giotech hc2 buzzing......

D

dannler

New member
hey guys, back in january i bought me giotech hc2 headsets, now recently using party chat on xbox one the other guys are complaining about static buzzing From my mic/headset. I phoned the place i got it from and they said they only have a 10day return policy.

I have tried other remotes. And headset adaptors. Also updated the remote with no result. I have switched off any and all device that could cause a static. But still no result.

So with a headset that is shy of 4 months old and buzzing constantly what could i try to fix or remove the buzzing?
 
Yes that is their return policy for refund, but there should be atleast a 6 months warranty where they have to send it for repairs. but then again that is what you get for buying from bt games.
 
Just did a quick search on takealot and even the R50 earphones have a 1 warranty so BT game must stop their shit and exchange it or send it in for repairs.
 
As per the consumer act
Your right to implied warranty of quality
  • In any transaction or agreement pertaining to the supply of goods to consumers, it is an implied provision that the producer or importer, distributor and retailer each warrant that the goods comply with the requirements and standards of being safe, of good quality and durable.
  • Consumers are permitted to return goods to suppliers, without penalty and at the suppliers’ risk and expense, within a period of six (6) months after delivery of such goods, if the goods are of inferior quality, unsafe or defective.
  • Suppliers are obliged to refund, repair or replace the failed, unsafe and defective goods.
Click to expand...

Send that shit in and get your money back, then get a proper headset.
 
As far as I know supplier is defined as the person selling the goods and not supplier as in the commercial term. As such bt games supplied the goods and would be liable for the warranty, they would in turn contact their supplier for a refund.

Updated:
‘‘supplier’’ means a person who markets any goods or services;
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Glordit said:
Also note it's with the supplier not the retailer.



Just a little advice, please post constructive comments that or not at all.
Click to expand...

Lol relax bud, flip "why so serious?"

Ok here is a piece of "constructive comments":

You said "Also note it's with the supplier not the retailer." Warranty is held where ever u bought it. If I buy an item that comes with a warranty from BT games, then my warranty is held with bt games.

I see Ike basically said what I was saying.
 
Lothy said:
Lol relax bud, flip "why so serious?"

Ok here is a piece of "constructive comments":

You said "Also note it's with the supplier not the retailer." Warranty is held where ever u bought it. If I buy an item that comes with a warranty from BT games, then my warranty is held with bt games.

I see Ike basically said what I was saying.
Click to expand...

Sorry but it's not that simple. BT Games is a reseller, they only value supplier warranties on behalf of the customer.

Most stores offer a money back period (in the case of BT Games it is 10 days) All BT Games can do is have it sent to the supplier for assessment and then the supplier can decide to credit, repair or replace the item. It's up to BT Games to decide weather they want to take the risk and exchange, replace or refund the item or not. Obviously in this case they chose not to but, should have still supplied information to the customer.
 
Glordit said:
Sorry but it's not that simple. BT Games is a reseller, they only value supplier warranties on behalf of the customer.

Most stores offer a money back period (in the case of BT Games it is 10 days) All BT Games can do is have it sent to the supplier for assessment and then the supplier can decide to credit, repair or replace the item. It's up to BT Games to decide weather they want to take the risk and exchange, replace or refund the item or not. Obviously in this case they chose not to but, should have still supplied information to the customer.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong. Please read my previous post where I quoted the definition of a retailer as per the act in question. So unless you're saying that bt games doesn't market and sell games you're wrong.

Bt games is a supplier as per the consumer protection act and is bound by its rules to honour a 6 month warranty on defective products.
 
Ike_009 said:
I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong. Please read my previous post where I quoted the definition of a retailer as per the act in question. So unless you're saying that bt games doesn't market and sell games you're wrong.

Bt games is a supplier as per the consumer protection act and is bound by its rules to honour a 6 month warranty on defective products.
Click to expand...


Your right to implied warranty of quality

In any transaction or agreement pertaining to the supply of goods to consumers, it is an implied provision that the producer or importer, distributor and retailer each warrant that the goods comply with the requirements and standards of being safe, of good quality and durable.

Consumers are permitted to return goods to suppliers, without penalty and at the suppliers’ risk and expense, within a period of six (6) months after delivery of such goods, if the goods are of inferior quality, unsafe or defective.

Suppliers are obliged to refund, repair or replace the failed, unsafe and defective goods.
Click to expand...

BT Games is a retailer not a supplier. The definition is twisted because they supply items to consumers. But they are by no means Megarom or Apex. Which are suppliers.

Also would just like to point out a tiny mistake you made. What you quoted was not the definition of a retailer. That was just a part of the CPA. Consumer Right No. 8, to be exact. The Right to Fair Value, Good Quality and Safety.
 
