ps3 other os - refundings

Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2005
Posts
9,961
Location
Birmingham
Anyone else going to/has emailed companies they got their ps3 (phats) from in order for a refund?


As the story goes, Iapetus at the NeoGAF forums took the issue up with Amazon (who sold him the PS3), quoting a European consumer protection law that states all products bought must be "fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase," netting him £84 ($130) in the process. He didn't have to return his PS3, nor be within warranty—certainly worth taking up with your retailer, if you've still got the receipt. Though this particular law will only apply to you if you live in Europe

I have my reciept infront of me. Considering emailing them and seeing what they say.


Section 13 and 14 of the act:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1979/cukpga_19790054_en_2#pt2-pb5-l1g13

(Textual)
13 Sale by description
(1)Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied [F1term] that the goods will correspond with the description.
[F2(1A)As regards England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the term implied by subsection (1) above is a condition.]
(2)If the sale is by sample as well as by description it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods corresponds with the sample if the goods do not also correspond with the description.
(3)A sale of goods is not prevented from being a sale by description by reason only that, being exposed for sale or hire, they are selected by the buyer.
(4)Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 below applies in relation to a contract made before 18 May 1973.
Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F1
Word in s. 13(1) substituted (3.1.1995) by 1994 c. 35, ss. 7(1), 8(2), Sch. 2 para. 5(4)(a) (with s. 8(3)).
F2
S. 13(1A) inserted (3.1.1995) by 1994 c. 35, ss. 7(1), 8(2), Sch. 2 para. 5(4)(b) (with s. 8(3)).
14 Implied terms about quality or fitness
(1)Except as provided by this section and section 15 below and subject to any other enactment, there is no implied [F1term] about the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale.
[F2(2)Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality.
(2A)For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.
(2B)For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—
(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b)appearance and finish,
(c)freedom from minor defects,
(d)safety, and
(e)durability.
(2C)The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory—
(a)which is specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made,
(b)where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or
(c)in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample.]
[F3(2D)If the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, if a contract of sale is a consumer contract, the relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2A) above include any public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods made about them by the seller, the producer or his representative, particularly in advertising or on labelling.
(2E)A public statement is not by virtue of subsection (2D) above a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2A) above in the case of a contract of sale, if the seller shows that—
(a)at the time the contract was made, he was not, and could not reasonably have been, aware of the statement,
(b)before the contract was made, the statement had been withdrawn in public or, to the extent that it contained anything which was incorrect or misleading, it had been corrected in public, or
(c)the decision to buy the goods could not have been influenced by the statement.
(2F)Subsections (2D) and (2E) above do not prevent any public statement from being a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2A) above (whether or not the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, whether or not the contract of sale is a consumer contract) if the statement would have been such a circumstance apart from those subsections.]
(3)Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known—
(a)to the seller, or
(b)where the purchase price or part of it is payable by instalments and the goods were previously sold by a credit-broker to the seller, to that credit-broker,
any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied [F1term] that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the skill or judgment of the seller or credit-broker.
(4)An implied [F1term] about quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed to a contract of sale by usage.
(5)The preceding provisions of this section apply to a sale by a person who in the course of a business is acting as agent for another as they apply to a sale by a principal in the course of a business, except where that other is not selling in the course of a business and either the buyer knows that fact or reasonable steps are taken to bring it to the notice of the buyer before the contract is made.
[F4(6)As regards England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the terms implied by subsections (2) and (3) above are conditions.]
(7)Paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 below applies in relation to a contract made on or after 18 May 1973 and before the appointed day, and paragraph 6 in relation to one made before 18 May 1973.
(8)In subsection (7) above and paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 below references to the appointed day are to the day appointed for the purposes of those provisions by an order of the Secretary of State made by statutory instrument.
Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F1
Words in s. 14(1)(3)(4) substituted (3.1.1995) by 1994 c. 35, ss. 7(1), 8(2), Sch. 2 para. 5(5)(a) (with s. 8(3)).
F2
S. 14(2)(2A)-(2C) substituted for s. 14(2) (3.1.1995) by 1994 c. 35, ss. 1(1), 8(2) (with s. 8(3)).
F3
S. 14(2D)-(2F) inserted (31.3.2003) by S.I. 2002/3045, reg. 3(2)
F4
S. 14(6) substituted (3.1.1995) by 1994 c. 35, ss. 7(1), 8(2), Sch. 2 para. 5(5)(b) (with s. 8(3)).
Modifications etc. (not altering text)
C1
Power of appointment conferred by s. 14(8) fully exercised: 19.5.1985 appointed by S.I. 1983/1572, art. 2
 
Last edited:
I sent an email to the company where I bought mine after reading of Iapetus's success last week. I'm still waiting on a response as to how they plan on resolving the matter.
 
