|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 05:47 PM EST |
I'm not the OP, but...
The manufacturer doesn't have to give any
warranty at all. The _seller_ is responsible that products are of sufficient
quality.
Got a citation for that? Doesn't seem to agree with
either my intuition or my experience.
Also, are you referring to the
situation in the EU? The law Apple is accused of violating is the two year
manufacturer's warranty, not the two year sellers warranty. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 07:35 PM EST |
Down under, the seller is responsible for the product being fit for purpose and
providing clear title and quiet possession (amongst other statutory rights).
Unfortunately a manufacturer, Sony in the case of the PS3, can release firmware
that is mandatory to achieve the purpose for which the PS3 was purchased, that
is online game playing and bluray movie playback. Yet this firmware removes a
function, OtherOS (linux), which was also a reason for purchasing this product
in my case.
In such issues, the seller, in my view, has done nothing wrong as it played no
part in the manufacturers decision to produce and distribute such damaging
firmware. Yet the law, according to our consumer protection organization, sees
the Seller as being liable for such firmware updates. In law, it is somehow the
sellers responsibility to resolve this issue, presumably by refund. The seller
can then claim any loss from the manufacturer (that butters it's bread). Good
luck in any retail outlet taking such legal action against their multinational
supplier. Good luck in the seller accepting that they are at fault in these
instances and refunding the purchase price.
Such legal views and processes are overly bureaucratic enabling multinational
companies to behave badly and thus believe they are above the law. These views
do nothing to protect the purchaser, especially when our consumer affairs
organization are the ones that push such views, and in doing so act as enablers
to these multinationals to feel they are above the law.
I can only applaud the EU for taking a stronger stance against Apple to protect
consumers statutory rights, and remember that Apple IS the seller in this case.
I only wish the EU would also take the fight to Sony's door for all us otherOS
users that lost this feature through firmware update. Taking the fight to Sony's
door will only help to protect all consumers from a manufacturers rogue firmware
updates that change the behavior of the products we have previously purchased
for the worse. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 07:37 PM EST |
Down under, the seller is responsible for the product being fit for purpose and
providing clear title and quiet possession (amongst other statutory rights).
Unfortunately a manufacturer, Sony in the case of the PS3, can release firmware
that is mandatory to achieve the purpose for which the PS3 was purchased, that
is online game playing and bluray movie playback. Yet this firmware removes a
function, OtherOS (linux), which was also a reason for purchasing this product
in my case.
In such issues, the seller, in my view, has done nothing wrong as it played no
part in the manufacturers decision to produce and distribute such damaging
firmware. Yet the law, according to our consumer protection organization, sees
the Seller as being liable for such firmware updates. In law, it is somehow the
sellers responsibility to resolve this issue, presumably by refund. The seller
can then claim any loss from the manufacturer (that butters it's bread). Good
luck in any retail outlet taking such legal action against their multinational
supplier. Good luck in the seller accepting that they are at fault in these
instances and refunding the purchase price.
Such legal views and processes are overly bureaucratic enabling multinational
companies to behave badly and thus believe they are above the law. These views
do nothing to protect the purchaser, especially when our consumer affairs
organization are the ones that push such views, and in doing so act as enablers
to these multinationals to feel they are above the law.
I can only applaud the EU for taking a stronger stance against Apple to protect
consumers statutory rights, and remember that Apple IS the seller in this case.
I only wish the EU would also take the fight to Sony's door for all us OtherOS
users that lost this feature through firmware update. Taking the fight to Sony's
door will only help to protect all consumers from a manufacturers rogue firmware
updates that change the behavior of the products we have previously purchased
for the worse. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 08:44 PM EST |
First of, the country the lawsuit is playing is Belgium, as mentioned in the
original article. Admittedly, the German and Dutch consumer organisations are
keeping a close eye on Aplle for the same reason, but have not pressed chaches
(yet).
Secondly, in the EU (at Least, the Netherlands), it is the /manufacturer/ that
is responsible to deliver a working product. That means it has to be a product
that works for a reasonable amount of time, and does not have manufacturing
defects that have it fail before.
For light consumer devices as phones, tablets etc this is 2 to 3 years,
dishwashers up to 6 years. (that is why they tend to fail after 6 1/2 years :-P
)
In practice, this means that by manufacturing defects for the first half year
you can go back to the shop for repair/replacement, and they have to prove you
did not do the damage.
But after that period, you have to contact the manufacturer, and the obligation
is on you to proove that it is a manufacturing defect.
And since the manufacturer is the one doing the 'inspection' and judge, it is
quite hard to get that right. Which is why it is easy business for manufacturers
and shops to sell ' extra' warranty as a practical insurence that they won't
give you an hassle to provide their already obligated warranty of a good
product.
(And even then they could do difficult if they do not want to comply ..)
MBB[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 05:16 AM EST |
If I recall correctly, one of the motivations for making the manufacturer liable
for the performance of its products was to cover the cases where the retailer
(either accidentally or deliberately) folded. Customers would still be covered
by a guarantee.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
