty and extended warranty in my view people should take up with the distributor or company who supplies the item, anything ACL via the retailer is just the retailer trying to help a customer out and retain them so they're not burnt by the product.

        • Pratty on 19/06/2020 - 20:54

          Very big difference in corporate and consumer law ethos between Harvey and JB.

  • Jimmycfc on 18/06/2020 - 17:24
    -1

    Most computers have 3 year warranty…

  • Drakesy on 18/06/2020 - 17:37

    I'm a firm believer that a $1,000+ speaker should last 3.5+ years, however as the warranty has run out, you paying for it to get inspected seems the correct solution, with the repair to be at JBL's cost (if its a failure of their components, which more than likely it will be given its a hifi system, and a high end one of that).

    Reviews for it though makes it sound like an expensive, albeit nice looking, paperweight.

  • kiwimex on 18/06/2020 - 17:53
    +4

    OP should be able to get the speaker, repaired at no cost, an item costing $1000 plus should last more than 3.5 years. doesn't matter if the warranty is 1 or 2 years.

    Example: my 4.5 year old 55" flat screen crapped out and I called LG service department, they said sry your TV is out of warranty, I basically said under ACL this product should last a lot longer, maybe 6-7 years. They replied hang on a minute then a supervisor came on the line took my details and the TV was repair in home with in a week. (main board replaced)

    • 91rs on 18/06/2020 - 18:25
      +2

      How do we know that OPs BT Speaker is a failure of hardware and not the they have kids who poured a drink down the back of it?
      The amount of times I've had a Karen kick off at me over a failed product which ends up being full of coffee or had other damage done to it which is clearly non-warranty would amaze you. People think yelling and screaming and threatening ACL and whatever else will get them exactly what they want no questions.
      Now I'm not saying that IS the case but we're all taking the word of someone who wants something for fixed for free without any doubt that its a product failure which would be a regular warranty repair.
      Just a thought.

      • dizzle on 18/06/2020 - 21:05
        +3

        Customer comes in with a portable speakers with ants falling out of it:
        "Are you saying ants aren't covered by warranty?"
        "Yes"
        "Well I read a tonne of websites saying that the glue you use attracts ants"
        I humour the customer by checking on the web…There's one web forum from 6 years before saying that a speaker had ants in it.
        "we are not oging to replace your speaker"
        "I'm going to ACCC"

        • 91rs on 18/06/2020 - 21:11

          Haha, search for cockroaches in microwaves, very common and not warranty. Many like the warmth and will kill or short out PCBs.

  • Nebos on 18/06/2020 - 17:55
    +3

    Just use the demand letter off the ACCC website and take it from there. I think you're correct in saying they should assess. A good compromise would be they supply parts free you pay for labour.

    Just use the template i have always had a good outcome with it.

    https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/complaints-problems/write-…

  • Kranbone on 18/06/2020 - 18:12
    +3

    Pay for the assessment first so the problem can be diagnosed. If diagnosed as a manufacturing defect, then seek the cost of the assessment and a repair from the manufacturer.

    • capslock janitor on 18/06/2020 - 23:11
      -1

      And if not?

      • Kranbone on 19/06/2020 - 09:23
        +2

        And if it's not a manufacturing defect but rather an environmental issue which has caused the fault (surge, etc) then why should the manufacturer pay?

  • TRANCE on 18/06/2020 - 18:17

    I have a set of Hivi M3AMKiii 3 way active speakers and they punch way above their price tag, and have lasted 10 years so far, cost me 1.2k. Ribbon tweeters, oversize dome midrange, carbon kevlar woofers, thick hardwood enclosure, solid class AB electronics.

  • 91rs on 18/06/2020 - 18:19
    +2

    Any chance that any home and contents insurance policy you have could cover the failure of the product? I guess that'd be more likely if it were around the time of say an electrical storm but well might be worth looking in to?
    Otherwise pony up the $70 and see whats wrong with it.
    I'm also glad I am no longer in jobs where I have to deal with people like this in a service environment, putting up with that sh!t all day crushes the soul.

  • Charybdia on 18/06/2020 - 18:48

    On speaker life expectancy: https://www.avforums.com/threads/speaker-life-expectancy.164…

    • 91rs on 18/06/2020 - 18:52

      But its not a speaker that's failed, it's probably something between the power input, power supply and main board as the soundbar is not turning on.
      The speakers are probably perfectly fine.
      OP - "It now stopped working - not turning on."

      • upsidedownlemon on 18/06/2020 - 19:15

        They mean the speaker as a product.. not the thing that makes the pressure waves

        • 91rs on 18/06/2020 - 19:47
          +4

          Yes a passive speaker driver should last a loooooong time unless thrashed, however that's not the problem OP has and it's not a simple passive speaker.
          It's basically a sound bar, OP has simplified what the product is.
          Implying it should last 20 years (from the link) in this context would be quite deceptive.

  • compugrid on 18/06/2020 - 19:38
    -1

    Keep sending emails to JBL pushing to authorise the assessment. Of the item. If still failed to get the authorisation, then offer they pay only if it is manufacturer fault and they will also pay to fix it and service it. Otherwise, you will pay for the repair (if it shows that the problem is due to consumer's usage, eg: water damage
    )

  • hikaru78 on 18/06/2020 - 20:32
    +3

    What happens if the assessment says damaged by a power surge
    Not a manufacturing defect.

