Originally Posted by bigblue
I tend to agree with that. I don't necessarily think IBM thought they would lose, more that they couldn't be arsed with the claims process.
From my understanding of the Sale of Goods act (which could be entirely wrong, it's been a while...), the difficulty in these types of cases is proving it is a defect, daft as that sounds. If said "defect" is covered by ISOwhatever as a typical occurence or acceptable tolerance then it isn't a "defect"
On the retail side of things I've had to argue the toss with a few customers about what is/isn't acceptable under those dreaded headings "within manufacturers tolerances", "refer to ISO...", and the classic "limited warranty" and more often than not if someone stamps and shouts enough (without getting arsey) they get a replacement. It's just easier all round.
"within manufacturers tolerances" is exactly right. IBM should have taken it to court - as usually the loser has to pay costs (or is that not true with small claims? but then our legal system would be pretty messed up as noone would bother).
There is no way she could prove it is a defect, its documented in the spec sheets for *every* tft manufactuer, basicly saying if you need a defect free screen (ie milatary and medical use) you should pay them more for one that has gone through more expensive qualilty checking.