Carl Moreland your valued opinion please.

[moodz]

In Australian law its summed up as follows ...

The principle of "buyer beware" (caveat emptor) places the responsibility on the buyer to conduct due diligence and inspect a product or property before purchase, while the law of torts can hold sellers liable for negligence or fraud that causes harm, even if the buyer was also negligent or the principle of buyer beware might otherwise apply. In essence, the law of torts provides exceptions to the buyer beware rule by creating legal obligations for sellers to act reasonably and honestly, preventing buyers from suffering harm due to a seller's wrongful actions. ( Harm can mean financial harm )

However also read the article below ... its typically Australian.

https://www.hagerty.com/media/automo...e-option-ever/

[ivconic]

But whatever... it must be admitted that it is a bit naive and frivolous on the part of customers to believe that it is possible to even improve such a superior product as GPZ.
And by whom?
It's ok for ML to announce that it has some upgrades... but by a small independent hobbyist...!??
(I don't want to diminish anyone's knowledge with this).
But let's face the truth; ML is BIG!
It has the best engineers in the world. And GPZ is their flagship product.
An analogy to this story would be if some village blacksmith advertised revolutionary upgrades on the most expensive Mercedes AMG model!
In short; part of the blame lies with the naivety of customers.
Which certainly goes with what you came up with, Paul.

[ivconic]

And the Youtube video I provided earlier clearly shows that not every shielding in electronic "ground" is a good move.
From case to case, from project to project; "ground" can be at various potentials.
It is necessary to have a clear and accurate schematic of the GPZ in order to be able to assert with certainty what is the real analog ground and what is the digital ground, which stage should be grounded and which should not.
I know from experience that misinterpreting "ground" often leads to disastrous results.
From a detector that works average... you make a detector that works catastrophically bad, with just one extra "wire" in the wrong place.

[moodz]

..further to the saga its better to approach the ACCC on any concern regarding the "mods" rather than fishing for something on a forum which from experience is not the way to go.

In Australia there are very strong consumer laws ( ACL ) and remedies which are administered by the ACCC.

This is the consumer law relating to mods ..... modifications made to a product are covered by consumer law if they cause the product to fail to meet the Australian Consumer Law (ACL)'s consumer guarantees, such as not being of acceptable quality or fit for purpose. If the modification was made by the business or was foreseeable, the consumer is entitled to a repair, replacement, or refund under the ACL. However, if the consumer caused the modification and the resulting fault, or if the product was modified in a way that was completely outside of the business's control, the consumer may not have a right to a remedy under the ACL.

IMHO .. it will be very easy to show that there is no mod you can do to a GPZ that results in 33% improvement in sensitivity. So "fit for purpose" and acceptable quality are your lines of enquiry to the ACCC ( but not on this forum ). Then its off to VCAT to get a ruling. It could actually damage your case publishing stuff on a public forum.

note in this case : "not fit for purpose" = "mod does not achieve claims of the modder"

[ivconic]

In much simpler words; similar laws and regulations exist in many states.
But unfortunately, the harsh reality still stands; the stronger the state - the more strictly the laws will be enforced.
In weak states with high levels of corruption... this is just a dead letter.
I'm not referring here to Aus or any other country... first of all I'm referring to the country where I live.
Had similar laws, we have regulations... but in most cases it is not well implemented in practice.
...
"...there is no mod you can do to a GPZ that results in 33% improvement in sensitivity..."
Of course, this borders on science fiction.
Even the worst diy detector... you can hardly fix it by that percentage.
And here we are talking about probably one of the most advanced models in history.
Whoever puts out an ad like that... is either a big prankster or ripe for a shirt that buttons at the back!

[peterr3]

..further to the saga its better to approach the ACCC on any concern regarding the "mods" rather than fishing for something on a forum which from experience is not the way to go.

In Australia there are very strong consumer laws ( ACL ) and remedies which are administered by the ACCC.

This is the consumer law relating to mods ..... modifications made to a product are covered by consumer law if they cause the product to fail to meet the Australian Consumer Law (ACL)'s consumer guarantees, such as not being of acceptable quality or fit for purpose. If the modification was made by the business or was foreseeable, the consumer is entitled to a repair, replacement, or refund under the ACL. However, if the consumer caused the modification and the resulting fault, or if the product was modified in a way that was completely outside of the business's control, the consumer may not have a right to a remedy under the ACL.

