Pixel policy

"Ernst S Blofeld" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
It legally mandated that if someone claims by omission that the screen
meets the ISO standard Class 1 and it does not because there are pixel
defects then they are misrepresenting what they are selling and are
breaking EU law. All flat panels are sold on condition they meet ISO
standards therefore unless you are told otherwise the standard states
that the screen is being

AFAIK, there is no legal requirement in the UK to manufacture or sell LCDs
to ISO 13406-2. There is no 'claim by omission' if the standard is not
referred to in any way.

The standard itself states that a product is Class 1 compliant unless
clearly stated otherwise.

Look on the internet and read the retailers specifications pages. ISO
13406-2 is what they sated, but they don't mention a class. By definition of
the standard the screen is being represented as a Class 1 defect free screen
by omission of any other classification.


ESB

"David Hearn" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"tpow" wrote in message
...
is there one for new LCD TV's

I bought new Toshiba 40XF355 which was delivered on Friday and gained
one hot pixel over the weekend.

I have asked the suppliers customer service to comment.

I notice it every time now.

Unless it is stated otherwise on the set, in the advertising and by the
retailer before you make a purchase ALL LCD TV's are considered to be ISO
13406-2 Class 1 compliant and therefore must not contain even a single
dead or lit pixel or sub pixel. That is what the ISO standard states. In
reality most screens sold are actually Class 2 compliant but the
manufactures and retailers deliberately hid that fact from you in their
literature and advertising and if that is the case you have the right by
the definition of the standard to expect a Class 1 screen.

If you have a dead pixel on your screen you have the right to a
replacement even if it turns out that the screen is only Class 2
compliant since unless you were told in clear terms that it was a Class 2
screen and could contain dead/lit pixels when you bought it you were
being sold a Class 1 screen by definition of the standard. If the screen
was not Class 1 then you have the right to your money back.


Can you provide evidence of this legal requirement?

I've not heard of ISO 13406-2 being a legal requirement of sale in the EU.
Whilst Wikipedia isn't an authoritative source, it makes no reference to
this - which considering how far reaching your suggested legal requirement
is - I would have thought it would have been mentioned there.
Particularly, the wiki article states:

"The application of this standard is a guideline; it is not mandatory."
and "As of 2007, most manufacturers specify their products as Pixel Fault
Class II."

Only at the back of the manual, not on the shelf. This will not stand up in
court. The ISO standard states a screen labelled is ISO 13406-2 is Class 1
unless stated otherwise. If an online retailer states the screen is
compliant with ISO 13406-2 on their web page and does not clearly state it
is not Class 1 then the standard defines that it must be assumed that the
screen is Class 1. The retailers are therefore selling you a Class 1 screen
and if they provide you with one that is not Class 1 because it has defects
then the are committing FRAUD!

The courts will not take kindly to that.


Certainly sounds optional to me.

If the manufacturer states that it's Class 2 (in the manual which often
states all the detailed specifications, standards etc), then that should
be sufficient. Not every feature and specification needs to be

Nope. It has to be made clear to the customer every time the ISO 13406-2
standard is stated what class it is. If not the standard defines that the
screen must be Class 1.

displayed to the purchaser and I would particularly be surprised if

Because of the definition of the standards the class of the screen must be
displayed to the purchaser otherwise he is being mislead into buying a Class
1 screen, and that is fraud.

every ISO spec it meets must be displayed on the device, advertising and
by the retailer.

I would agree though that if the retailer, when asked, says it's a Class 1
display, then it should be a Class 1 display, and any proof otherwise (eg.
a dead pixel) would fit into the "Not fit for purpose" clause (purpose
being a Class 1, no dead pixel, display).

