Queenslanders too tolerant

Queenslanders too tolerant

Let’s face it, as we get older, most of us get wiser and unfortunately the side affect is – we get more forgiving and tolerant. This is not a bad thing if this tolerance does not go to extremes where we are unconsciously punishing ourselves for the ‘sins’ of the past. We really don’t need to balance Karma that far back. As a result of this calmer attitude, we let the increasing number of ‘crooks’ and ‘shysters’ take distinct advantage of our ‘live and let live’ nature. We may be only human but that does not mean we should let social indiscretions by others trample our rights in day to day living. Instances abound where more and more businesses consider the public as cash cows to be milked for every last dollar by short cutting systems and service; many times in a blatant and illegal manner.
When a few of the wise speak up, they are frequently labeled as stirrers, trouble makers, and even arrogant in an attempt to set things right and educate the ignorant. Some of us ‘senior citizens’ have been well educated enough to declare it’s not good enough and create a scene if the offending party bluntly refuses to acknowledge their wrong doings.
In other words ‘we don’t take this crap anymore from anyone’. You can re-label this attitude the ‘grumpy old man’ syndrome if you like, but in the end, we usually get it spot on by law and legislation. We ask ourselves ‘why do people do this even when they are fully aware that doing certain things in business is totally wrong?’.
Time and time again we see on TV stories and experts telling all and sundry that certain practices in business are illegal and that the customer has basic rights hard set by legislation. In spite of all this, we still hear daily of people being told they have NO rights; by the very managers and ignorant store keepers this legislation is aimed at.
When people like yours truly try to explain the situation when all has gone pear shaped, they are frequently met with maximum resistance, extrinsic and intrinsic fraud.
The consumer protection legislation has more far reaching effects than some businesses realize. Not only are there heavy fines for breaching the legislation, but customers with a little extra knowledge can cause untold damage to that business for the stupid indiscretions of store managers.
What we need is compulsory courses in consumer legislation for people who apply for an ABN or business license; then a retest every period of business. Young counter staff also needs to be compelled to attend courses in customer relations and especially in customer’s rights under the law. It doesn’t matter if the counter staff is casual or part time [and most are]; what matters is they get it right if a customer has a return of a product or a complaint.
To go beyond these basic rights into the arena of known law is the next step that could spell doom and retribution to businesses who continue to resist these rights with information conveyed to the customer [ or not ] that is blatantly false.
Let’s start with the first of these law rules – ‘Extrinsic fraud’. This is where the customer is denied information [or additional information is withheld] where by knowledge would assist the customer in making a better informed decision on the product he intends to purchase. The additional knowledge may lead the customer not to purchase the item in question but that’s at the discretion of the customer. As an example; a customer wishes to purchase a widget but the model he wishes to purchase among the plethora of displayed widgets, is no longer in production. If he purchases that widget, by law he MUST be informed that this model is no longer made and if the widget fails during the warranty period, he could not get a replacement. This knowledge could lead the customer to purchasing another widget or not purchasing that widget at all from this retailer. If the retailer has assumed full knowledge that this widget is no longer in production or even that the widget has an inherited fault by its very design, he is bound by common law to inform the customer – the American version of ‘full disclosure’. If he does not so inform the customer, he is guilty of an additional offence and can be prosecuted by the customer. This prosecution opens a Pandora box of good will devastation not to mention additional monetary compensation far in excess of the widget sale [including court costs awarded against the retailer]. The fact that most people are unaware of this law angle and; most do not have the money to proceed, gives the retailer a smug sense of security. This is risky to the extreme because the odds are better than average, one day a customer will go the whole hog and take the retailer to the cleaners in court. It’s not a possibility, but a dead sure certainty as time goes on and shady deals continue to be perpetrated by a retailer.
The next rule of law is ‘Intrinsic fraud’. This fraud rule is a double edged sword since intrinsic fraud is giving the customer verbal information that is totally false. The customer now makes an informed decision based on this false information. An example is telling the customer that in addition to the statutory warranty on the widget, there is an unwritten manufacturer’s warrant that gives the customer another year’s protection. The fraud is further compounded if the manufacture actually confirms the warranty even though it is not specifically stated in any literature by the manufacturer.
We all should be aware by now of the customers basic rights under the legislation but one point should be stressed to avoid confusion. These rights are at the total control of the customer, not the retailer. After all, that’s why they are consumer’s rights and not retailer obligations.
With the ‘return – replace – refund’ rule; it’s at the customer’s choice NOT the retailer’s choice to honor this ruling. The retailer is bound by the ‘fraud’ rule to inform the customer that they have this choice and not try and dictate which course of action they will follow. If the customer does not want the widget repaired under warranty, and wants a replacement; that’s his choice, not the retailers. If the customer suspects there is some sort of fraud being perpetrated, or it takes an unreasonable amount of time to achieve satisfaction, he may request a full refund and purchase elsewhere or not. Again it’s the customer’s choice, not the retailer and is bound in legislation. I am totally surprised that most retailers in any industry have no real clue as to the letter of the customer’s rights law; and if they have a clue, it’s usually wrong.
Some retailers have had frauds continually perpetrated on them by suppliers, distributors and even manufacturers. These frauds are unknowingly passed to the customer but ignorance is no excuse. Should the retailer find himself in hot water concerning products he sells, and is totally ignorant of the problem, the retailer must take steps in the chain of supply to address the situation. It is not the customer’s obligation to step beyond the retailer as the warranty and all obligations are passed down the line to the retailer. If the retailer needs to address the problem by legislation and law, he must address the situation up the line of supply and not lay the obligation on the customer [and telling the customer he must address the apparent problem with the manufacturer or supplier is intrinsic fraud on behalf of the retailer]. Unfortunately, in business today, the retailer is the meat in the sandwich so the buck for the customer stops there, that’s how it is.
Extracted from legal blog
FURTHER to this blog piece. My Mother in law was given an electrical item purchased from BUNNINGS for xmas. The item became faulty so she took it back for a replacement [ or repair, or refund ]. The store MANAGER informed her that apon proof of purchase,
[ paid by card ] the item would be repaired free of charge by the manufacturer but only if it was less than 3 months old [ as stated in the book that came with the item ] It just so happens the the item WAS less than 3 months old but she wanted a replacement - not a repair job. Guess what our knowledgeable store manager said ???
'The item has to be repaired free under manufacturers warranty as stated in the book and we cannot replace it or refund your money' ZZZZZZTTTTTTTTT WRONG !!!!!!
I had to go up to the store and explain the difference between implied warranty and statutory warranty and it didn't matter a pinch of shit what was in the book. The IMPLIED warranty was an option, not mandatory and implied warranties CANNOT override statutory warranties. The 3 rules apply repair, replace, refund but as stated elsewhere in these blogs - This is a choice solely up to the CUSTOMER NOT THE RETAILER. If the item is less than 1 year old [ stat warranty ] it's the customer who has the option. Following the managers twisted logic according to the implied warranty, all she has to do is WAIT till 3 months have elapsed [ when the manufacturer no longer will repair it anyway for FREE ] THEN invoke the statutory warranty and demand a new one OR a refund. Does this make any logical sense ???
The implied warranty is AN OPTION NOT A DEMAND, which is totally illegal.