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

  • keejoonc on 19/06/2020 - 09:27
    +3

    Personally I would expect a $1k speaker or soundbar to last at least 5 years.
    Is paying $200 a year for a speaker really expecting too much life out of it?

  • Hangryuman on 19/06/2020 - 12:13
    +1

    ask to speak to the next level up - the manager's manager - quote the Fair Trading Act about implicit warranty and reasonable life

    then get them to fix it - if they cling to the $70 fee - tell them you expect that to be refunded when repaired

    or maybe take it to another repairer to look at it first - and tell JBL you'll claim the repair/replacement from them via the Fair Trading tribunal

    • hikaru78 on 20/06/2020 - 23:13

      Fair trading act.. lol
      Hope you dont give legal advice

  • [Deactivated] on 19/06/2020 - 12:18

    You cant claim warranty when you have been putting the speaker up places speakers have no right being up - OP's Sore arse

  • SirCH on 19/06/2020 - 12:26
    +4

    As much as I think the Australian Consumer Law is good for consumers, in that products must last for a "reasonable amount of time", this is one of the major gripes I have with it. Reading this whole thread shows that 1 person's definition of 'reasonable' is different to another person's. Who is right?

    I own a 50" Kogan TV. It cost me $500, I've had it for more than 5 years. If it was to break today, I don't think that $100/year for a TV is unreasonable and I would not complain.
    Let's say I upgrade to a Samsung or other big brand TV at a cost of $2000. Is it reasonable for me to say that a TV from a respectable brand should give value at $100/year, and therefore my hypothetical replacement TV should last at least 20 years? Whilst I personally wouldn't have this expectation, it's not an unreasonable or illogical argument.

    True story: I used to work in a call centre. We sold a product with a stated 2 year warranty. I had a customer call, their unit had failed after ~3 years and the customer deemed that we should replace it. When I questioned them further, they said it should last for 7 years. I asked based on what, the answer was just "that's what I think". I did some research and found that bigger brands selling more expensive versions of a similar product offered a 1-2 year manufacturer warranty, and therefore I don't believe that it's reasonable to expect a longer lifetime from a cheaper version but did offer a discounted replacement as a gesture of goodwill. This was not accepted and there were threats of consumer affairs, etc. etc. but I kept an eye on the case for around a year and we didn't hear anything back.

    • SirCH on 19/06/2020 - 12:38

      Also my interpretation of ACL is that this is a retailer issue, although OP "can" claim a remedy from the manufacturer.
      IMO the parties should compromise. E.g. a repair where the manufacturer and OP split the costs 50/50, or a discounted replacement.

    • lysp on 21/06/2020 - 14:18

      As much as I think the Australian Consumer Law is good for consumers, in that products must last for a "reasonable amount of time", this is one of the major gripes I have with it.

      That is the best bit about the law. As long as you can give a valid argument - then it should be covered.

      When you purchase a 50" tv at $500 when most similar models in that area cost $2-3k - you would expect it to last less due to cheap price and probably cheaper components. If you bought a mid-top range TV - you'd expect it to last longer than most.

      The whole point of this law is for manufacturers to use quality parts if they sell things for a premium price. They have to factor in the cost of replacing dead products. This means they'll go broke unless they actually include proper quality parts in their products.

      found that bigger brands selling more expensive versions of a similar product offered a 1-2 year manufacturer warranty

      Manufacturers will always under-estimate their warranty. They also create their warranty period knowing the statutory warranty applies too. This is a cost saving measure because they hope people won't know their rights and will simply give up after 2 years rather than asking the question. Due to the statutory warranty there is actually no reason for them to have a manufacture's warranty in Australia - apart from simplifying paperwork for end-retailers.

    • Jabba the Hutt on 21/06/2020 - 14:21
      +1

      but I kept an eye on the case for around a year and we didn't hear anything back.

      Ashamed to say I was one of those people last time I had a problem with an appliance and I suspect it's a major hidden aspect of ACL-based claims. In my case, being in the process of a house move pushed the matter so far down the list of priorities, it took little resistance on the part of the retailer for me to abandon the matter (basically them ignoring written correspondence and then giving me the runaround over the phone).

      Part of the problem is the vague/flexible nature of the ACL - I can't be sure whether or not I'm being 'reasonable' about how long a product should last, what the appropriate remedy should be, who should be responsible for transporting the product if necessary, who should pay for it to be assessed, how long I should have to wait for a resolution, etc. An express warranty at least has a period where things are black and white enough to give you a tailwind of righteous indignation and motivation. The ACL - at least once you're outside the express warranty period - is like a headwind of uncertainty from the outset, and heavily dependent on the persistence, negotiation skills and free time of the consumer.

  • PurchaseAnxiety on 19/06/2020 - 12:33
    +2

    I look at the warranty period as the period of time in which you'll get it repaired and replaced with minimum hassle. The ACL has guarantees on top of that, but you have to expect that it's going to be a bit more of a fight, as the ACL in nature is full of grey areas. In my subjective and unqualified opinion, I'd say you're right on the cusp of it going either way. I think a fair argument could be made that the life of the speaker was reasonable or not reasonable, but you'll probably have to take it to your local small claims to get a resolution.