Ok let me try again.
Section 56 of the CPA
Implied warranty of quality
56. (1) In any transaction or agreement pertaining to the supply of goods to a
consumer there is an implied provision that the producer or importer, the distributor and
the retailer each warrant that the goods comply with the requirements and standards
contemplated in section 55, except to the extent that those goods have been altered
contrary to the instructions, or after leaving the control, of the producer or importer, a
distributor or the retailer, as the case may be.
(2) Within six months after the delivery of any goods to a consumer, the consumer
may return the goods to the supplier, without penalty and at the supplier’s risk and
expense, if the goods fail to satisfy the requirements and standards contemplated in
section 55, and the supplier must, at the direction of the consumer, either—
  • (a) repair or replace the failed, unsafe or defective goods; or
  • (b) refund to the consumer the price paid by the consumer, for the goods
Click to expand...

In section 56 (2) it uses the term supplier, if we move to section 1 it states
In this act ‘‘supplier’’ means a person who markets any goods or services
Click to expand...

linked with section 56 then we get the following statement
Within 6 months after the delivery of any goods, the consumer may return the goods to the Supplier (supplier being the person who marketed the goods for purchase by the consumer), without any penalty.

Therefore resonably BT games marketed the headset in question which therefore means BT games is a supplier in terms of the CPA as per the definition included in the act (definitions in the act being included to prevent mistranslation of common terms between various connotations associated by the users of the act).


Therefore BT Games is a supplier in terms of the CPA for the purposes of section 56 to determine a consumers recourse on defective products. I understand in the commercial world and day to day use of the term supplier would not a valid description for BT games but in this legal perspective supplier is used as a far reaching term to prevent certain unethical businesses from hiding behind common definitions to escape their duties to the supplier. Thus definitions are given in section 1 of the act, the purpose of which is to be used in the rest of the act to prevent inconsistencies and loopholes in the various portions of the act. If a term is not defined in the act, the common language is used to dictate its meaning, however if a term is defined then that definition is final and will be used throughout the act as such.

So in conclusion
1. BT games is a supplier for the purposes of the CPA
2. The consumer is therefore entitled to return any defective product (in this case a headset) to BT games for a refund/ replacement/ repair.
3. If BT games does not comply then it's actions are in contravention of the CPA and further action can be taken.

Also note the paragraph 1 expands to include retailers and that retailers would also supply the warranty as set out in paragrgh 2. Section 55 of the act also states the the consumer is entitled to good quality goods.

I guess a basic understanding on how to read a legal act would be useful and I did spend 2 years studying tax so I learnt how to read an act correctly and not a definition in the act being read with that used in a dictionary. so that tiny mistake you mentioned [MENTION=3017]Glordit[/MENTION] is perfectly valid since I'm reading the section is question and the definition included as one statement.


Section 55 as an FYI
Spoiler: show
Consumer’s rights to safe, good quality goods
55. (1) This section does not apply to goods bought at an auction, as contemplated in
section 45.
(2) Except to the extent contemplated in subsection (6), every consumer has a right to
receive goods that—
  • (a) are reasonably suitable for the purposes for which they are generally intended;
  • (b) are of good quality, in good working order and free of any defects;
  • (c) will be useable and durable for a reasonable period of time, having regard to
  • the use to which they would normally be put and to all the surrounding
  • circumstances of their supply; and
  • (d) comply with any applicable standards set under the Standards Act, 1993 (Act
  • No. 29 of 1993), or any other public regulation.

(3) In addition to the right set out in subsection (2)(a), if a consumer has specifically
informed the supplier of the particular purpose for which the consumer wishes to acquire
any goods, or the use to which the consumer intends to apply those goods, and the
supplier—
  • (a) ordinarily offers to supply such goods; or
  • (b) acts in a manner consistent with being knowledgeable about the use of those
  • goods,

the consumer has a right to expect that the goods are reasonably suitable for the specific
purpose that the consumer has indicated.
(4) In determining whether any particular goods satisfied the requirements of
subsection (2) or (3), all of the circumstances of the supply of those goods must be
considered, including but not limited to—
  • (a) the manner in which, and the purposes for which, the goods were marketed,
  • packaged and displayed, the use of any trade description or mark, any
  • instructions for, or warnings with respect to the use of the goods;
  • (b) the range of things that might reasonably be anticipated to be done with or in
  • relation to the goods; and
  • (c) the time when the goods were produced and supplied.

(5) For greater certainty in applying subsection (4)—
  • (a) it is irrelevant whether a product failure or defect was latent or patent, or
  • whether it could have been detected by a consumer before taking delivery of
  • the goods; and
  • (b) a product failure or defect may not be inferred in respect of particular goods
  • solely on the grounds that better goods have subsequently become available
from the same or any other producer or supplier.
(6) Subsection (2)(a) and (b) do not apply to a transaction if the consumer—
  • (a) has been expressly informed that particular goods were offered in a specific
  • condition; and
  • (b) has expressly agreed to accept the goods in that condition, or knowingly acted
  • in a manner consistent with accepting the goods in that condition.
 
Last edited:
dannler said:
Damn okay thanks guys. I shall take it up with bt games and report back here
Click to expand...

Lol who would have thought this thread would have caused such a stir. If anything print out that act and show it to them, see what they say.

But let us know how it goes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top