Scan & Intel CPU Warranty Issues

[moogle]

Oh no you just have to use OEM cpu's with whats provided...
No Heatsink nor Paste!
Tough decision, keep the warranty or cook the cpu

[Supershanks]

Hi blitzen.
Was part of Ian's response

=Post#1 I then spoke to Ian in technical support who explained to me:-
1) The temperatures were within Intel's guidelines. I asked what these were and was told to check Intel's website, no value was given.
2) I asked if he'd actually read the original message, did he understand that the test was run with water cooling.
3) Ian confirmed he had, and told me i was in breach of warranty by using water cooling. He went on on say using any other cooling method other than the stock cooler is a breach of warranty and that Intel and Scan would not accept an RMA.

So, what about OEM CPUs? Are we saying that all of Intel's OEM CPUs come without a warranty now?

Well these retail warranty restrictions are bad enough.

[Oldjim]

Having just installed an Intel Core 2 duo I have looked carefully at the Limited Warranty conditions and in my opinion they haven't got a cat in hell's chance of standing up in a UK court. The interesting part is this clause

WARRANTY LIMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
THIS WARRANTY REPLACES ALL OTHER WARRANTIES FOR THE PRODUCT AND INTEL DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, COURSE OF DEALING AND USAGE OF TRADE. Some states (or jurisdictions) do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties so this limitation may not apply to you. ALL EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES ARE LIMITED IN DURATION TO THE LIMITED WARRANTY PERIOD. NO WARRANTIES APPLY AFTER THAT PERIOD. Some states (or jurisdictions) do not allow limitations on how long an implied warranty lasts, so this limitation may not apply to you.

Note the part in red which cannot be excluded under UK and EU law

Limited Warranty
Intel warrants to the purchaser of the Product (defined herein as the boxed Intel® processor and the accompanying thermal solution) in its original sealed packaging ("Original Purchaser") and to the purchaser of a computer system built by an Original Purchaser containing the Product ("Original System Customer") as follows: if the Product is properly used and installed, it will be free from defects in material and workmanship, and will substantially conform to Intel's publicly available specifications for a period of three (3) years beginning on the date the Product was purchased in its original sealed packaging in the case of an Original Purchaser, and for a period of three (3) years beginning on the date of purchase of a computer system containing the Product for an Original System Cus¬tomer. If the Product, which is the subject of this Limited Warranty, fails to conform to the above warranty during the warranty period, Intel, at its option, will:
REPAIR the Product by means of hardware and/or software; OR
REPLACE the Product with another product; OR, if Intel is unable to repair or replace the Product,
REFUND the then-current value of the Product at the time a claim for warranty service is made to Intel under this Limited Warranty.
THIS LIMITED WARRANTY, AND ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES THAT MAY EXIST UNDER APPLICABLE STATE, NATIONAL, PROVINCAL OR LOCAL LAW, APPLY ONLY TO YOU AS THE ORIGINAL PURCHASER OF THE PRODUCT OR COMPUTER SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES THE PRODUCT AND LASTS ONLY FOR AS LONG AS YOU CONTINUE TO OWN THE PRODUCT. WARRANTY COVERAGE TERMINATES IF THE ORIGINAL SYSTEM CUSTOMER SELLS OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERS THE COMPUTER SYSTEM WHICH INCLUDES THE PRODUCT.
EXTENT OF LIMITED WARRANTY
Intel does not warrant that the Product will be free from design defects or errors known as "errata." Current characterized errata are available upon request. Further, this Limited Warranty does NOT cover:
• any costs associated with the repair or replacement of the Product including labor, installation or other costs
incurred by you, and in particular, any costs relating to the removal or replacement of any Product that is
soldered or otherwise permanently affixed to any printed circuit board; OR
• damage to the Product due to external causes, including accident, problems with electrical power, abnormal
electrical, mechanical or environmental conditions, usage not in accordance with product instructions,
misuse, neglect, alteration, repair, improper installation, or improper testing; OR
• any Product which has been modified or operated outside of Intel's publicly available specifications or where
the original identification markings (trademark or serial number) has been removed, altered or obliterated
from the Product.

