Is less than 3 years a legally sufficient lifespan for a TV in the UK/EU? I purchased an LG TV from Argos on 26/05/2015. Problems began around six months ago, with a dot surrounded by a circle flickering in a specific place on the backlight (not the pixels themselves, only the backlight). Increasing the backlight to maximum brightness made the problem go away so I could live with it and avoid the annoying replacement process for a little while. Recently it began showing at max backlight and grew to two dots nearby each other. Then today it grew to a completely black screen. I contacted LG directly over the phone eight days ago, bypassing the retailer because I assumed they were off the hook after two years and ten months, and it should be the manufacturer assuming responsibility. Initially I was told I'd be granted a goodwill repair, once I'd sent proof of purchase. I sent proof of purchase on the same day. They called back two days later but I missed it, and I followed up after the weekend, three days ago. I was told they wouldn't be granting a repair or anything, and that their warranty is for one year only. With the unfortunate coincidence of the TV completely breaking down just over a week after I contacted the manufacturer, I rang them again today and updated them on the TV's demise, again I was told their warranty is for one year only. When I asked, "if it breaks down after one year and one day, you have no responsibility?" the agent flat out agreed. I then followed up with the retailer to check all options, and was told I'd need to have it assessed by a TV specialist. I assume that's going be quite expensive relative to the original purchase price, with no indication of any guaranteed minimum return. What are my options when: I purchased it brand new It's in pristine condition It's completely broken (besides sound) after 2 years and 10 months The problems began when it was around 2 years and 4 months old I "need" a potentially expensive TV specialist assessment to proceed with the retailer A cursory Google shows countless consumers boasting of 5 - 10 year TV lifespans Official-looking Googled results state expected lifespans of 20 - 30 years for LED and LCD TVs Is the LG agent correct in stating that LG has no legal responsibility for this? Are there other (cheap/free) avenues to pursue this? Do I have to get the TV assessed to proceed with other avenues? RESOLUTION: After sending a formal email before the TV completely broke down, which I didn't mention above, an LG agent contacted me to apologise for the trouble and say they had booked in a repair for next month. It turned out to be a typo and the collection was this month instead. They collected the TV a week ago and returned it yesterday in perfect working order. For reference, the email I sent was: To Whom It May Concern, I have been informed that despite previous assurances that I would be granted a goodwill repair, after receipt of my proof of purchase that assurance has been revoked and the decision has been made not to repair the faulty TV. The backlight of the TV constantly flickers in a specific area, it's impossible not to notice, and makes for a very uncomfortable viewing experience. I have been using this TV since purchasing it brand new 2 years and 10 months ago. The problem began approximately 6 months ago and has become progressively worse, almost completely ruining the viewing experience, and in doing so, rendering the television almost useless. The expected lifetime of a TV is more than 3 years. The fault is caused by a manufacturing defect, as the entire unit is still in pristine condition. The only way you could justifiably avoid responsibility for this issue is if it was caused by me, but as stated above, the unit is demonstrably in pristine condition. Therefore, having been sold a faulty unit, I should be compensated with a repair, replacement, or partial refund substantial enough to purchase another television of the same specifications. I await a better decision, and expect not to hear that "the warranty is one year", because I am certain that doesn't mean the unit can break down when it's one year and one day old and leave you with no responsibility. Regards, [Name] Their response was: [...] I am a member of the customer resolutions team and I will try to help you with your problem. Please let me begin by extending my sincere apologies to you for the experience you’ve had trying to get your TV repaired with us. I hope you can understand that we offer a one year limited repair warranty on all of our TVs and as such your TV would be classed as out of warranty. I appreciate that you’ve had a number of correspondences with our agents and may have been told on one occasion that you would receive a repair as a gesture of goodwill. I would like to reiterate this sentiment and confirm that I have personally booked your TV to one of our couriers myself for a goodwill repair. [...] It is unclear why they chose to make an exception in this case, but I no longer have any complaints about them.
"I contacted LG directly over the phone eight days ago, bypassing the retailer because I assumed they were off the hook after two years and ten months, and it should be the manufacturer assuming responsibility." Nope. In the EU (and Britain still is), the retailer is the only party with a legal warranty duty (at least 2 years, national law may deviate to the benefit of the customer). The manufacturer may offer any additional warranty, but even if they do that does not absolve the retailer. The UK does have a longer warranty period than the EU minimum if you can prove the product was faulty, but this is a reversed proof, and it still binds the retailer instead of the manufacturer.
