Yes nothing says she (or anyone with a liberal arts degree) can't be a good security officer. But it is suspicious that all of her background is now hidden. It might have been she was CSO for political reasons as one would find in big companies that the person who plays politics is promoted over people who have experience or skill.
Again. Please cite your source. You make a lot of assertions but with little evidence. I can say you murdered JFK on the Grass Knoll but that's a claim not fact. Not evidence.
So again, it comes down to the ability of Apple's lawyers to snow job the courts.
No in court you must prove what you claim. It seems you don't understand this concept.
This ENTIRE article and discussion has been about the US lawsuit with comments about what the Apple lawyer from the US has said. Bringing in the Canadian lawsuit for which there are different laws, rules, cases, lawyers, and judges is you simply refusing to admit you're wrong about basic facts. First of all you were dead wrong about your "red herring" claim which was made about the US lawsuit. Second you can't mix cases into two different countries as one. If this lawsuit was in Europe, almost everything from the case may not apply.
Um. That mentions 1 US lawsuit and 1 Canadian lawsuit. This article is all about the US lawsuit. You've linked motions about the US lawsuit. . So in essence you have yet to prove there are 3 US lawsuits which you claim. BTW are you willing to admit that you were completely wrong about the "red herring" claim?
Seems like nobody has make the distinction between bacterial contamination and radioactive contamination. I suspect that the latter is actually the concern as the probe used an RTG for power and thus it was safest to de-orbit it into Saturn.
I'm pretty sure that because the Huygens lander was designed to land on the surface that NASA already made the distinction decades ago. Landing on the surface might introduce bacterial contamination and that's why most spacecraft are assembled in clean rooms.
No, the standard is that you back up your claims with evidence. The standard is not that I back up your claims with evidence. And why would you bring up a Canadian lawsuit when talking about a US lawsuit?
So it's not based on the law which this entire article was about. But let's talk about your claims in an engineering sense:
Essentially, a manufacturer can be held to reasonably expected standards for quality and durability, particularly when they boast of their quality.
Please cite any engineering textbooks that actually say that. Quality and durability are not normal terms normally used in process improvement nor manufacturing engineering. Terms like defects and variability. While Six Sigma has become more of a brand, the roots are in process improvement to ensure that manufacturing processes reduce variability and defects. Those are terms that would come from engineering.
I can't say if Apple will successfully snow job the court or not, but there exists plenty of evidence that a combination of inadequate stiffness and/or inadequate soldering tends to cause connections to the chip that drives the touchscreen to break.
Again, you are putting the cart before the horse. The plaintiff must prove what they have claimed. Considering that some of their claims are very weak (A warranty's provisions should not be considered because the plaintiffs didn't read it until afterwards.), I doubt that they have adequate evidence. Also considering that it seems the court is striking plaintiffs due to lack of standing as the case goes on, I would say the plaintiffs' lawyers didn't due enough diligence before filing.
So, if a significant number of a particular make of car died after just 7 years (total loss, trip to scrap yard), you would suggest that's just fine?
The plaintiffs must prove that in court. They cannot merely assert something and claim it to be true. I already said this. And the case has not gone to trial yet.
However, the plaintiffs also claimed that a 1 year warranty was unconscionable on principle because they entered into 2 year contracts with a company not named Apple. Also among other claims by the plaintiff: Apple's warranty disclaimers do not count because they were not "conspicuous" because Apple didn't bold them all in their warranty. That the warranty provisions do not count because the plaintiffs did not read them until after purchasing the product (while filing a lawsuit). So how do you feel about those claims?
Also are you willing to admit that this wasn't a red herring brought by Apple seeing how the plaintiffs made the argument multiple times and had it dismissed multiple times?
Essentially, a manufacturer can be held to reasonably expected standards for quality and durability, particularly when they boast of their quality. If one or 2 units fail outside of warranty, it's likely just bad luck, but if a significant number do so, well before the failures would be expected, it's reasonable to suspect the defect existed from day 1.
Please cite me the case law that says that. This is your assertion. It's not based on any actual case law, is it?