  • digitale on 19/06/2020 - 13:07
    +5

    There's a Choice article on this:
    https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advic…

    Under section "Soundbars, hi-fi mini-systems and home theatre systems":
    Life expectancy:

    Budget / entry level: 5 years
Mid-range: 10 years
High-end: 16 years
    • dizzle on 19/06/2020 - 14:28

      Good luck getting any high end home theater/soundbar to last 16 years. When it comes to the satellite (the passive parts) speakers themselves, yes, but any amplifier/powered part, I wouldn't expect any to last over 7-8 years. As soon as you have a powered part I'd halve the life expectancy.

      And I don't think you can lump in soundbars with Home theaters and expect the same life.
      (Brands below are just examples)
      A $200 LG soundbar is what I would expect to be considered low-end would probably last 2 years.
      Low end Home Theater would be a $800 LG and may get 2-4 years.
      High end soundbar $2000 Bose would probably get 3-5 years
      High end Bose (Some would consider medium level) $6000 for a Home theater - probably 8-10 years but I'd probably expect it needing a checkup or repair within that time.

      I also figure turnover to factor in to life expectations. As someone that sells electrical, most TVs get upgraded every 4-5 years, Soundbars 3-4 years, Home Theatre 5-7 years. Whether you pay $1000, or $6000, they still upgrade their TVs in the same amount of time, but they have paid for better features.

      • [Deactivated] on 19/06/2020 - 17:52
        +1

        My friend's system, original KEF horn speakers with tube amp has been used almost daily for the last 50 years.

        Of course the tubes have blown multiple times as they are wear and tear items but apart from them, they had absolutely no other work done to them.

        My current system is about 10 years old. Hasn't skipped a beat.

      • serpserpserp on 20/06/2020 - 17:34
        +1

        I had a great top end Yamaha system from the early 90s last me 25 years and people were always amazed at the quality of sound (and loudness) it produced without distortion. The only thing that went wrong with it was the long wiring to the satellites got abused and one needed replacing while the amp blew a capacitor that powered the LED/HUD which was cheaply repaired.

        The only reason I got rid of it was because I just didn't use it anymore. I couldn't even find anyone to give the whole set too (had to just give away parts).

  • CocaKoala on 19/06/2020 - 13:13
    -7

    OP, jealousy is rife over here. Don't bother with those who are telling you that you are owed nothing.

    You have rights under the ACL and JBL will need to repair or replace the item or refund you the full price paid.

  • Deals For Days on 19/06/2020 - 13:29
    +4

    Also want to chime in that 1K speakers are expensive and should be of decent quality.

    You can buy flat, studio monitors for 2K (Neumann KH120s and KH80s). So for everyone rambling on about how high end speakers are 10K minimum, I think you're wrong.

  • fox81 on 19/06/2020 - 13:57
    -1

    ive glanced over most of this, but the distributor/manufacturer only has an obligation for forseeable loss as a result of the failure. if you want to enforce your repair/replace/refund rights, you must go thru the party from whom you purchased the speaker.

  • Exorcist on 19/06/2020 - 14:16

    honestly curious, what is the point of warranty then?

    I'm about to buy a "high-end" speaker (about 2K) can I expect 16 years? not sure what constitutes high end.

    • 91rs on 19/06/2020 - 17:01

      Just speakers? passive speakers? Sure you could probably see that period if they're treated right and run with a decent amplifier.
      In a active setup with built in amplifier etc it'd be much less likely they will last that long, the speaker would be fine the amplifier would be the issue.

      • Exorcist on 19/06/2020 - 17:48

        Thanks for the reply but I have no idea
        I'm looking at the new sonos soundbar or bluetooth speakers like the basic devialet

        • 91rs on 19/06/2020 - 20:30
          +1

          Those are much the same as what OP has but in other brands with slightly different ability or options.
          Something like this https://www.sonos.com/en-au/shop/5-1-surround-set-beam-sub-o… ?
          While they sound fine each component there has its own power supply and amplifier + the tech in it which has the possibility of going bad.
          I'd be very doubtful of getting 16 years out of said system, you'd also need a phone the same age with an app that still works and anything else depending on how its controlled (most are via apps for the wireless stuff I think??)

          Compared to something like this as a stand alone speaker (not related to your situation just an example)
          https://lenwallisaudio.com/products/hifi/speakers/607-standm…

          That's just a speaker in a box, it needs to be powered by an amplifier that has the source (music, tv, blu-ray etc).
          So more things to buy, wires to run etc. As a speaker if treated well you'd see 16 years out of it easily enough.
          It also means if the amplifier fails you just replace that and all your speakers can remain.

  • zombrex on 19/06/2020 - 17:48
    +1

    Such an expensive speaker should definitely last a longer time.
    I would be pissed off if I was you.
    I have some low quality Logitech 5.1 speakers that I purchased for $100 more than ten years ago and they still work perfectly. Speakers can and should last for decades if well made.