I sent an email to the company where I bought mine after reading of Iapetus's success last week. I'm still waiting on a response as to how they plan on resolving the matter.

What did your email say?

I'm wondering how to word it in a forcefull yet not "give me money now" way :P
 
I'm not going to bother. It's a feature i never used so to argue that i deserve compensation for the removal of it just doesn't seem right to me.
 
Could end up being quite costly for sony if a few people do this.I'm sure retailers aren't gonna be happy if they have to pay loads of money out for something that is nothing to do with them.
 
I'm not going to bother. It's a feature i never used so to argue that i deserve compensation for the removal of it just doesn't seem right to me.

Same.

The thought never entered my head when I was updating the PS3 although if I used it regularly I'd be a bit peeved.
 
Being a games designer, its sort of relevant to me. Yes I hadn't used it yet, but it was there for if I needed to render with maya, or do some dev work.

Tootling an email off now
 
I'm not going to bother. It's a feature i never used so to argue that i deserve compensation for the removal of it just doesn't seem right to me.

Same here i expect 99% of the people moaning never actually had linux installed on there PS3. Wonder if Sony will start to bill us for the extra features they have added since launch that we may actually use :D
 
Could end up being quite costly for sony if a few people do this.I'm sure retailers aren't gonna be happy if they have to pay loads of money out for something that is nothing to do with them.

The cost of (allegedly) preventing piracy. I hope it was worth it for Sony. :)

From my understanding any costs incurred by the retailer if they choose to provide partial refunds would then be passed to Sony.

What did your email say?

I'm wondering how to word it in a forcefull yet not "give me money now" way :P

I can forward my email on to you this evening if you'd like.
 
Same here i expect 99% of the people moaning never actually had linux installed on there PS3. Wonder if Sony will start to bill us for the extra features they have added since launch that we may actually use :D

Wonder why there has been no features added recently? ;)

I can't believe that so few people care for their rights as a consumer and are quite happy to let companies like Sony do as they please.
 
The cost of (allegedly) preventing piracy. I hope it was worth it for Sony. :)

From my understanding any costs incurred by the retailer if they choose to provide partial refunds would then be passed to Sony.



I can forward my email on to you this evening if you'd like.


Yes please Sir :) Trust email is fine :D
 
I can't believe that so few people care for their rights as a consumer and are quite happy to let companies like Sony do as they please.

I can't believe so many people are totally ignorant to the EULA they agreed to by using the machine.

Fair enough if say your car all of a sudden only had one seat because the manufacturer decided to take the others away. With electronics that are regularily updated/controlled by the manufacturer, you are at their mercy and you should very well know it. If you don't like it, don't purchase the machine.

I am 100% confident that anyone who actually legitimately used the Linux feature of the PS3 has multiple other machines that are already doing, or could easily do the same thing. Everyone else that is moaning either never used the feature and just wants a free lunch, or they liked ripping blu-rays using the machine's drive.
 
How is a student supposed to get 3/4/5 multiple machines for personal use?

Seriously...

I dont get what you're asking there... PS3's linux was limited, to the point an old barton computer would have performed better with linux installed.

you could easily afford 3/4/5 of those machines.

Unless i've missed the point of what you were saying :p
 
I can't believe so many people are totally ignorant to the EULA they agreed to by using the machine.

With electronics that are regularily updated/controlled by the manufacturer, you are at their mercy and you should very well know it. If you don't like it, don't purchase the machine.

This is exactly what I mean. :) I'm absolutely not at their mercy - and consumer laws are there to protect you against this. I bought a piece of hardware and I expect it to conform to functionality under which it was advertised and sold for the full life of the product.

But it seems your quite happy to believe what companies like Sony say in that what's in their EULA is gospel. It's not, and the fact Amazon has moved so quickly on this goes to show it's worth.
 
I can't believe so many people are totally ignorant to the EULA they agreed to by using the machine.
The EULA cannot override your inferred rights as detailed in the SoGA, any part that does would be disregarded in a court of law under the Unfair Contract Terms Act.
The SoGA is surprisingly powerful.

I won't be claiming any cash back btw, but I certainly would if I had use for the OtherOS feature.
 
I think it would be funnier if update 3.22 reinstated the greatly used (must be millions of PS3 users) other OS, would this mean you would have to give them the money back? :D
 
Back
Top Bottom