Interesting. You seem to be in the know on these matters. Could you point me in the direction of some examples of cases such as this where a court has handed down a decision in the UK? In particular I would be interested to read about courts over ruling the verdict of the factory on component level issues in the case of user assembled systems. (similiar to what the OP has presented).
If we simply replaced every motherboard returned to Scan we would be out of business now, laws which we sometimes have to refer to are there to protect you and retailers as such. Law is passed and rights are issued for situations such as this Scan are entitled to send the motherboard which may be seen as physical damage by Asus to which if this was the case and we simply replaced the motherboard Scan would have to foot the cost of the whole motherboard hence a loss. In order for Scan to run a good business practice its a balance of weighing up and making good decisions for the business and also keeping on good terms with the customer. We ALWAYS try our best on the customers behalf to resolve the situation but also at the same time have to make those decisions viable.Originally Posted by firsttimebuyer
It may be a small amount of money to Scan in a single instance but if we simply replaced every returned motherboard without question or second opinion it would certainly mount up hence we have to stick with procedure in cases like this. Implying we don't care and that we are defensive if this was your business would you simply replace/refund all RMA's at your cost without question?
All at Scan adhere to the same code we are motivated and care about what we do hence the reason we are so sucessful, in order to stay successful we have to have procedure and make hard decisions, it may seem to you we don't care becuase it has not happened the way that you want it to, this I can understand when thisngs dont go my way I feel angry this is natural. You claims we do not care are Wrong and I would like to see some weight in this claim becuase as far as I can see and feel we are Simply "here" becuase of the fact We Care which is a neccesity within todays market.
Regards
__________________
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.
Error exists between Keyboard & Chair replace User and press Any Key!
.... Where's the Any Key???
Not easily, because I don't have access to the legal databases, and much of what I've said about decisions has come from discussions with friends and some of that will have come from personal experience, not case histories. They DO have access to the databases, though, so I'll see what they can (and will) look up. But as I said, in small claims cases, the opinion of the factory may well never come into it because they may well not be consulted. The whole point of the small claims track is to keep cases about s,all claims small and cheap, and that means the court limits evidence by "experts" to ensure that private claimants and buried by corporate legal muscle and hordes of experts. And most small cases, unless there are complex legal issues, or where the claim is over £5000, end up in the small claims track.
Thanks for trying to explain that Saracen, I think the way i handle my warranty is OK then as i give 6 months or 6000 miles unless failure is due to failure of ancillary component or due to overheating through lack of water.
In other ward if the customers water pump fails a couple of months down the line and the car runs out of water then the customer drives the car for a distance causing it to run way too hot and blows the gasket the warranty is void .
But i have had one or 2 instances where the gasket has failed only a few weeks further on and I could find no reason for it to go and after doing it a second time there was no further problem
so I ended up absorbing the costs and never claimed from the gasket co. either.
That latter situation sounds, unfortunately, like the type of thing that's just a cost of doing business. I guess that's also what Paulm was saying - sometimes Scan eat the cost, sometimes not. They have to draw a line somewhere.Thanks for trying to explain that Saracen, I think the way i handle my warranty is OK then as i give 6 months or 6000 miles unless failure is due to failure of ancillary component or due to overheating through lack of water.
In other ward if the customers water pump fails a couple of months down the line and the car runs out of water then the customer drives the car for a distance causing it to run way too hot and blows the gasket the warranty is void .
But i have had one or 2 instances where the gasket has failed only a few weeks further on and I could find no reason for it to go and after doing it a second time there was no further problem
so I ended up absorbing the costs and never claimed from the gasket co. either
But just to be clear, the 6 months thing is about statutory rights, and they extend for up to 6 years. Statutory rights and any warranty are NOT at all the same thing, and the consumer has both (assuming you give a warranty).
You can, as I understand it, give 3 months, or 36 months or whatever you want, and provided you comply with the requirements about your warranty being available to inspect, and in clear English, etc, it should be OK. There are also, of course, things you can't put in a warranty. There's legislation governing unfair terms in contracts, both for consumers and non-consumers, and if you put terms into a warranty that are unfair, then at best they'll be unenforceable, and at worst, you could be committing an offence and be risking prosecution. The obvious example is if you try to restrict statutory rights. There's a classic - putting up a sign saying "no refunds". Do that and you could well arouse Trading Standards ire if they spot it .... or someone reports it.