If the retailer does not make it clear to you he is selling you a screen
which HAS defects, then you have the right to your money back. If he says it
MAY have defects he is asking you to gamble with your money and you still
have the right to your money back if you are not satisfied with it because
it has defects. So even if you are told it is Class 2, you can still have
your money back. You are not supposed to know what Class 2 means. You have
the right to expect a defect free screen under the Trading Standards Act
despite the retailers or the manufactures claims, because of the 30 day
satisfaction clause/cooling off period in the act.


D

Agamemnon wrote:
"David Hearn" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"tpow" wrote in message
...
is there one for new LCD TV's

I bought new Toshiba 40XF355 which was delivered on Friday and gained
one hot pixel over the weekend.

I have asked the suppliers customer service to comment.

I notice it every time now.
Unless it is stated otherwise on the set, in the advertising and by the
retailer before you make a purchase ALL LCD TV's are considered to be ISO
13406-2 Class 1 compliant and therefore must not contain even a single
dead or lit pixel or sub pixel. That is what the ISO standard states. In
reality most screens sold are actually Class 2 compliant but the
manufactures and retailers deliberately hid that fact from you in their
literature and advertising and if that is the case you have the right by
the definition of the standard to expect a Class 1 screen.

If you have a dead pixel on your screen you have the right to a
replacement even if it turns out that the screen is only Class 2
compliant since unless you were told in clear terms that it was a Class 2
screen and could contain dead/lit pixels when you bought it you were
being sold a Class 1 screen by definition of the standard. If the screen
was not Class 1 then you have the right to your money back.

Can you provide evidence of this legal requirement?

I've not heard of ISO 13406-2 being a legal requirement of sale in the EU.
Whilst Wikipedia isn't an authoritative source, it makes no reference to
this - which considering how far reaching your suggested legal requirement
is - I would have thought it would have been mentioned there.
Particularly, the wiki article states:

"The application of this standard is a guideline; it is not mandatory."
and "As of 2007, most manufacturers specify their products as Pixel Fault
Class II."

Only at the back of the manual, not on the shelf. This will not stand up in
court. The ISO standard states a screen labelled is ISO 13406-2 is Class 1
unless stated otherwise. If an online retailer states the screen is
compliant with ISO 13406-2 on their web page and does not clearly state it
is not Class 1 then the standard defines that it must be assumed that the
screen is Class 1. The retailers are therefore selling you a Class 1 screen
and if they provide you with one that is not Class 1 because it has defects
then the are committing FRAUD!

The courts will not take kindly to that.

Okay, so the standard says that saying it meets ISO 13406-2 without
further clarification assumes Class 1 - fine.


Certainly sounds optional to me.

If the manufacturer states that it's Class 2 (in the manual which often
states all the detailed specifications, standards etc), then that should
be sufficient. Not every feature and specification needs to be

Nope. It has to be made clear to the customer every time the ISO 13406-2
standard is stated what class it is. If not the standard defines that the
screen must be Class 1.

Fine.


displayed to the purchaser and I would particularly be surprised if

Because of the definition of the standards the class of the screen must be
displayed to the purchaser otherwise he is being mislead into buying a Class
1 screen, and that is fraud.

This is the point I cannot understand. If there is no mention of ISO
13406-2, then how can be mislead into purchasing a Class 1 screen, when
it's not being advertised or even stated as being ISO 13406-2 compliant?

As far as I know - and hence my original request for you to provide
proof (ie. a 3rd party independent source) - there is no legal
requirement or assumption that displays must be ISO 13406-2 compliant.
Everything I've seen so far (apart from yourself) hasn't even
suggested/hinted it is mandatory. As I said, the Wikipedia entry states
that it is not mandatory. If it actually is (in the EU) then might I
suggest you update the entry for it, including the necessary 3rd party
references to get the update accepted.


every ISO spec it meets must be displayed on the device, advertising and
by the retailer.

I would agree though that if the retailer, when asked, says it's a Class 1
display, then it should be a Class 1 display, and any proof otherwise (eg.
a dead pixel) would fit into the "Not fit for purpose" clause (purpose
being a Class 1, no dead pixel, display).