It's not 3 suits. Your amended complaint is for case 16-CV-04942-LHK. That is the same case as the dismissal. The judge dismissed 10 counts of the suit back in March but allowed them to re-file; however, it appears the plaintiffs did not change their arguments regarding the cellular contracts which she dismissed the first time around.
Or things which I cannot use. I once got ads for Lamaze classes. I'm a dude who doesn't have a pregnant significant other. It was funny because it popped up after a weekend trip to Vegas: "Honey, you gots some 'splainin' to do!"
By the way, it's not 3 lawsuits as far as I can tell. It's one lawsuit. The court dismissed the original complaint in March but allowed the plaintiffs to refile. The dismissal noted that some of plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and some of the arguments would have been dismissed anyways. Since the case is not at trial stage yet, it's typical to dismiss the case and have them re-file removing some plaintiffs and changing their arguments. Had the case been at or near trial, the court probably would have merely dismissed the case with no chance to re-file.
No, their warranty is excused under US laws. Other countries validate this.
And you're arguing it shouldn't be allowed under US law. Did you contract did yourself?
You are failing to understand my statement. What if your favorite auto maker suddenly changed their warranty to 1 year, and forced you to pay for anything more than that?
By what do you mean "suddenly changed their warranty". The Apple warranty was always 1 year in the US. It's always been 1 year. Apple did not "suddenly change" their warranty as you imply. Please describe how Apple "suddenly changed" their warranty. Therefore your assertion is false.
Would you still feel confident in the product and buy a new car from them, or would you re-consider, based on their calculations and reasoning for limiting their product to one year? I have a feeling you would think about it, for there is always a validated reason to limit warranties on hardware, and it usually has to do with reliability.
Your hypothetical is based on a scenario that didn't happen in this case. However in a hypothetical scenario if a manufacturer changes their warranty coverage on new products, you are free not to buy their products (as we all are). As were the plaintiffs. If Honda reduced their warranties to 1 year on their cars, you are free not to buy their cars. You can't buy a Honda then complain after the fact that the warranty was 1 year. That isn't the scenario here as the warranty has always been 1 year. The court ruled as much in the original dismissal.
Moreover, the SACC does not allege that Plaintiffs were ‘surprised’ by the terms of the express warranty,” and Plaintiffs do not allege “that they themselves did not receive pre-sale notice of the warranty, or that they could not or did not access the warranty online” at the time of Plaintiffs’ purchase.
That "decent" warranty would be mocked in other countries who believe in protecting the consumer. And ironically enough, when sales start to drop for any product, one of the first things a manufacturer does to boost sales is to extend the factory warranty, proving just how minimal the financial impact really is.
Your idea of decent warranty goes against common sense. How long is your home warrantied by your home builder? I bet you it's not 30 years or 15 years which is a typical mortgage. How long is your car warrantied? It may not be the length of your car loan.
A product is "durable" or it isn't. Stop with the bullshit marketing if all you're going to offer is the same shit warranty that every other vendor offers.
Again your ideas about durable are unenforceable as a matter of practicality. My computer didn't last 10 years, I should sue. My lawn mower didn't last 40 years, I should sue. I should sue because nothing lasted as long as I expected them to last.
Please don't be ignorant about this and assume the extreme.
A Kitchen-Aid mixer lasting 30 years isn't the extreme. It's quite normal as those things last forever. A car could last 20+ years. These are normal in the real world, not extreme. Neither of those products have lifetime warranties. Who is the ignorant about the real world?
I'm asking is for a vendor to match consumer expectations and offer a factory warranty that mirrors what carriers are pushing, which is two years.
They DO offer one if you pay for it. However in the US, the minimum and standard manufacturer warranty is typically 1 year. The problem with what you propose is that a cell carrier could make a 3, 4, or 5 year contracts. The manufacturer has no legal standing into anything you agree to with the cell company. By the way, the "vendor" in your scenario as you describe may not be the manufacturer. The vendor could be the cell company. In some cases to get sales, a vendor may grant or offer a warranty on top of a manufacturer's warranty. But again, that is on the vendor, not the manufacturer.