IMHO .. it will be very easy to show that there is no mod you can do to a GPZ that results in 33% improvement in sensitivity. So "fit for purpose" and acceptable quality are your lines of enquiry to the ACCC ( but not on this forum ). Then its off to VCAT to get a ruling. It could actually damage your case publishing stuff on a public forum.

note in this case : "not fit for purpose" = "mod does not achieve claims of the modder"

Yes I appreciate that but the onus is on the plaintiff to prove their case. To do that they will require electronic experts that know the gpz7000 intimately. The only ones in that category are ML engineers who will decline to offer their services and will therefore need to be served with a subpoena ad testificandum which they would oppose for commercial reasons and this would then have to be contested . This will be very expensive and very time consuming before even getting to the ACCC! It will also require expert testimony and video evidence from very experienced and successful gpz 7000 users who have compared a modified and standard machine in the real world, again very expensive. However if Woody loses the case and is also found guilty of false and misleading claims then he may well end up bankrupt as the financial penalties are very severe. eg
In June 2022, Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd was ordered by the Federal Court to pay $14 million in penalties for misleading water resistance claims about its mobile phones.
Any statement that creates a false impression about goods and services can be breaking the law. If Woody was smart he would give a full refund and withdraw his nonsense claims about 33% improvement!

[moodz]

Yes I appreciate that but the onus is on the plaintiff to prove their case. To do that they will require electronic experts that know the gpz7000 intimately. The only ones in that category are ML engineers who will decline to offer their services and will therefore need to be served with a subpoena ad testificandum which they would oppose for commercial reasons and this would then have to be contested . This will be very expensive and very time consuming before even getting to the ACCC! It will also require expert testimony and video evidence from very experienced and successful gpz 7000 users who have compared a modified and standard machine in the real world, again very expensive. However if Woody loses the case and is also found guilty of false and misleading claims then he may well end up bankrupt as the financial penalties are very severe. eg
In June 2022, Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd was ordered by the Federal Court to pay $14 million in penalties for misleading water resistance claims about its mobile phones.
Any statement that creates a false impression about goods and services can be breaking the law. If Woody was smart he would give a full refund and withdraw his nonsense claims about 33% improvement!

I dont know who has been advising you but under Australian Consumer Law ( ACL ) ....

In Australian consumer law, the party making a statement is responsible for proving it is true, accurate, and based on reasonable grounds, meaning the business that made the claim must prove its statement is correct if challenged, rather than the consumer needing to prove it wrong. If a business cannot prove its claim, it could be a breach of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

This is an application of one to many .... if many people complained it would obviously not make sense for each complainer to have to prove fault where the originator of the claim ( ie the business ) is the identity making the claim on some basis that may not be known or disclosed to the consumer.
So the onus is on the supplier not the consumer to prove the claim ( in claims tribunal or otherwise ).

That Samsung example you referenced was not exactly a good example, firstly it was a class action and secondly it was Samsung that could not prove that their phones were waterproof and ended up admitting so. There was no need for engineers or expert witnesses on the part of the plaintiff.

If you go to the tribunal ... its the supplier not you that will have to produce the Minelab engineer who will state that the mods do produce a 33% increase in sensitivity and able to provide evidence thereof.

Of course if you lose you will then be liable for the costs that the business incurred proving the claim before the tribunal ( VCAT ) ..

[peterr3]

I dont know who has been advising you but under Australian Consumer Law ( ACL ) ....

In Australian consumer law, the party making a statement is responsible for proving it is true, accurate, and based on reasonable grounds, meaning the business that made the claim must prove its statement is correct if challenged, rather than the consumer needing to prove it wrong. If a business cannot prove its claim, it could be a breach of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

This is an application of one to many .... if many people complained it would obviously not make sense for each complainer to have to prove fault where the originator of the claim ( ie the business ) is the identity making the claim on some basis that may not be known or disclosed to the consumer.
So the onus is on the supplier not the consumer to prove the claim ( in claims tribunal or otherwise ).

That Samsung example you referenced was not exactly a good example, firstly it was a class action and secondly it was Samsung that could not prove that their phones were waterproof and ended up admitting so. There was no need for engineers or expert witnesses on the part of the plaintiff.

If you go to the tribunal ... its the supplier not you that will have to produce the Minelab engineer who will state that the mods do produce a 33% increase in sensitivity and able to provide evidence thereof.

Thanks for correcting me. So what standard of proof would Woody require to prove his claims?

[moodz]

Before you get to a proof stage ... some sort of process will have to kick off.

