'Lemon law' to be introduced to protect consumers

The law will be effective from Sep 2012. The law set clearer guidelines for consumers seeking redress for purchases that fall short in quality and performance, even after being repaired repeatedly. If the product is found to be defective within 6 months of delivery, the flaw will be assumed to be inherent, unless the retailer can prove otherwise. All  durable goods purchased, new or second-hand are covered by the new law. But rental goods,services and buildings are excluded. Compared to previously, the proposed law now will cover defects in both new and used cars as well. Essentially, shoddy goods which are not up to standard should not be sold in the market. (More Q&A here)

Comments

[CLB]

A little over a year ago, I bought a Mimian sonic brush from CLARIANCY (PTE LTD), MANDARIN GALLERY. Within 6 months it failed to charge properly. I returned it & was told it would take 3 weeks to service. I was also treated as though I was some sort of criminal by the unbelievably rude sales girl who told me the brush was dirty. I could see no signs of it being dirty, but then I don't use a microscope or sterilisation equipment on every product I use & since I have owned a competitor product for identical purposes for more than 5 years and NEVER had a problem with it, it does not explain why this product failed to work after just 6 months. Nor does it explain why I was told today,an entire week after returning a SECOND time the same product to the Mandarin Gallery outlet, for exactly the same problem; that the 2nd returned product was out of Warranty. Yet moments earlier, Janice, clearly a senior member of the company, informed me that the first time I returned the brush, they had replaced the entire handset. Yet, Janice is adamant she will not replace the handset nor will she service the 2nd failed unit since it is out of the warranty period. But hold on! Didn't she tell me that they had replaced my original handset with a brand new unit, six months ago? So by rights, the second unit (the replacement ) is still covered under the 12 month Warranty. However Janice has suggested that I can pay for yet another, new & more expensive unit at a discount of 25% !!! So here's my question; how can a business operator who is selling a product that has failed to live up to the stated warranty, and which has been replaced once with an entirely new unit and which has also subsequently failed to charge correctly within 12 months of ownership; possibly expect a customer to accept absolutely no recourse, repair or refund, even though the product is still under Warranty? The product has failed. It has failed with TWO separate units TWICE. And yet I am left wondering if this is a failing not of the product, but on the part of the owner of a business that sells faulty products. Isn't that a breach of the Fair Trading Act? It seems to me that Janice has made a false claim & is now shirking her responsibilities to repair or replace the 2nd unit which is still under Warranty. If I’m not mistaken, that is a clear breach of the Fair Trading Act.