That should not be asking for a lot from a company that is marketing (and defending in court) a "durable" product. If it's durable, then back up your damn marketing and legal defense with a reasonable warranty.
The court ruled in the original dismissal on your "reasonable warranty" arguments and shot them all down.
The court addressed adhesion contract in the original dismissal. As the court points out, the plaintiffs had the opportunity to read the contract before purchase and object either by not purchasing (or purchasing a competitor's phone) or attempting to negotiate. They chose to do none of those things.
With regards to procedural unconscionability, Plaintiffs contend that the Limited Warranty is unconscionable because it is a contract of adhesion, and because Plaintiffs were provided with the Limited Warranty only after purchase. Pl. Opp. at 14. However, “while the terms of the [Limited Warranty] are non-negotiable, Plaintiffs do not allege that they lacked other options for purchasing [smartphones] or for obtaining additional warranty protections from Apple itself.” Berenblatt v. Apple, 2010 WL 1460297, at *5. Moreover, the SACC does not allege that Plaintiffs “were ‘surprised’ by the terms of the express warranty,” and Plaintiffs do not allege “that they themselves did not receive pre-sale notice of the warranty, or that they could not or did not access the warranty online” at the time of Plaintiffs’ purchase.
Adhesion contracts are problematic if you cannot access them before sale. For example, the Microsoft Windows EULA was only accessible after you installed Windows (before XP if I remember). But by installing it you agreed to the EULA including the provision that you were not entitled to a refund after installation. A court ruled that was unenforceable. Microsoft has to make the EULA available on their website these days and I think they they changed the installation to show the EULA before you agree to do it.
In some ways, the Windows 10 forced upgrade issue presents another legal problem for MS in that if consumers had their machines upgraded to 10 without permission, they didn't have a chance to object and not upgrade. Thus they could not give implied consent.
First, the court addressed your reasonable expectations if you bothered to read the dismissal. I've addressed it. Here's why it's not reasonable in a legal sense: In principle you cannot make someone agree to contract terms of which they were not a part of the contract. I could write a contract that you owe me money that I wrote with any John Smith because I reasonably expect to be paid for work I did for John Smith. Second, are you willing to admit that the plaintiff brought up the issue? Therefore it's not a "red herring" that you claim it was.
As a matter of common sense here's why you are advocating for the unreasonable. By analogy, you can get car loans with terms up to 84 months. Some car manufacturers do not offer warranties that long with 36 months limited and 60 months powertrain typically the minimum. If we go with your skewered interpretations of reasonable expectations, all car manufacturers must warranty their cars based on whatever loan with a bank you decided to sign. If the bank creates a 20 year auto loan, the car manufacturer must honor the warranty that even though that car may not last that long. As another example, home mortgages are typically 15 and 30 years. A home builder typically insures a new home for 1 year in which they will repair any defects. According to you a home builder has to insure a house for 30 years even though the home builder may not exist by the time the home is paid off. And if the home owner decides to refinance, the home builder is on the hook for additional years.
And we are only discussing new items. We haven't got to the used market where most used or 2nd hand items sales are implied as as-is sales. Your proposal would have the manufacturer warranty for an indefinite amount of time if something gets resold and new loans are applied. Who is being reasonable here?
Your own amended complaint is dated October 2016 which is before the dismissal I presented of March 2017. Even in the amended complaint, the plaintiff makes the same argument about the warranty period being "unconscionable" for lasting one year and should last two years because the cellular contract is two years.
72. Consumers also reasonably expect that smartphones will remain operable for at least two years when not subject to abuse or neglect because the overwhelming majority of smartphone users are required to sign service contracts with cellular carriers for two-year periods. This means that consumers must select and use one smartphone for the duration of the two-year contract. 73. As such, Apple’s one-year express warranty is both substantively and procedurally unconscionable.
Hey I've personally seen Kitchen-Aid mixers last 30 years. But that doesn't mean Kitchen-Aid warranties their mixers for 30 years or should be forced to do so.