If the retailer does not make it clear to you he is selling you a screen
which HAS defects, then you have the right to your money back.

It's not a defect if the manufacturer states that it's normal production
tolerances.

If he says it
MAY have defects he is asking you to gamble with your money and you still
have the right to your money back if you are not satisfied with it because
it has defects.

Again, what if the manufacturer says it's not a defect.

So even if you are told it is Class 2, you can still have
your money back. You are not supposed to know what Class 2 means.

So you're required to display on the device that it's a Class 2 device,
but that isn't sufficient because the purchaser might not know what that
means? What about putting SVGA/XGA/WSXGA+ on displays? How many people
know what that means?

You have
the right to expect a defect free screen under the Trading Standards Act
despite the retailers or the manufactures claims, because of the 30 day
satisfaction clause/cooling off period in the act.

Never heard of a universal 30 day cooling off period (nor actually the
Trading Standards Act before). Can you provide more details?

D

Agamemnon wrote:
"tpow" wrote in message
...
"Agamemnon" wrote in message
. uk...
"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
My point it, does the supplier actually claim it's Class 1 compliant?
Or Class Anything compliant?
It makes no difference. If the class is not clearly mentioned the ISO
standard states that the screen is assumed to be Class 1.

Are you saying that all flat panel TVs MUST - in law - comply with Class
1 unless stated otherwise?
According to the ISO standard all LCD screens are sold as Class 1 screens
unless it is stated clearly and prominently that they are not. The
retailers cannot say afterwards, oh but the small print at the end of the
manual says its Class 2. You don't get to read the manual in the shop.

I didn't think the ISO standard was legally mandated.
It legally mandated that if someone claims by omission that the screen
meets the ISO standard Class 1 and it does not because there are pixel
defects then they are misrepresenting what they are selling and are
breaking EU law. All flat panels are sold on condition they meet ISO
standards therefore unless you are told otherwise the standard states
that the screen is being sold as Class 1 compliant, ie. no defective
pixels or subpixels. This is on top of the Sale of Goods Act which would
classify a screen with defective pixels as being of unmerchanable quality
and not fit for purpose even if it is stated it is only Class 2
compliant, since a consumer is not expected to know what ISO standards
classifications mean. Under the distance selling act if you are not
satisfied with the screen and return it within 7 days even if the box has
been opened and the good have been used then you have the automatic right
to your money back. Under the Sale of Goods Act you have the right to a
replacement or your money back if the goods are defective or are not fit
for the purpose which they are sold, if you make a complaint or return
the goods with 30 days of purchase. The manufacturers or retailers also
have to guarantee the good for a reasonable period of time. If a £3000
LCD screen breaks down after only 3 or even 5 years the must fix it or
replace it or compensate you even if they state the warranty is only for
a year. You don't pay £3000 for something that will only last a year.

SteveT

the suppliers terms and Conditions say,

Is the customer expected to have read all that?

NO!

According to the law the suppliers terms and conditions are not legally
binding on the customer since they were not freely negotiated with the
customer.

Yes they are. The Terms and Conditions are legally binding, as long as
they're made available at time of purchase (back of the invoice is
sufficient) and that they're not unfair (eg. poor balance of power etc).
If the terms and conditions must be negotiated with each and every
purchaser, then that could make for one very long transaction.

In effect though, the negotiation will go:

Retailer: "Do you accept our terms and conditions"
Customer: "No"
Retailer: "Okay, bye".

They're free to walk away from the transaction if they're unhappy with
the T&Cs.


They do not state a class............

Then they are Class 1 according to the terms of the ISO standard and must
not contain any defective pixels, irrespective of how much the manufactures
want to whinge. Unless it is stated clearly on the product in the show room
that it is other than Class 1 the manufactures claims will not stand up in
court. You have the right to a product without defects and if you don't like
it you may return it within 30 days for a refund.

