I bought a tv and the Advantage Protection Service Plan Circuit City in Los Angeles in June.in July the picture went blank. They sent someone out and they fixed it. It took about five days for the part, but they fixed it. Great.in October of the same thing happened.in August of it broke down a third time, and under the no lemon policy, Circuit City agreed to replace it. This took about two weeks.
When I went to pick up the new tv, they told me that they no longer carried the brand or model that I had originally bought for $1900.00 and that they would replace it with a similar tv. The replacement was worth $1300.00. I asked why they were replacing a $1900.00 tv with a $1300.00 tv and they said that technology had changed and that a similar replacement is now worth less and if I refused it I could have a store credit for $1300.00. I aked what happens to the other six hundred dollars and they basically said they keep it. To me this didn't sound right. They were basically telling me that the tv had lost a third of its value in just two years. I asked how they arrived at that figure and they told me that's what a similar tv is worth now so that's the value given to it.
This didn't sit right with me so I refused either option so I could research the subject. What I found is very interesting. Under California Lemon Law, all cunsumer products are covered (not just cars). It's called the Song-Beverly Act and it states clearly how this type of situation is supposed to be remedied. It says that if the item (any consumer good) cannot be replaced then the value must be figured as so: the full purchase price of the item less value of the use of the item until the first report of nonconformity. That means they have to figure out how long a plasma tv should last, subtract the percentage of time that I used it until it FIRST broke down and pay me for what's left. So, since I bought the tv for $1900.00, and a plasma tv should last at least ten years and mine first broke down after one year, I used at most ten percent of the value of that tv. They should pay me 90% of the purchase price of the tv. 90% of $1900.00 is $1710.00. Circuit City is only offering me $1300.00, $400.00 less than CALIFORNIA STATE LAW MANDATES! The cost of "similar" items at the time of replacement is irrelevant!
I have spoken to lawyer who is a friend of mine who has won class acrtion suits in the past and he thinks that it's a good case. The problem is, how do we find the other people that have been ripped off in CA by circuit city like I have.
If the folowing has happened to you then you may be owed damages by circuit city:
-You bought something at Circuit City w/the CC Advantage Plan
-The item was a lemon and they agreed to replace it
-They couldn't provide the same item and offered you a "similar item"
-The cost of the similar item was much less than the original item
Even though it's only $400.00 I am not going to take this. I am going to stand on principle and not let Circuit City get away with blatantly flouting California law. They have probably done this to thousands of people who don't know what they are LEGALLY ENTITLED to and/or don't have the time or energy to fight them.individually, this is small cliams stuff. If enough people band together and take it to Superior Court, Circuit City will take notice. So will the media and other retailers that have the same illegal warranties (such as Best Buy). Also, judging from some of the stories on here, I think a broader consumer action agains them may be available and necessary. Stay tuned.
Tom
los angeles, California
U.S.A.
0 comments