No YOU read it again. I've read it. I've also read the dismissal. From the original dismissal back in March:
"As to substantive unconscionability, Plaintiffs assert that the Limited Warranty is unconscionable because Defendant “manufactures a new [iPhone] model every two years,” that cellphone service providers offer phones on two-year contracts,” and Plaintiffs thus “intuit that in the event of a latent problem with their phone during the lifeof that contract, [Defendant] will make them whole, especially if [Defendant] manufactured the flaw into the iPhones in the first place.” Pl. Opp. at 15. However “a time limitation, by itself, is not unconscionable,” and courts have rejected unconscionability arguments in similar cases. Bros., 2006 WL 3093685, at *8 (rejecting unconscionability argument where the plaintiff argued “the class do[es] not have any meaningful choice in the time limitations in the warranty, the express terms favor HP, and HP knew that the [printers] were defective and would fail well before their useful life”)
As to reasonable expectations of a warranty, the court also ruled that "An express warranty covering ‘materials and workmanship’ does not include design defects.” Clark v. LG Elecs USA, Inc" and "The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’argument that the Limited Warranty’s 1-year duration provision is unconscionable"
The whole warranty term thing is a red herring dropped by Apple, and you're on it like a hound!
Um. The whole warranty thing was brought up by the plaintiffs and multiple people here on this forum. Or did you not read the article? "'To hold Apple's Limited Warranty substantively unconscionable simply because Plaintiffs expect their iPhones to last the length of their cellular service contracts 'would place a burden on [Apple] for which it did not contract,' the company continued." The plaintiffs actually argued the warranty should last as long as their contracts. Apple legal counsel has to address all arguments made by the plaintiffs or they wouldn't be doing their jobs. How is that a red herring when the plaintiff brought it up?
The actual class action is that the problem in the iPhone 6 is a defect that results in a premature failure. Specifically, the "touch disease" defect where weak solder and an excessively flexible phone combine to make the touch screen fail early under normal use.
Yes and I said the plaintiff has to prove all of that and make a case for it in court.
The suit essentially alleges that a consumer has a right to expect better than that for that class of product. The term of contracts, loans, elephant babies, etc all notwithstanding.
Please specify how to do qualify "class of product" Please specify why any of that should nullify a legal contract.
There are two kinds of warranties out there. The one you're stuck on is an express warranty. There are also implied warranties. Implied warranties are imposed in law and cannot generally be disclaimed by a manufacturer (though many try). Those cover such things as merchantability, fitness for purpose and often set a minimum for durability.
Er, what? Please describe what part of a 1 year limited express warranty by Apple violates any implied warranties. I would guarantee you that most if not all cell phones in the US have a 1 year limited warranty exactly like Apple. How many of them are voided according to your logic?
Guess I don't follow your logic with that theory, since I believe a warranty is used to demonstrate the actual durability of a product.
If we follow your idea, then the courts would be clogged with cases of impossible to meet guidelines. A Kitchen-Aid stand mixer might last 30 years but that would require Kitchen-Aid to fully guarantee all their mixers for 30 years. My computer lasted 5 years before the power supply blew; my buddy's same model is still going after 10 years, I should sue.
No, the EU standards ARE important because it proves it CAN be done.
Nowhere has Apple argued that the warranty cannot be 2 years. Apple (and other manufacturers) are arguing they are providing the minimum warranty coverage as dictated by law.
They're claiming it's not reasonable for people to expect more than 1 year out of an iPhone. The offered warranty is really irrelevant to the legal question of how long a reasonable person should expect a product in that price range to last.
That's an uphill argument considering that most electronics have a 1 year warranty. My first cell phone failed 14 months after I bought it. It wasn't an iPhone.
As for the Hondas, if a significant fraction of Hondas failed in a particular way just outside of warranty such that a repair nearly as much as the car was worth, consumers might very well win a lawsuit alleging a defect.