Just because an ISO standard has been written, doesn't make that
standard mandatory.

As I said before, please can you provide evidence to support your
insistence that even if no mention of ISO 13406-2 is made (therefore no
claim that it meets that standard) - that the display must still meet
ISO 13406-2.

D

In article ,
David Hearn wrote:

Never heard of a universal 30 day cooling off period (nor actually the
Trading Standards Act before). Can you provide more details?

to the beat of my knowledge that only applies to mail order purchases, not
over the counter ones.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Agamemnon wrote:
"Ernst S Blofeld" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
It legally mandated that if someone claims by omission that the screen
meets the ISO standard Class 1 and it does not because there are pixel
defects then they are misrepresenting what they are selling and are
breaking EU law. All flat panels are sold on condition they meet ISO
standards therefore unless you are told otherwise the standard states
that the screen is being
AFAIK, there is no legal requirement in the UK to manufacture or sell LCDs
to ISO 13406-2. There is no 'claim by omission' if the standard is not
referred to in any way.

The standard itself states that a product is Class 1 compliant unless
clearly stated otherwise.

Yes - that's fairly normal for standards which contain classes within it
- to make it clear what the assumptions are.

The spec says:

"7.20 Pixel faults
Flat panel displays should be in fault class, ClassPixel I (refer to
3.4.13 pixels faults). If not, the supplier shall specify
ClassPixel of the display."

It also states:

"8.2.3 Supplier declared data
The following data shall be declared in the user’s manual (or
equivalent) and in detail product specifications:

....
l) If the display does not conform with pixel fault class I:
 pixel fault class, ClassPixel I, II, III or IV (see 7.20 Pixel faults)."


But it would be highly unusual for a standard itself to make legal
claims within it. It's up the laws of the individual countries to
decide which ISO standards are mandatory for items on sale.

Remember, ISO specs are international (so not just for the EU). If that
spec stated the all displays must meet that standard, they're
effectively shoe-horning that spec into the law of each and every
country by the back door. I very much doubt that is possible.

What is possible is for each country (eg. EU/UK) to state that it is
mandatory. And I've not heard that being the case.

D

charles wrote:
In article ,
David Hearn wrote:

Never heard of a universal 30 day cooling off period (nor actually the
Trading Standards Act before). Can you provide more details?

to the beat of my knowledge that only applies to mail order purchases, not
over the counter ones.

That would be the Distance Selling Regulations then, which is 7 working
days, not 30. And as you say - distance purchases only.

D

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 15:06:53 -0000, "Adrian" wrote:

tpow wrote:
"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
tpow wrote:
is there one for new LCD TV's

I bought new Toshiba 40XF355 which was delivered on Friday and
gained one hot pixel over the weekend.

I have asked the suppliers customer service to comment.

I notice it every time now.

I've never received a straight answer from a couple of manufacturers
about dead and stuck pixel policy.

I bought an LCD computer monitor about five years ago, that had a
dead pixel, the store made no fuss at all about replacing the
monitor. Where is the stuck pixel, near the centre, or near the edge ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.


its 9" in from right 1.5" from the top,

Its clearly visible when on wide or letterbox and when darkish
background on other formats.

I know its only very small on such a large screen, but its like a
pimple on yer face.............you just know it's there and your eyes
make for it all the time.

I know what you mean, I feel exactly the same way about DOGs.

I was thinking the same thing - and about IPPs too.

M.

"tpow" wrote in message
...
is there one for new LCD TV's

I bought new Toshiba 40XF355 which was delivered on Friday and gained one
hot pixel over the weekend.

I have asked the suppliers customer service to comment.

I notice it every time now.

dj


update,

1. Customer care, even though their web says they will respond within the
day, have NOT replied. That's annoying either way after spending £1000. Not
even a FO :-(

2. The manual does not reference any standard though it does say, "The LCD
display panels are manufactured using an extremely high level of precision
technology, however sometimes some parts of the screen may be missing
picture elements or have luminous spots. This is not a sign of
malfunction".............but surely still a fault.