You could first look for a force majeure clause in the lease which says something about natural disasters and the like. If there is a clause which says e.g. "Landlord will not be held responsible for problems arising from ice storms", that doesn't help you, but maybe it specifies e.g. rent reduction of $2/day for lack of electricity. That doesn't mean he can ignore the law. However, in this situation, a particular reading of the law ("there must be an infallible supply of electricity") imposes an impossible requirement on the landlord, and the courts probably won't require a landlord to do the impossible. It is not clear that your situation violates either the letter or the spirit of the law. Take clause (d): your "heating facilities" presumably conformed to applicable law at the time of installation and have since been maintained, and they are adequate, but they don't work if the grid doesn't supply power (and that is not a matter under the landlord's control). In other words, he provided the "infrastructure", and the problem is on the power company's end. Likewise "electrical lighting with wiring and electrical equipment" -- an ordinary interpretation of that clause is "wires and fixtures", and doesn't include "flow of electrons", which is supplied by your local power company.
You have asked about "United Kingdom", but I can only answer about England and Wales; the law in Scotland is very different (rather more different in some respects than the difference between E&amp;W and the State of New York). There is no time limit per se on manslaughter charges; if the police find evidence for a manslaughter charge after 80 years, there is no difficulty (in principle) in bringing a charge against the now-centenarian (provided they are competent to stand trial, and they can get a fair trial, and so on). However, in the case you mentioned I would have thought the major problem would be a defence of autrefois convict - in other words, the defendant can (usually) only be charged once with charges arising from a particular set of facts. It is just possible that the subsequent death constitutes a new fact which allows a new prosecution. On the other hand, the rule for murder used to be that if the victim survived a year and a day then it wasn't murder (even if they then died of their injuries). Finally, the case certainly would not be reopened with a charge of manslaughter. It would be "causing death by dangerous driving", which is a very different offence. Edit My thanks to ohwilleke whose comment about the "year and a day" rule prompted me to do a little research, and discover the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996. Section 2(2) clearly covers the present case (in both legs), and says that the perpetrator can be re-prosecuted, but only with the permission of the Attorney General. The act is very brief, and I encourage you to read it all. (And incidentally, does not apply to Scotland.)
We are tying to determine what an acceptable compensation would be It mostly depends on whether the acts and representations by the broker caused you to pay in excess and/or have made it more expensive for you to restore your previous insurance plan. The gaps in your description prevent us from identifying whether your claim(s) against the broker is (are) meritorious from other standpoints. The broker's advice to buy additional insurance suggests that since 2018 you must have paid more than you used to. In that case, you would be entitled to recover from the broker the excess over the premium paid for the insurance you actually had after the old policy got replaced. In England the statute of limitations for claims of breach of contract is six years. This implies that delaying legal action for another year will reduce the amount to which you are entitle to recover. If insurance similar to the old, &quot;excellent&quot; policy now costs you more than it would had the broker never replaced it, you might be entitled to that difference as well. That is because the broker advised you something and she did the opposite, thereby unjustifiably worsening your position.
In the Netherlands, this qualifies as a deceptive trade practice (misleidende handelspraktijk) and is therefore directly illegal. It's likely also an unfair trade practice, (oneerlijke handelspraktijk) as the claim appears intended for end consumers. This means that the seller cannot count on the consumer knowing anythong about stuffase. It is a dutch implementation of EU directive 2005/29/EG, so similar laws apply in other EU countries. But the illegal per se part might vary.
For works released after 1989, Copyright notices don't have any legal consequences in the United States. They are just a friendly reminder of who created the work and that they take their copyrights seriously. But those notices are not required anymore to enforce your copyrights on the works you created. If you have proof that you own the copyright on something and when it was created, and if it's still within the term limits, then you can take legal actions against people who violate your copyright. Disney has a history of repeated worldwide lobbying for extending the expiration durations in copyright laws in order to avoid any of their classic cartoons from falling out of copyright protection. So it could be that they try to intentionally muddy the waters and make it harder to find out which of their works expire when. That way people are less sure about what Disney works are and are not in the public domain, making it more risky to use them. But that's just my theory.
From a comment on the question: They did damage the trailer door and headlight is smashed This seems like the best thing to focus on, especially if you can show that it was not damaged before they towed it. The unusual method of towing (with video evidence) may be a factor in whether they are considered negligent. If the damage to the door looks like they caused it directly by breaking in, that would also help your case. You also asked in your comment if you should go to the police or to a lawyer first. Might as well go to the lawyer and see what they tell you to do. I'm not sure what the police would do if there is no clear crime that has been committed. (The lawyer should have better advice about whether/why to go to the police.)
Possibly The game company has almost certainly excluded liability under the contract you entered. There may be some consumer protection that you have that they cannot exclude - I don’t know enough about German law to meaningfully comment. Notwithstanding, if you were to initiate legal action against the, as yet, unknown wrongdoer, you could subpoena the relevant records from the game company with a court order. No matter what privacy or other protections the other person has, the game company must obey the order or be in contempt. Without such an order the game company is right that they can’t disclose details of other users. As a practical matter, it will cost several hundred € to initiate legal action and several thousand to pursue it to the end. And you might lose. A better response is to treat the lost €80 as a relatively cheap life lesson - many people lose a lot more learning to recognise scams.