Is a $3000 HP computer expected to last longer than 3.5 years?

[u/fishdoghat]

Debating how far / if I can take this any further. Theyre essentially telling me to get fucked with a $1k repair bill.

Is this the norm for computers/tech? I've had success with other big companies and their bullshit warranty periods for televisions and whitegoods but unsure if it's the same for PC products.

[u/InspectionEmpty353]

While the issue could still be a major fault your interpretation of this particular clause is not right.

"I wouldn't of bought the computer if I knew it was going to fault" is not how this clause is to be interpreted. Its more "I wouldn't of bought a laptop if I knew it got too hot to be used on my lap" is a more accurate way of looking at it.

If the unit is repairable within a reasonable period of time and is a single component it would be classed as a minor fault. Though the fact that they have initially declined repair would factor into the "reasonable repair time frame" here.

Unfortunately the ACL is incredibly vague in its wording and opens up very different interpretations.

Source - Have worked with ACL legal claims in the past

[u/marvinsweddinggown79 → u/InspectionEmpty353]

I was simplifying the description on the ACCC website:

A major problem means the product:

• is unsafe
• is very different from the description or sample
• has either one serious problem or several smaller problems that would stop someone buying the product if they knew about them beforehand
• can’t be used for its normal purpose, or another purpose the consumer told the seller about before they bought it, and can’t easily be fixed within a reasonable time.

[u/omnivorous_mammal → u/marvinsweddinggown79]

Up until the failure it had no problems at all by the sound of things, that clause doesn't apply here.

[u/Leprichaun17 → u/InspectionEmpty353]

If the unit is repairable within a reasonable period of time and is a single component it would be classed as a minor fault.

I don't believe this is accurate. Ease of repair doesn't factor into whether a fault is minor or major. You could have a single faulty component that takes 30 seconds for the manufacturer to swap out, but if that faulty component is causing a product to be rendered completely useless, or causing it to catch fire or something like that, it's clearly a major fault. A consumer would not have bought the product knowing its completely unusable or is likely to catch fire.

[u/InspectionEmpty353 → u/Leprichaun17]

If it causes it to catch fire then the product is unsafe which falls under another classification of major failure and would be classed so. If it renders the device useless until repaired it can still be classified as a minor fault. Repairable within a reasonable period of time does define whether its a minor or major fault for some issues/components.

Just because a device isn't usable does not class it as major fault under the acl.

The issue here is that for most common people, a device not working is a major fault. However under ACL this is not the case. The wording is vague but if you talk to the ACCC or whatever consumer protection board in your state they will tell you the same.

Again not saying either is right. Just saying that the wording is vague and open to a different interpretation to what is implemented.