3. I am thinking along the lines of keeping the one I have rather than get a
replacement that just might have more in far worse positions.

4. I'll put this purchase down to a new experience for me and others.

After all there are people out there dying and I am worrying about a micro
red slash on me new TV.

Out of interest, in my hunt for info, I did come across a supplier who
offered a pre delivery pixel check for £27.........only despatching a panel
which was 100% pixel free................BUT only guaranteed pixel free for
7 days after receipt..............:-) So those that don't ask for this
service get all the hot or stuck pixel ones.

"David Hearn" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"David Hearn" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"tpow" wrote in message
...
is there one for new LCD TV's

I bought new Toshiba 40XF355 which was delivered on Friday and gained
one hot pixel over the weekend.

I have asked the suppliers customer service to comment.

I notice it every time now.
Unless it is stated otherwise on the set, in the advertising and by the
retailer before you make a purchase ALL LCD TV's are considered to be
ISO 13406-2 Class 1 compliant and therefore must not contain even a
single dead or lit pixel or sub pixel. That is what the ISO standard
states. In reality most screens sold are actually Class 2 compliant but
the manufactures and retailers deliberately hid that fact from you in
their literature and advertising and if that is the case you have the
right by the definition of the standard to expect a Class 1 screen.

If you have a dead pixel on your screen you have the right to a
replacement even if it turns out that the screen is only Class 2
compliant since unless you were told in clear terms that it was a Class
2 screen and could contain dead/lit pixels when you bought it you were
being sold a Class 1 screen by definition of the standard. If the
screen was not Class 1 then you have the right to your money back.

Can you provide evidence of this legal requirement?

I've not heard of ISO 13406-2 being a legal requirement of sale in the
EU. Whilst Wikipedia isn't an authoritative source, it makes no
reference to this - which considering how far reaching your suggested
legal requirement is - I would have thought it would have been mentioned
there. Particularly, the wiki article states:

"The application of this standard is a guideline; it is not mandatory."
and "As of 2007, most manufacturers specify their products as Pixel
Fault Class II."

Only at the back of the manual, not on the shelf. This will not stand up
in court. The ISO standard states a screen labelled is ISO 13406-2 is
Class 1 unless stated otherwise. If an online retailer states the screen
is compliant with ISO 13406-2 on their web page and does not clearly
state it is not Class 1 then the standard defines that it must be assumed
that the screen is Class 1. The retailers are therefore selling you a
Class 1 screen and if they provide you with one that is not Class 1
because it has defects then the are committing FRAUD!

The courts will not take kindly to that.

Okay, so the standard says that saying it meets ISO 13406-2 without
further clarification assumes Class 1 - fine.


Certainly sounds optional to me.

If the manufacturer states that it's Class 2 (in the manual which often
states all the detailed specifications, standards etc), then that should
be sufficient. Not every feature and specification needs to be

Nope. It has to be made clear to the customer every time the ISO 13406-2
standard is stated what class it is. If not the standard defines that the
screen must be Class 1.

Fine.


displayed to the purchaser and I would particularly be surprised if

Because of the definition of the standards the class of the screen must
be displayed to the purchaser otherwise he is being mislead into buying a
Class 1 screen, and that is fraud.

This is the point I cannot understand. If there is no mention of ISO
13406-2, then how can be mislead into purchasing a Class 1 screen, when
it's not being advertised or even stated as being ISO 13406-2 compliant?

As far as I know - and hence my original request for you to provide proof
(ie. a 3rd party independent source) - there is no legal requirement or
assumption that displays must be ISO 13406-2 compliant.