The conclusion must be that you don't rely on the so called limited warranty but on the Sale of Goods Act which is very clear in this regard.

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by Oldjim

Having just installed an Intel Core 2 duo I have looked carefully at the Limited Warranty conditions and in my opinion they haven't got a cat in hell's chance of standing up in a UK court. The interesting part is this clause Note the part in red which cannot be excluded under UK and EU law The conclusion must be that you don't rely on the so called limited warranty but on the Sale of Goods Act which is very clear in this regard.

Not as clear as you might think.

Firstly, you have to distinguish between three issues :-

- the contract with the supplier
- the warranty offered by the manufacturer
- the rights provided by consumer legislation (the Sale of Goods Act, and others)

Manufacturers aren't obliged to offer warranties, because you've bought from the retailer not the manufacturer. However, relatively recently, it became law that where manufacturers offered a warranty, and where the buyer knew of it and relied on it, the manufacturer can be held to it. There are some stipulations on how it must be written, too, such as in plain English.

But the main recourse in the event of problems is via the contract with the retailer. That will be determined by any terms and conditions agreed at the time of sale, which in consumer contracts almost certainly means the retailers T&Cs, except where those T&Cs would be invalidated by law, such as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs.

Then, there's the Sale of Goods Act. The Sale of Goods Act works by explicitly embedding certain statutory rights into every retailer-to-consumer contract by making it's primary purposes implied conditions of those contracts. That's the fitness for purpose, satisfactory quality, etc bits. Those cannot be overruled by anything the retailer does, or puts in their contracts. That's why there'll always be a bit in any sensible retailer contract (or manufacturer warranty, like that Intel one you quoted) that stipulates that nothing in the contract takes precedence over statutory rights. That isn't a retailer being generous - it's because they can get in deep poop if they try.

Now the tricky bit. When you buy as a consumer, the SoGA gives you a "reasonable" time to inspect goods to ensure that they comply with contract. If they don't, you can reject them and get a full refund, provided you haven't (legally) "accepted" the goods ..... and that isn't talking about accepting delivery. You can "accept" goods in a variety of ways, including acting in a way that is inconsistent with not accepting them (such as modifying them) .... or simply by not rejecting them quickly enough. How quickly that needs to be isn't defined in law anywhere - it's a decision for a court when dealing with a given case. But, short of exceptional circumstances, it will be a short period. Perhaps a few days and outside of exceptional circumstances, not likely to be more than a month. But ONLY a court can specify it in a given case.

And after acceptance, you only have recourse under sale of goods act protections if the goods have a defect which was inherent at the time of supply. It, essentially, needs to be something that was there when you bought even if it wasn't obvious - such as a substandard part that failed before it should have. If goods develop problems within the first 6 months after sale, there is a statutory presumption that the fault was inherent at the time of supply unless the retailer can prove otherwise. After 6 months, there's a presumption that the fault wasn't inherent, unless the buyer can prove it was.

Soooooo ...... if you have something like a processor and it fails (and that doesn't necessarily just mean stops working), the two critical questions are :-

- why?
- when?

If it failed because it had been abused, because it had been fitted improperly, because it had been overclocked, because unauthorised cooling or even paste had been used, then it's down to the buyer and the SoGA isn't going to help.

Which brings us back to who proves what. It's all very well the Sale of Goods Act being "clear", which it isn't entirely, but what does it say? It says that if the retailer can prove that something the buyer did contributed to or caused the problem, the SoGA isn't going to help the buyer. But can they? If they can get engineering reports from independent labs that conclude that the chip overheated, perhaps because of a defective fan, or incorrectly fitted water cooling, or simply a cooler that wasn't up to the job, then the SoGA, effectively, supports the retailer.

Consumer laws like the SoGA do bend a fair way towards the consumer, but ONLY in an attempt to level the playing field, given that retailers are in a far better position to understand the implications of contracts and nearly always get to write the conditions of the contract. But at the end of the day, the SoGA isn't about giving full protection to the consumer, but about achieving equity and equality between and buyer and retailer.

It's certainly not clear to me that a SoGA case brought over a failed CPU would succeed. A lot would depend on whether the chip was operating within specified levels, even if higher than expectations, and on what any engineering assessments might say ..... even assuming someone goes as far as taking it to court at all.

