Slashdot Mirror

My government says otherwise. here. It is the traders responsibility, warranty or not. If there is a manufactures warranty is it reasonable to expect it will last at least that long.

For consumer protection law that works well, see New Zealand.

Nice and simple. Goods and services must be

• As described
• Fit for purpose
• Of merchantable quality

"Merchantable quality" means that while some things might be expected to last less than a year, a PC is expected to last two or three.

Works the same here in the UK (not entirely sure where this "2 year minimum warranty" thing comes from - certainly doesn't seem to be reflected in UK law, which it should if its an EU directive). Basically, the _retailer_ must warrant that the product lasts as long as people would reasonably expect it to last. In the first 6 months, the burden of proof is on the retailer (i.e. if they don't want to repair/replace it then they most prove that it didn't break due to a defect), after the first 6 months the burden of proof switches to the consumer (you have to prove that it failed because of a defect).

Note that redress is with the vendor, not the manufacturer, and it works really well in practice, If your PC breaks after 18 months, you take it back and they fix, replace or refund with barely a murmur (because consumers over the years know their rights).

Here, how well the vendors handle this seems to be variable. For example, my parents recently had a bit of a battle with Karrimor (Sports Direct) over a suitcase. The suitcase's handle fell off during normal use (a screw worked loose) after a little over 6 months. Karrimor refused to repair it, even though it was sold with a 12 month warranty because (in their words) "we don't repair or replace products that are over 6 months old". After some argument they did eventually get it repaired, but it was certainly not "barely a murmer".

Another example, Acer refused to replace my laptop batter after it failed after just 15 months. They stated that it was a "consumable" and therefore refused to cover it. Whilst I don't expect a battery to last the life of the machine itself, 15 months is a tad too short for my taste.

I have had good experiences of vendors and manufacturers taking defective products back (e.g. Seagate and Western Digital have both been excellent at replacing busted hard drives), but it doesn't always go smoothly.

Nice and simple. Goods and services must be

• As described
• Fit for purpose
• Of merchantable quality

"Merchantable quality" means that while some things might be expected to last less than a year, a PC is expected to last two or three.

Note that redress is with the vendor, not the manufacturer, and it works really well in practice, If your PC breaks after 18 months, you take it back and they fix, replace or refund with barely a murmur (because consumers over the years know their rights).

Doesn't America have anything like the Consumer Guarantees Act? If something like this happened in New Zealand, Apple would be legally liable and have to fix the device or refund the money with no strings attached. If there had been consequent damage to other property they would have to pay for that too.

Since this happened in the UK, it doesn't really matter if the U.S. has such a law. A U.S. Consumer Protection Law would not apply in the UK.
Additionally, such a law would not stop a company from trying to get people to sign such a settlement. It would just mean that they have to make good even if the consumer refuses.

Doesn't America have anything like the Consumer Guarantees Act? If something like this happened in New Zealand, Apple would be legally liable and have to fix the device or refund the money with no strings attached. If there had been consequent damage to other property they would have to pay for that too.

Since this happened in the UK, it doesn't really matter if the U.S. has such a law. A U.S. Consumer Protection Law would not apply in the UK.
Additionally, such a law would not stop a company from trying to get people to sign such a settlement. It would just mean that they have to make good even if the consumer refuses.

Doesn't America have anything like the Consumer Guarantees Act? If something like this happened in New Zealand, Apple would be legally liable and have to fix the device or refund the money with no strings attached. If there had been consequent damage to other property they would have to pay for that too.

You misunderstand the law like most people. The retailer is liable, not the manufacturer. From your link: "The Act requires the retailer who supplied the goods to sort out any problems. This means a retailer can not tell you to take the problem to the manufacturer."

The law is almost identicle in the UK. The article says the man took the iPod back to Argos (the shop), but they referred him to Apple (incorrectly, but they know consumers don't know the law).

Doesn't America have anything like the Consumer Guarantees Act? If something like this happened in New Zealand, Apple would be legally liable and have to fix the device or refund the money with no strings attached. If there had been consequent damage to other property they would have to pay for that too.

You misunderstand the law like most people. The retailer is liable, not the manufacturer. From your link: "The Act requires the retailer who supplied the goods to sort out any problems. This means a retailer can not tell you to take the problem to the manufacturer."

The law is almost identicle in the UK. The article says the man took the iPod back to Argos (the shop), but they referred him to Apple (incorrectly, but they know consumers don't know the law).

Doesn't America have anything like the Consumer Guarantees Act? If something like this happened in New Zealand, Apple would be legally liable and have to fix the device or refund the money with no strings attached. If there had been consequent damage to other property they would have to pay for that too.

Doesn't America have anything like the Consumer Guarantees Act? If something like this happened in New Zealand, Apple would be legally liable and have to fix the device or refund the money with no strings attached. If there had been consequent damage to other property they would have to pay for that too.

http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/scamwatch/protect-yourself/no-the-scams/

If you buy software, or a system, and it does not do what you may reasonably expect then you get your money back.