  • minotaurian on 19/06/2020 - 19:22
    -5

    A bigger price tag for an item doesn't mean it deserves a longer warranty. I would still expect a cheap speaker to have the same coverage. The difference is that if it breaks outside this period, you'll not feel as bad.

    Otherwise, if implied warranty was based on price point, I would expect my $10k plasma to have significant longer warranty than my $300 Tlc led.

    this is not the case, both warranties are same. I paid the $9.7k premium for an obselete technology known as plasma, not for a longer implied warranty.

    • hypie on 20/06/2020 - 11:57
      +4

      Yes it actually does. A higher priced product is considered a higher quality product. So if you buy a Soniq TV for $199, you should not expect it to last as long as a $3000 OLED TV.

      The amount of incorrect statements I read on Ozbargain regarding ACL is astounding.

      • Hybroid on 20/06/2020 - 13:54
        +1

        How would it work for 2 products that are fundamentally the same but one has more features costing more? Is the more expensive one still expected to last longer?

        For example let's take an AV receiver.

        Model 1 $1,000: Standard receiver spec
        Model 2 $1,500: Exact same base model as above but with added Bluetooth and network connectivity card.

        The core product is exactly the same. Is model 2 expected to last a third longer?

        What about Model 3 which is the same $1,000 Model 1 but draped in gold & crystals so it's now $20,000 instead? Still expected to last longer because it's more expensive?

      • minotaurian on 21/06/2020 - 10:50

        But how long do you expect an OLed suppose t last for compared to the Sonic TV. 15x longer? The problem is that the ACL is not clear regarding implied warranty, unlike the ato regarding depreciation of assets like a laptop which specify 2.5 years. What about two soniq TV of same model but different sizes, one is dearer than the other? I do not think it is reasonable to expect one to have a longer implied warranty than the other because of price.

        • ugoagogo on 21/06/2020 - 11:41
          +1

          I know Apple reqard a macbook at 3yrs old obselete , i wonder if they are somewhat using the ATO as a guide

  • hypie on 20/06/2020 - 11:57

    Hey mate, you pay for the service fee and then request the fee to be refunded if it's considered a manufacturer fault. No point arguing with a brick wall.

    My story:

    Had a Samsung phone with a minor screen crack that stopped working, I argued that the screen crack did cause the motherboard failure. They charged me for the screen repair, assessed the phone, repaired the phone (motherboard failure) and then returned my $320 screen repair fee.

    Just pay the fee and then argue the ACL after.

  • ugoagogo on 20/06/2020 - 16:31

    yeh i think general rule of thumb is 5 yrs is max lifetime ( so thats for the most expensive items ) although thats not stated directly. I know the UK put a max of 6 yrs in their laws but they didnt originally state a max either.

    A speaker at 3.5 yrs for $1000 I would say its pretty fair for them to have to cover that ( excluding misuse or infestation , power surge ) of course.

    Find out what the original purchase place will do , worst case they should pay for the assessment which is what you're after at the present.

  • Budju on 20/06/2020 - 17:04
    +2

    I have been through this process with VW when my golf crapped itself after 40,000 kms. I basically had to get them to assess it (for about $100-$150). Then they were able to verify what the issue was, and ultimately paid for the $4000 part that was required.

    I think pay the fee, they may just offer to repair it for you. Make sure you ask for a copy of the assessment report if they don't fix it, and take that report to the consumer watch dog or small claims.

    At the end of the day $70 to get your $1000+ speaker back in working order is worth it.

  • PAPower on 21/06/2020 - 11:27

    What is the reasonable lifetime for LED lights? I bought heaps of them recently..

    • Gronk on 21/06/2020 - 15:50

      Depends how much current you put through 'em :)

      • PAPower on 21/06/2020 - 19:08

        They're all main 240v plugged into a socket and claimed to last 30,000 hrs. On avg. 5 hrs a day this would be 15-16 years.

        • Gronk on 21/06/2020 - 21:21

          If you're talking about an off the shelf LED bulb, it'll last ages.

          I've got a couple of white LED strips that should only be run at half their rated current for best lifespan, so depends on the product…

  • ........ on 21/06/2020 - 20:01

    I recently had some success with just outside of warranty claims.

    Here's my research… I hope it helps:

    Looking at the consumer guarantee guide published by the Australian Government: https://consumerlaw.gov.au/sites/consumer/files/inline-files… there is a particularly pertinent example on page 6:

    "[name removed] buys a high-end washing machine for $1250. [name removed] buys a washing machine with similar features for $400. The primary reasons for the price difference between the two machines are the materials and manufacturing processes. Both [names removed] use their washing machine around two times per week with similar load sizes and both have maintained the machines as required. After five years, both washing machines break down when their motors fail. As [name removed] washing machine is a top-of-the-range good, a reasonable consumer is likely to expect it would last for more than five years and that therefore, [name removed] could claim her washing machine did not meet the acceptable quality consumer guarantee. However, as [name removed] washing machine is a lower quality, budget version, a reasonable consumer would likely expect it to last for a lesser time period and [name removed] may not be able to claim her washing machine was not of acceptable quality."

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join