    Just because it broke doesn't mean it was the manufacturers fault

    • yomama on 18/06/2020 - 22:53
      +3

      Just putting it out there that you can make a claim for compensation for equipments damaged by electrical surge through your electricity supplier.
      For example WesternPower
      Eastern states should have something similar as well

      I'd imagine a statement from the manufacturers saying the damage is from a power surge would be sufficient

    • Gronk on 20/06/2020 - 14:49
      +1

      Just because it broke doesn't mean it was the manufacturers fault

      This is where I'm coming from.

      Asserting that a product was not of reasonable quality when it failed outside the warranty period, without any understanding of what led to the failure, is not what I'd consider reasonable behaviour.

      Electronic components can fail for a bunch of reasons, some of those can be attributed to the manufacturing / engineering process, some of those can be attributed to the consumer or environment it's used in but in some cases it's neither party's fault.

  • CalmLemons on 18/06/2020 - 20:38
    +1

    lol. you know at purchase when they offer extended warranty…….

  • lysp on 18/06/2020 - 22:27
    +4

    I'd ask for full refund. And say to them "while your manufacturer's warranty has expired, the statutory warranty has not".

    People are getting 7-8yo TVs instantly refunded under ACL. A speaker should last much longer than 3 years. Especially one at that price range.

    Basically just ask for a refund, if they don't accept put in a complaint with ACCC.

  • KingstonTheNotSoWise on 19/06/2020 - 02:03

    It is up to them how long the warranty is, they made the product, they know how long it's rated for, manufacturers set their warranties & guarantees accordingly to R&D, otherwise by your logic everything would last forever. It's up to ACL how long the statutory warranty is, otherwise literally anyone can say whatever the hell they want to be a reasonable period.

    JBL are going to take into account a few things:
    How long you've owned the speakers.
    How often you've had to return them within the time you owned them.
    How far outside the warranty it is.
    How much the product was at the time of purchase.

    If this is the 1st time you've had a problem, you're chances of getting it repaired or replaced under warranty are significantly lower. If they reject it, you can contact ACL for advice but keep in mind again, if this is your 1st return and being a return outside of the products rated warranty, ACL will also take the same factors into account. Regardless of what you think is reasonable or not, keep your expectations low.

    That all said, it's no longer covered under the manufacturer's warranty, it's fair to pay a diagnostic fee (bit of a grey area, bit of a loop hole) because those warranties THEY provided would have been inclusive of any labour. ACL won't care much for that, only that the product itself is covered if it's eligible.

  • asafasr on 19/06/2020 - 02:18
    -4

    This post shows how heavily one sided this website is for the seller and not the consumer. Ozbargain has been a advertisers haven for ages.

  • lost in transit on 19/06/2020 - 03:31

    Manufacturers can walk if they don’t like the way Australian Consumer Protection Laws work, there all aware of it. Even Apple has to abide by it rather than there measly 1 year warranty in America for there overpriced mobiles.
    So i was bought a JBL Speaker from JB , they thought they were doing the right thing by buying the extended warranty. So what did i notice, one year warranty plus the two year extended warranty so 3 years all up. In reality in this country it will be 2 years plus another 2 years but they will try it on. It was the extreme so not cheap, would i expect it to last 4 years . The short answer would be yes providing i look after it and i will, it’s waterproof but will never see rain. Great speaker too.

  • 2025 on 19/06/2020 - 08:46
    +4

    Fight it. I’ve had Samsung refund the full amount on a UHD monitor 2 years after its warranty expired because the “minor” repair turned into a major fault by them taking 2 months to fix it.

    Had Panasonic replace a microwave 3 times over 6 years.

    Canon replaced an out of warranty dSLR.

    Had a few more successful fights with various stores and manufacturers over this.

    I bet you would have seen a different spread of answers in a poll if you’d asked “how long do you expect a >1000 JBL speaker to last”

  • dufflover on 19/06/2020 - 09:19
    +6

    I think people who play the ACL line need to realise if they "win", it's not because they are right, it's because a company probably can't be ass'd putting up with you, or the more costly damage (these days) of social media lynch mobs. It is not an admission that a consumer is "right" about a product last XX years.

    Going off your original info:

    I respectfully pointed out that it's actually not up to them to say how long the warranty is.

    I think you started sounding like "one of those Karen's" (from their PoV) too early too. Did you really mention the ACL first reply and that somehow they don't choose the warranty? There are plenty of ways to say that you're just disappointed a $1000+ speaker with only XX-daily use broke so quickly - without that "OMG MY RIGHTS". True they may have played hardball still after that, we'll never know.

    • Gronk on 19/06/2020 - 11:01
      +1

      There's certainly no shortage of Karen's in this thread…

    • SirCH on 19/06/2020 - 12:26

      You attract more bees with honey

    • lost in transit on 19/06/2020 - 23:10

      Karen who ?

      • VerticallyIntegrated on 20/06/2020 - 13:37

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_(slang)

        • lost in transit on 20/06/2020 - 13:48

          Thanks mate You learn something new everyday, didn’t even here that slang being used when i was there for a month 18 months ago…

          Certainly the right narrative in today’s times,Wikipedia : A common stereotype is that of a racist white woman who uses her privilege to demand her own way at the expense of others.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join