[GSte]

Originally Posted by moogle

Oh no you just have to use OEM cpu's with whats provided...
No Heatsink nor Paste!
Tough decision, keep the warranty or cook the cpu

[Giraffe]

Doesn't a retailer, by offering third-party coolers AND CPUs, imply that these items may be used together? If not, why say that x-cooler is compatible with y-socket or even specifically with z-CPUs?

[vrykyl]

What about Scan's own 3xS systems that have water cooling in them? Or Dell's, or anyone elses for that matter - iv had a mate who had a phasechange cooled intel chip die - he contacted intel direct, was up front about his cooling method, and they still sent him a new chip.

Its pretty shocking to sell after market heatsinks, watercooling kit and thermal paste if you then turn around and say it voids the intel warranty - its ridiculous.

[Nomadd]

Originally Posted by Supershanks

We received an E8400 on Monday 28th to put in a new silent HTPC air cooled build , I decided to test it on Wednesday night and was extremely alarmed about the high temperatures even running on my water-cooled system. Accordingly we sent the following request for an RMA on Thursday :- {snip}

Why didn't you just return it under the Distance Selling Reg's? I mean, you were, and probably still are, under the 7 day limit. I know this isn't ideal, but having just returned a noisy 8800GTS which Scan considered "no fault" I just said fine, don't send it back, give me a refund. Which after a bit of chasing they have.

Nomadd

[Supershanks]

Why didn't you just return it under the Distance Selling Reg's? I

I've never had to do that also , simply because i wasn't expecting a response such as i got from Ian . As i said in the 1st post , we've dealt with scan for a long time, have always had good service with returns in the past, certainly nothing like the issue here, or the ramification's of what was stated.

Originally Posted by vrykyl

What about Scan's own 3xS systems that have water cooling in them?

exactly my thought in post #1

the same with after market coolers Wonder if theirs a labelling requirement,

using this cooler will lower your temperatures , but break your warranty

[Agent]

Ironically, its not possible to 'cook' an Intel CPU.
You could take the heatsink off them in the middle of priming and it would throttle / crash, but not burn out. They are designed like that

[Oldjim]

@Saracen
My response was related to the OP's specific problem and whether the fact that the temperature readout doesn't work properly and whether this comes under fit for purpose or not.
I would have thought it did and hence falls under basic consumer rights.
The fact that under consumer legislation it is up to the retailer to prove that an inherent fault wasn't present inside the first 6 months and if the processor and cooling system is returned fully cleaned this would be almost impossible as I don't think there is any way that this particular fault could be caused by the customer so it must be inherent. For this reason there is or should be no way that Scan can rely on the wording of the Intel Limited Warranty even if a non standard cooler was used.
This sets out the customer's rights fairly clearly Sale of Goods Act Quick Facts - BERR and this is the interesting part

Q13. What does the "reversed burden of proof" mean for the consumer?

It means that for the first six months the consumer need not produce any evidence that a product was inherently faulty at the time of sale. If a consumer is seeking any other remedy the burden of proof remains with him/her.

In such a case, the retailer will either accept there was an inherent fault, and will offer a remedy, or he will dispute that it was inherently flawed. If the latter, when he inspects the product to analyse the cause, he may, for example, point out impact damage or stains that would be consistent with it having been mistreated in such a way as to bring about the fault.

This reversal of the usual burden of proof only applies when the consumer is seeking a repair or replacement. After the first six months the onus of proof is again on the consumer.

Note the part in red where the mistreatment (after market cooler or not fitted properly for example) will have brought about the fault.

[vrykyl]

If this is truely Scan's stance on using after market cooling on cpu's then I will have to seriously re-evaluate my buying habits with them....as whilst I appreciate that I void my warranty if I take the heatsink off a graphics card for a better one etc, to say as much for a cpu - to which the stock heatsink is not attached by default (like a gpu) is just daft.

Even the dreaded overclockers, and the only slightly better aria, have both accepted rma's from me in the past for faulty cpu's, in the full knowledge that they have been aftermarket air or water cooled....
Phase is a different story, as thats subjecting the cpu to way out of spec temps, but thats not whats on the table here.