But just remember, whatever you offer or don't offer in your warranty makes NO DIFFERENCE to the consumer's statutory rights. They're very different. So, if you're going to offer a warranty, it might well be worth paying a lawyer a few quid to make sure it's drafted how you want it, so that it's both legal, and it achieves what you want without risking giving away things you don't want.
I think you will find that any such cases are actually to settle a dispute between customer and supplier. I have yet to hear of any case where a court has overturned the verdict of a manufacturer. The point I'm trying to make is that while a court does have the authority to overturn the rulings of a factory you will find that they do not have the ability to do so. While related, authority and ability being 2 different things. By default the factories rulings will always stand for the sheer reason of lack of any credible higher authority.Not easily, because I don't have access to the legal databases, and much of what I've said about decisions has come from discussions with friends and some of that will have come from personal experience, not case histories. They DO have access to the databases, though, so I'll see what they can (and will) look up. But as I said, in small claims cases, the opinion of the factory may well never come into it because they may well not be consulted. The whole point of the small claims track is to keep cases about s,all claims small and cheap, and that means the court limits evidence by "experts" to ensure that private claimants and buried by corporate legal muscle and hordes of experts. And most small cases, unless there are complex legal issues, or where the claim is over £5000, end up in the small claims track.
That said I would still be interested in any links you could provide to legal precedent on the matter. I'll check back here from time to time.
In the UK, the majority of such cases are between buyer and supplier, though, and usually little or nothing to do with the manufacturer because bulk of the legal protections are against the supplier. And it's unlikely a manufacturer would meet qualifying rules anyway.
In the small claims court, as I said, expert evidence is quite heavily restricted. The logic is that if any and all expert evidence is permitted, those with the deepest pockets can afford the best, and biggest quantity, of expert evidence and that doesn't fit with the mandate of the court, which is to keep costs down and cases as simple as possible.
So, :-
- NO expert evidence will be admitted in court except by prior approval of the court.
- Usually, it'll be a single jointly-agreed expert
- if it's not a single expert, then standard "Part 35" rules apply.
The ONLY experts that will be heard are either those that are approved by the court (Rule 27.5), and in the case of the small claims track, that will either be a jointly agreed expert (that must still be court-approved), or one selected by the Court, either from the lists prepared by both parties, or however the Court selects.
But the general principle of ANY expert in such a case is that the expert is independent, and owes his duty to the court. The expert is there to provide expert, impartial assistance to the court, not to the parties, even though the parties (generally jointly) will be liable for, and in some proportion, paying for that expert.
If I had a similar case to the OP and took Scan to the small claims court, and if that motherboard had a manufacturer's guarantee, then I could :-
1) Sue Scan using my statutory rights, or
2) Sue the manufacturer if I felt the guarantee was breached, or
3) sue both, separately.
Given that, during the case in point 1), I still have the right to take action under point 2), and the manufacturer is directly in the firing line for that, in 3what sense does the manufacturer qualify as independent or impartial, when they have a direct product liability, not just to me via the guarantee, but quite possibly to Scan.
After all, if I win the case and Scan are held liable, then it's by virtue of an inherent fault in the product, and by that measure, Scan could claim against the manufacturer. So the manufacturer has a direct benefit on not being liable. "Independent and impartial" how, precisely?
I don't know about the rest of Europe, but in the small claims track, the manufacturer might be best qualified to comment, and are certainly available to supply an opinion to the retailer to help them make up their mind on whether they should accept or deny liability, but getting a manufacturer's report before a small claims court as "expert" evidence is a very different matter. It'd be a bit like asking the local fox for expert evidence on who raided the farmer's chicken-coop, wouldn't it? The fox might well know (as he wipes off the blood and feathers), and he's certainly an expert, but he's hardly impartial in the matter.
You have again hit the nail on the head with most of that, and it is inline with how the rest of Western Europe legislates such things as well.
Ok
I seriously doubt anything more contsructive can be acheived from the thread at this time, it has ultimately reached the end and is here for everyone to view. However. I have taken the decision to lock the thread at this stage.
We will be in contact with the OP once we have further information from Asus.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
SCAN.care@HEXUS
SCAN.care@HEXUS
SCAN.care@HEXUS
SCAN.care@HEXUS
SCAN.care@HEXUS
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