Regardless of what defects that a Honda might have, does your auto loan with your bank force Honda to extend their warranty automatically? That's what some people are arguing. Certainly the plaintiffs are free to present evidence in court about defects and what Apple should do about them but their contracts with cell phone carriers should not override Apple's warranty by default.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes nothing says she (or anyone with a liberal arts degree) can't be a good security officer. But it is suspicious that all of her background is now hidden. It might have been she was CSO for political reasons as one would find in big companies that the person who plays politics is promoted over people who have experience or skill.
Again. Please cite your source. You make a lot of assertions but with little evidence. I can say you murdered JFK on the Grass Knoll but that's a claim not fact. Not evidence.
So again, it comes down to the ability of Apple's lawyers to snow job the courts.
No in court you must prove what you claim. It seems you don't understand this concept.
This ENTIRE article and discussion has been about the US lawsuit with comments about what the Apple lawyer from the US has said. Bringing in the Canadian lawsuit for which there are different laws, rules, cases, lawyers, and judges is you simply refusing to admit you're wrong about basic facts. First of all you were dead wrong about your "red herring" claim which was made about the US lawsuit. Second you can't mix cases into two different countries as one. If this lawsuit was in Europe, almost everything from the case may not apply.
Um. That mentions 1 US lawsuit and 1 Canadian lawsuit. This article is all about the US lawsuit. You've linked motions about the US lawsuit. . So in essence you have yet to prove there are 3 US lawsuits which you claim. BTW are you willing to admit that you were completely wrong about the "red herring" claim?
Seems like nobody has make the distinction between bacterial contamination and radioactive contamination. I suspect that the latter is actually the concern as the probe used an RTG for power and thus it was safest to de-orbit it into Saturn.
I'm pretty sure that because the Huygens lander was designed to land on the surface that NASA already made the distinction decades ago. Landing on the surface might introduce bacterial contamination and that's why most spacecraft are assembled in clean rooms.
No, the standard is that you back up your claims with evidence. The standard is not that I back up your claims with evidence. And why would you bring up a Canadian lawsuit when talking about a US lawsuit?
It's based on engineering.
So it's not based on the law which this entire article was about. But let's talk about your claims in an engineering sense:
Essentially, a manufacturer can be held to reasonably expected standards for quality and durability, particularly when they boast of their quality.
Please cite any engineering textbooks that actually say that. Quality and durability are not normal terms normally used in process improvement nor manufacturing engineering. Terms like defects and variability. While Six Sigma has become more of a brand, the roots are in process improvement to ensure that manufacturing processes reduce variability and defects. Those are terms that would come from engineering.
I can't say if Apple will successfully snow job the court or not, but there exists plenty of evidence that a combination of inadequate stiffness and/or inadequate soldering tends to cause connections to the chip that drives the touchscreen to break.
Again, you are putting the cart before the horse. The plaintiff must prove what they have claimed. Considering that some of their claims are very weak (A warranty's provisions should not be considered because the plaintiffs didn't read it until afterwards.), I doubt that they have adequate evidence. Also considering that it seems the court is striking plaintiffs due to lack of standing as the case goes on, I would say the plaintiffs' lawyers didn't due enough diligence before filing.
So, if a significant number of a particular make of car died after just 7 years (total loss, trip to scrap yard), you would suggest that's just fine?
The plaintiffs must prove that in court. They cannot merely assert something and claim it to be true. I already said this. And the case has not gone to trial yet.
However, the plaintiffs also claimed that a 1 year warranty was unconscionable on principle because they entered into 2 year contracts with a company not named Apple. Also among other claims by the plaintiff: Apple's warranty disclaimers do not count because they were not "conspicuous" because Apple didn't bold them all in their warranty. That the warranty provisions do not count because the plaintiffs did not read them until after purchasing the product (while filing a lawsuit). So how do you feel about those claims?
Also are you willing to admit that this wasn't a red herring brought by Apple seeing how the plaintiffs made the argument multiple times and had it dismissed multiple times?
Essentially, a manufacturer can be held to reasonably expected standards for quality and durability, particularly when they boast of their quality. If one or 2 units fail outside of warranty, it's likely just bad luck, but if a significant number do so, well before the failures would be expected, it's reasonable to suspect the defect existed from day 1.
Please cite me the case law that says that. This is your assertion. It's not based on any actual case law, is it?