Im very interested to see how this pans out, because if we cant trust scan to take back faulty cpu's that we have tried to cool well........

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by Oldjim

Note the part in red where the mistreatment (after market cooler or not fitted properly for example) will have brought about the fault.

Yep. They are examples of what might muddy the waters. They are not the only examples. I listed those possibilities, and others, in my post.

Originally Posted by Oldjim

@Saracen
My response was related to the OP's specific problem and whether the fact that the temperature readout doesn't work properly and whether this comes under fit for purpose or not.
I would have thought it did and hence falls under basic consumer rights.

Does the readout work properly, though? If, as was claimed on that first post, the temps are within Intel guidelines, then it's hard to argue that it's an inherent fault. It might not be showing what was expected, but if it's within guidelines .....

Originally Posted by Oldjim

The fact that under consumer legislation it is up to the retailer to prove that an inherent fault wasn't present inside the first 6 months and if the processor and cooling system is returned fully cleaned this would be almost impossible as I don't think there is any way that this particular fault could be caused by the customer so it must be inherent. For this reason there is or should be no way that Scan can rely on the wording of the Intel Limited Warranty even if a non standard cooler was used.

I'm inclined to agree ..... IF it's actually a fault.

My point was that it doesn't matter what you or I think, only what the court concludes. And the court is unlikely to be an tech enthusiast who understands the fine points of comparative temp performance. If any retailer can demonstrate that the product is performing within rated spec, there's likely to be a serious problem proving it's a fault. It is not, in my opinion, necessarily a clear-cut and obvious win for the consumer, at least, not on the grounds of the info given so far.

Which is why, like others, I'm interested to see Scan's response. It will certainly affect my buying decisions.

[Blitzen]

Originally Posted by Supershanks

Hi blitzen.
Was part of Ian's response
Well these retail warranty restrictions are bad enough.

I think Ian may well need further training then. Or wonder whether thats his opinion only (if it is then he is certainly in the wrong job).
I like Scan, i really do, but when a company comes up with a pathetic 'get out' like the one you have been given, you have to wonder how good they really are.

Which is why, like others, I'm interested to see Scan's response. It will certainly affect my buying decisions.

Me too....especially if Scan stick by what Ian has said.

[chrestomanci]

Originally Posted by vrykyl

What about Scan's own 3xS systems that have water cooling in them? Or Dell's, or anyone else's for that matter - iv had a mate who had a phasechange cooled Intel chip die - he contacted Intel direct, was up front about his cooling method, and they still sent him a new chip.

Scan's 3XS systems are built using OEM CPUs, and are covered by Scan's warranty. If the system goes wrong it is Scan's problem, and they will have to cover the cost of any replacement parts. They can't claim back the cost of such parts from Intel unless they are able to show that there is a specific problem.

Originally Posted by vrykyl

Its pretty shocking to sell after market heat sinks, water cooling kit and thermal paste if you then turn around and say it voids the Intel warranty - its ridiculous.

People do all kinds of things that void warranties. (Over clocking, lapping CPU heat spreaders etc) I have know for years that when you buy a retail CPU it is only covered by the warranty if you use the heat sink and thermal paste that comes with it. The reason it is there is to ensure there is a minimum standard of heat sink. Without that rule, people might take tiny heat sinks intended for north bridges or mobile CPUs, attach them to hot quad core extreme processors, and then complain that the CPU cooked itself to death. My advice would be to test the CPU using the retail heat sink, and if there is a problem, put in a warranty claim. Once you have established that the CPU is fine, go ahead and void the warranty by using a better heat sink.

[Clunk]

Originally Posted by chrestomanci

Scan's 3XS systems are built using OEM CPUs, and are covered by Scan's warranty. If the system goes wrong it is Scan's problem, and they will have to cover the cost of any replacement parts. They can't claim back the cost of such parts from Intel unless they are able to show that there is a specific problem.

If that's the case, then how can Scan offer a warranty on the 3XS system and not the other? The cooling method is the same, so at the very least, the 12 months warranty should apply?

Also, if what you say is correct, then it is fine to use watercooling or after market air cooling on OEM chips without losing the 12 months warranty?

It appears like it's one rule for one and one for another.