There might not be but a display advertised as compliant with ISO 13406-2
and no further disclaimer implies that it is Class 1 compliant according to
the standard, otherwise the retailer/supplier must specify otherwise. Almost
all web retailers say the displays comply with ISO 13406-2 but the do NOT
say Class 2 or any class at all on the page the display is advertised on.
This means that the display is Class 1 by default by definition of the
standard. If they end up supplying you with a monitor which is not Class 1
then they are committing fraud and violating the Trade Descriptions Act.

Everything I've seen so far (apart from yourself) hasn't even
suggested/hinted it is mandatory. As I said, the Wikipedia entry states
that it is not mandatory. If it actually is (in the EU) then might I
suggest you update the entry for it, including the necessary 3rd party
references to get the update accepted.


every ISO spec it meets must be displayed on the device, advertising and
by the retailer.

I would agree though that if the retailer, when asked, says it's a Class
1 display, then it should be a Class 1 display, and any proof otherwise
(eg. a dead pixel) would fit into the "Not fit for purpose" clause
(purpose being a Class 1, no dead pixel, display).

If the retailer does not make it clear to you he is selling you a screen
which HAS defects, then you have the right to your money back.

It's not a defect if the manufacturer states that it's normal production
tolerances.

The can't get away with saying that. You pay £3000 for a display and you
expect it not to contain dead or lit pixels. Unless they stated clearly at
the time the display is sold that the display WILL HAVE a specific number of
dead or lit pixels then you have the right to return the display and have a
full refund. If they say that you are taking a chanced that the display
might have some dead or lit pixels then they are asking you to gamble with
your money and that is illegal and also fraud.


If he says it MAY have defects he is asking you to gamble with your money
and you still have the right to your money back if you are not satisfied
with it because it has defects.

Again, what if the manufacturer says it's not a defect.

It won't stand up in court. When was the last a manufacture sold a display
directly to a member of the public in a shop and told you it WILL contain
dead or lit pixels? Unless you tell you the exact number of dead or lit
pixels and allow you to look at the display before buying you have the right
to take it back and get it replaced or your money refunded.

Look at it another way. Say you buy a shirt or a dress from Marks and
Spencer and when you take it out of the wrapping you find out that one of
the seams is frayed, Marks and Spencer will take if back even though the
manufactures might state that this is not a defect and a certain proportion
of their shirts or dresses might be frayed. Similarly if you by a shirt or a
dress for your partner and you find out it doesn't fit around the neck then
Marks and Spencer will take it back because it was sold under the term of
customer satisfaction.


So even if you are told it is Class 2, you can still have
your money back. You are not supposed to know what Class 2 means.

So you're required to display on the device that it's a Class 2 device,
but that isn't sufficient because the purchaser might not know what that
means? What about putting SVGA/XGA/WSXGA+ on displays? How many people
know what that means?

If its a standard and the device which is sold does not comply with it then
you have the right to your money back. If the advertise the display as ISO
13406-2 with no further disclaimed then the standard states that it is a
Class 1 monitor. If its not the retailer is committing fraud. Even if they
say it is Class 2 the customer is not supposed to know what that means. He
or she assumes that if it complies with a standard then it will be of good
quality. If your expectation on seining that is complient with a standard
was that it would be free of dead or lit pixels, is of what Class 2 actually
means, you have the right to your money back. It's the retailers duty to
make it clear to you at the time of purchase that the screen will contain
dead pixels and specify the exact amount and the locations, which is the
equivalent to letting you inspect the display in the shop or put on a shirt
in Marks and Spencer to see if it fits.


You have the right to expect a defect free screen under the Trading
Standards Act despite the retailers or the manufactures claims, because
of the 30 day satisfaction clause/cooling off period in the act.

Never heard of a universal 30 day cooling off period (nor actually the

No. It's a 7 day cooling of period under the Distance Selling Act and a 30
day statutory right to return defective or unfit goods and demand a refund.
After 30 days you have the right to a reasonable period of warranty,
irrespective of what the manufacturer says.

Trading Standards Act before). Can you provide more details?

D