It's not 3 suits. Your amended complaint is for case 16-CV-04942-LHK. That is the same case as the dismissal. The judge dismissed 10 counts of the suit back in March but allowed them to re-file; however, it appears the plaintiffs did not change their arguments regarding the cellular contracts which she dismissed the first time around.
Or things which I cannot use. I once got ads for Lamaze classes. I'm a dude who doesn't have a pregnant significant other. It was funny because it popped up after a weekend trip to Vegas: "Honey, you gots some 'splainin' to do!"
By the way, it's not 3 lawsuits as far as I can tell. It's one lawsuit. The court dismissed the original complaint in March but allowed the plaintiffs to refile. The dismissal noted that some of plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and some of the arguments would have been dismissed anyways. Since the case is not at trial stage yet, it's typical to dismiss the case and have them re-file removing some plaintiffs and changing their arguments. Had the case been at or near trial, the court probably would have merely dismissed the case with no chance to re-file.
No, their warranty is excused under US laws. Other countries validate this.
And you're arguing it shouldn't be allowed under US law. Did you contract did yourself?
You are failing to understand my statement. What if your favorite auto maker suddenly changed their warranty to 1 year, and forced you to pay for anything more than that?
By what do you mean "suddenly changed their warranty". The Apple warranty was always 1 year in the US. It's always been 1 year. Apple did not "suddenly change" their warranty as you imply. Please describe how Apple "suddenly changed" their warranty. Therefore your assertion is false.
Would you still feel confident in the product and buy a new car from them, or would you re-consider, based on their calculations and reasoning for limiting their product to one year? I have a feeling you would think about it, for there is always a validated reason to limit warranties on hardware, and it usually has to do with reliability.
Your hypothetical is based on a scenario that didn't happen in this case. However in a hypothetical scenario if a manufacturer changes their warranty coverage on new products, you are free not to buy their products (as we all are). As were the plaintiffs. If Honda reduced their warranties to 1 year on their cars, you are free not to buy their cars. You can't buy a Honda then complain after the fact that the warranty was 1 year. That isn't the scenario here as the warranty has always been 1 year. The court ruled as much in the original dismissal.
Moreover, the SACC does not allege that Plaintiffs were ‘surprised’ by the terms of the express warranty,” and Plaintiffs do not allege “that they themselves did not receive pre-sale notice of the warranty, or that they could not or did not access the warranty online” at the time of Plaintiffs’ purchase.
That "decent" warranty would be mocked in other countries who believe in protecting the consumer. And ironically enough, when sales start to drop for any product, one of the first things a manufacturer does to boost sales is to extend the factory warranty, proving just how minimal the financial impact really is.
Your idea of decent warranty goes against common sense. How long is your home warrantied by your home builder? I bet you it's not 30 years or 15 years which is a typical mortgage. How long is your car warrantied? It may not be the length of your car loan.
A product is "durable" or it isn't. Stop with the bullshit marketing if all you're going to offer is the same shit warranty that every other vendor offers.
Again your ideas about durable are unenforceable as a matter of practicality. My computer didn't last 10 years, I should sue. My lawn mower didn't last 40 years, I should sue. I should sue because nothing lasted as long as I expected them to last.
Please don't be ignorant about this and assume the extreme.
A Kitchen-Aid mixer lasting 30 years isn't the extreme. It's quite normal as those things last forever. A car could last 20+ years. These are normal in the real world, not extreme. Neither of those products have lifetime warranties. Who is the ignorant about the real world?
I'm asking is for a vendor to match consumer expectations and offer a factory warranty that mirrors what carriers are pushing, which is two years.
They DO offer one if you pay for it. However in the US, the minimum and standard manufacturer warranty is typically 1 year. The problem with what you propose is that a cell carrier could make a 3, 4, or 5 year contracts. The manufacturer has no legal standing into anything you agree to with the cell company. By the way, the "vendor" in your scenario as you describe may not be the manufacturer. The vendor could be the cell company. In some cases to get sales, a vendor may grant or offer a warranty on top of a manufacturer's warranty. But again, that is on the vendor, not the manufacturer.