Eg

1. You spoke to the business and negotiated a settlement of some sort ( eg full or partial refund ).
2. You engaged further and registered a complaint with consumer affairs.
3. They will want you first to attempt mediation ( see step 1. again )
4. You engage legal counsel who is versed in consumer law
5. You send a letter of demand ( your loss + costs you incurred )
6. You go back to step 2 and tell them you tried mediation and letter of demand etc and there was no outcome.
7. Consumer affairs / ombudsman in your state will advise and may or may not bring an enforcement action.
8. If the business still disputes your grievance then you can bring a civil action in VCAT to try and recover your loss
9. We are at step 9 and haven't got to proof yet ... are you getting the picture.
10. The business will now have to engage legal services in order to respond to your action. ( it starts to cost them money and time )
11. Negotations between legal sides continues - more money and time.
12. By this time the costs are at least twice what you are trying to claim and we are still not at the proof.
..
more steps to and fro.
..
At some point when costs ( by both sides ) are probably 10x your original claim the Business must present an independant expert witness and / or irrefutable evidence ( eg test by accredited independant authority or similiar ) that the claim(s) are credible or not and then the presiding president ( theres no judge in civil tribunals ) will make a decision.

So the proof if any regarding the claim is nearly at the end of the whole messy process ... your only real satisfaction during this process will be that proceeding with a claim, even though its costing you money, will also cost them money. However ... alot of businesses dont want to go down this road for that reason ... so some sort of settlement usually happens after the first letter of demand.

[ivconic]

The wolf ate the donkey!
Lawyers will take more money than 50 detectors of that class are worth.
Those who are small frauds count on that first.
The Samsung case is something else.
It is a "global" thing, there is enough loot for the state and for the lawyer, and a little bit for the consumers as well.
If Hollywood movies teach us anything; it is that the process of seeking justice is very painful and that there are many vultures on that path.
The seek for individual justice is like looking for a faint signal in a sea of noise, deep below the threshold.

[ivconic]

I don't know much about Australia, but I do know one thing, if I am 20 years old now; I would immigrate there forever.
It's a country far enough away from all the problems I have here.
Better to go to New Zealand.
But all the women there are very fat... that's the only reason that turns me off!

[peterr3]

Before you get to a proof stage ... some sort of process will have to kick off.

Eg

1. You spoke to the business and negotiated a settlement of some sort ( eg full or partial refund ).
2. You engaged further and registered a complaint with consumer affairs.
3. They will want you first to attempt mediation ( see step 1. again )
4. You engage legal counsel who is versed in consumer law
5. You send a letter of demand ( your loss + costs you incurred )
6. You go back to step 2 and tell them you tried mediation and letter of demand etc and there was no outcome.
7. Consumer affairs / ombudsman in your state will advise and may or may not bring an enforcement action.
8. If the business still disputes your grievance then you can bring a civil action in VCAT to try and recover your loss
9. We are at step 9 and haven't got to proof yet ... are you getting the picture.
10. The business will now have to engage legal services in order to respond to your action. ( it starts to cost them money and time )
11. Negotations between legal sides continues - more money and time.
12. By this time the costs are at least twice what you are trying to claim and we are still not at the proof.
..
more steps to and fro.
..
At some point when costs ( by both sides ) are probably 10x your original claim the Business must present an independant expert witness and / or irrefutable evidence ( eg test by accredited independant authority or similiar ) that the claim(s) are credible or not and then the presiding president ( theres no judge in civil tribunals ) will make a decision.

So the proof if any regarding the claim is nearly at the end of the whole messy process ... your only real satisfaction during this process will be that proceeding with a claim, even though its costing you money, will also cost them money. However ... alot of businesses dont want to go down this road for that reason ... so some sort of settlement usually happens after the first letter of demand.

But can you take the issue straight to the ACCC on the basis that you allege that Woody is engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct in his business? Re his claims for dramatic improvements that his mods give the 7000?

[Infamy]

Sorry its not my video. But the first 15 mins is i guess the bit that i am interested in and statements like this- smaller processors and smaller micro controllers run faster? The guy in the video is also a convicted felon felon .I will look to try and pull some other claims he makes from the video.

Hey Peterr3 are you from Minelab?

What can I say about Minelab? Some of there best ideas are stolen, fact.

I like Woody at least he is not a arse who can't be bother to explain stuff to individuals that don't have a Phd in electronics.
ISTM3 could have been so much better, shame. PS Oscilloscopes are potentially dangerous, well explained by Dave Jones on an EEVBLOG video.

If you are from Minelab, I think Woody is small fry to the damages that are lurking in the offices of the competition regulators (not limited to Minelab either).

If you think I'm pissed off with the atitudes I find in this field your dam right and I know there is a spelling mistake there.

[moodz]

I reckon Carl should lock the thread. The video of removing the "mods" has destroyed all the evidence.

[ivconic]

Case closed!