That should not be asking for a lot from a company that is marketing (and defending in court) a "durable" product. If it's durable, then back up your damn marketing and legal defense with a reasonable warranty.
The court ruled in the original dismissal on your "reasonable warranty" arguments and shot them all down.
The court addressed adhesion contract in the original dismissal. As the court points out, the plaintiffs had the opportunity to read the contract before purchase and object either by not purchasing (or purchasing a competitor's phone) or attempting to negotiate. They chose to do none of those things.
With regards to procedural unconscionability, Plaintiffs contend that the Limited Warranty is unconscionable because it is a contract of adhesion, and because Plaintiffs were provided with the Limited Warranty only after purchase. Pl. Opp. at 14. However, “while the terms of the [Limited Warranty] are non-negotiable, Plaintiffs do not allege that they lacked other options for purchasing [smartphones] or for obtaining additional warranty protections from Apple itself.” Berenblatt v. Apple, 2010 WL 1460297, at *5. Moreover, the SACC does not allege that Plaintiffs “were ‘surprised’ by the terms of the express warranty,” and Plaintiffs do not allege “that they themselves did not receive pre-sale notice of the warranty, or that they could not or did not access the warranty online” at the time of Plaintiffs’ purchase.
Adhesion contracts are problematic if you cannot access them before sale. For example, the Microsoft Windows EULA was only accessible after you installed Windows (before XP if I remember). But by installing it you agreed to the EULA including the provision that you were not entitled to a refund after installation. A court ruled that was unenforceable. Microsoft has to make the EULA available on their website these days and I think they they changed the installation to show the EULA before you agree to do it.
In some ways, the Windows 10 forced upgrade issue presents another legal problem for MS in that if consumers had their machines upgraded to 10 without permission, they didn't have a chance to object and not upgrade. Thus they could not give implied consent.
First, the court addressed your reasonable expectations if you bothered to read the dismissal. I've addressed it. Here's why it's not reasonable in a legal sense: In principle you cannot make someone agree to contract terms of which they were not a part of the contract. I could write a contract that you owe me money that I wrote with any John Smith because I reasonably expect to be paid for work I did for John Smith. Second, are you willing to admit that the plaintiff brought up the issue? Therefore it's not a "red herring" that you claim it was.
As a matter of common sense here's why you are advocating for the unreasonable. By analogy, you can get car loans with terms up to 84 months. Some car manufacturers do not offer warranties that long with 36 months limited and 60 months powertrain typically the minimum. If we go with your skewered interpretations of reasonable expectations, all car manufacturers must warranty their cars based on whatever loan with a bank you decided to sign. If the bank creates a 20 year auto loan, the car manufacturer must honor the warranty that even though that car may not last that long. As another example, home mortgages are typically 15 and 30 years. A home builder typically insures a new home for 1 year in which they will repair any defects. According to you a home builder has to insure a house for 30 years even though the home builder may not exist by the time the home is paid off. And if the home owner decides to refinance, the home builder is on the hook for additional years.
And we are only discussing new items. We haven't got to the used market where most used or 2nd hand items sales are implied as as-is sales. Your proposal would have the manufacturer warranty for an indefinite amount of time if something gets resold and new loans are applied. Who is being reasonable here?
72. Consumers also reasonably expect that smartphones will remain operable for at least two years when not subject to abuse or neglect because the overwhelming majority of smartphone users are required to sign service contracts with cellular carriers for two-year periods. This means that consumers must select and use one smartphone for the duration of the two-year contract. 73. As such, Apple’s one-year express warranty is both substantively and procedurally unconscionable.
Hey I've personally seen Kitchen-Aid mixers last 30 years. But that doesn't mean Kitchen-Aid warranties their mixers for 30 years or should be forced to do so.
"As to substantive unconscionability, Plaintiffs assert that the Limited Warranty is unconscionable because Defendant “manufactures a new [iPhone] model every two years,” that cellphone service providers offer phones on two-year contracts,” and Plaintiffs thus “intuit that in the event of a latent problem with their phone during the lifeof that contract, [Defendant] will make them whole, especially if [Defendant] manufactured the flaw into the iPhones in the first place.” Pl. Opp. at 15. However “a time limitation, by itself, is not unconscionable,” and courts have rejected unconscionability arguments in similar cases. Bros., 2006 WL 3093685, at *8 (rejecting unconscionability argument where the plaintiff argued “the class do[es] not have any meaningful choice in the time limitations in the warranty, the express terms favor HP, and HP knew that the [printers] were defective and would fail well before their useful life”)
As to reasonable expectations of a warranty, the court also ruled that "An express warranty covering ‘materials and workmanship’ does not include design defects.” Clark v. LG Elecs USA, Inc" and "The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’argument that the Limited Warranty’s 1-year duration provision is unconscionable"
Please tell me how Apple following US legal guidelines in terms of warranty coverage asserts what you claim.
And what does that have to do with requiring Kitchen Aid to fully warranty their mixers for 30 years because some expects it to last that long?
The whole warranty term thing is a red herring dropped by Apple, and you're on it like a hound!
Um. The whole warranty thing was brought up by the plaintiffs and multiple people here on this forum. Or did you not read the article? "'To hold Apple's Limited Warranty substantively unconscionable simply because Plaintiffs expect their iPhones to last the length of their cellular service contracts 'would place a burden on [Apple] for which it did not contract,' the company continued." The plaintiffs actually argued the warranty should last as long as their contracts. Apple legal counsel has to address all arguments made by the plaintiffs or they wouldn't be doing their jobs. How is that a red herring when the plaintiff brought it up?
The actual class action is that the problem in the iPhone 6 is a defect that results in a premature failure. Specifically, the "touch disease" defect where weak solder and an excessively flexible phone combine to make the touch screen fail early under normal use.
Yes and I said the plaintiff has to prove all of that and make a case for it in court.
The suit essentially alleges that a consumer has a right to expect better than that for that class of product. The term of contracts, loans, elephant babies, etc all notwithstanding.
Please specify how to do qualify "class of product" Please specify why any of that should nullify a legal contract.
There are two kinds of warranties out there. The one you're stuck on is an express warranty. There are also implied warranties. Implied warranties are imposed in law and cannot generally be disclaimed by a manufacturer (though many try). Those cover such things as merchantability, fitness for purpose and often set a minimum for durability.
Er, what? Please describe what part of a 1 year limited express warranty by Apple violates any implied warranties. I would guarantee you that most if not all cell phones in the US have a 1 year limited warranty exactly like Apple. How many of them are voided according to your logic?
Guess I don't follow your logic with that theory, since I believe a warranty is used to demonstrate the actual durability of a product.
If we follow your idea, then the courts would be clogged with cases of impossible to meet guidelines. A Kitchen-Aid stand mixer might last 30 years but that would require Kitchen-Aid to fully guarantee all their mixers for 30 years. My computer lasted 5 years before the power supply blew; my buddy's same model is still going after 10 years, I should sue.
No, the EU standards ARE important because it proves it CAN be done.
Nowhere has Apple argued that the warranty cannot be 2 years. Apple (and other manufacturers) are arguing they are providing the minimum warranty coverage as dictated by law.
They're claiming it's not reasonable for people to expect more than 1 year out of an iPhone. The offered warranty is really irrelevant to the legal question of how long a reasonable person should expect a product in that price range to last.
That's an uphill argument considering that most electronics have a 1 year warranty. My first cell phone failed 14 months after I bought it. It wasn't an iPhone.
As for the Hondas, if a significant fraction of Hondas failed in a particular way just outside of warranty such that a repair nearly as much as the car was worth, consumers might very well win a lawsuit alleging a defect.
Regardless of what defects that a Honda might have, does your auto loan with your bank force Honda to extend their warranty automatically? That's what some people are arguing. Certainly the plaintiffs are free to present evidence in court about defects and what Apple should do about them but their contracts with cell phone carriers should not override Apple's warranty by default.
The term you are ignoring then is "legal obligation"