Manufacturer's additional Warranty's

  spuds 13:27 25 Mar 2007
Locked

Thought that it might be interesting to put this question for general debate.

Some time ago I purchased a monitor from a well known retailer, and due to low stocks I accepted a non powered display model. The monitor was supplied with the retailers 12 month (consumer law)guarantee, and an additional further 2 years manufacturers warranty. Industry standard 3 year swap-out arrangement.

Registering with the manufacturer was simple originally, and the registration was confirmed and accepted. Shortly after, I received notification from the manufacturer that their part of the warranty was nil and void " because the unit was a display model, so second user". The monitor had actually been on shelf display for less than a week, according to the retailer.

I took this point up with trading standards as a matter of curiosity at our local office, as to the possible legality of additional manufacturer's warranties and consumer or civil law. The trading standards officer was as confused about the issue, as was I. What's your views and opinion on this warranty issue, because we all know, that in the case of monitor's, the retailer is usually at the mercy of the manufacturer for a quick repair or a replacement fix.

Should add that my warranty was eventually sorted out to our mutual satisfaction.

  Forum Editor 14:30 25 Mar 2007

a display item is 'used' from the point of view of current consumer legislation, but that doesn't affect your rights under the sale of goods act. That legislation covers second-hand items, even if you buy them from a mate in the pub.

Therefore the retailer's liability is unaffected.

The manufacturer's warranty may not be assigned without prior consent however, which means that it is null and void (as your manufacturer said) if goods are sold as secondhand. Had your retailer sought to clarify the position before selling the display monitor the manufacturer might have agreed to assignment.

The fact that you obtained satisfaction makes all this an academic point, but now you know the legal position - the manufacturer was within its rights in stating 'null and void'

  spuds 17:53 25 Mar 2007

I was not and am not disputing the manufacturer's stance, in fact I agree with them to a point in principle. Even though their 'after thought' came as a surprise to both the retailer and myself at the time. Displayed goods, could be damaged goods, and the manufacturer would not possibly know this.In this particular case, I informed the manufacturer that the monitor had been displayed, in casual honest conversation.The manufacturer excepted that,and confirmed acceptance of additional warranty, then reconsidered their position at a later date.

The retailer is a very well known multi-national company, who like many other 'high street' computer retailers display massive stock ranges for general public viewing. As an example, if it were someone like PC World who could not display their wares, then there would be no point in having large stores with assistants etc, they may well just take a sell on-line or mail order only method of marketing. I would also perhaps assume that the larger retailer's would also have some form of 'tied' agreements with manufacturer's, regarding displays and displaying products.

Just thought that I would put this debate forward, as it is no longer a problem for me,the matter was sorted, but I was wondering if anyone else had come across anything similar to this or even considered this issue!.

  WhiteTruckMan 17:58 25 Mar 2007

Would a distinction be made between demonstrator (here kids, play with this while I go browsing in peace) and display only (keep off. you look with your eyes, not your fingers) that might merely have been in the window?

WTM

  spuds 18:53 25 Mar 2007

According to the information that I received. Once out of the sealed box 'its second user'.

So in theory, the Distance Selling regulations could prove to be a real headache for a retailer.Inspect, not suitable, send it back.But I have noticed, some retailers state in their terms and conditions 'item must be unopened'!.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

OnePlus 5 review

Alice Saey's mesmerising animation for Dutch singer Mark Lotterman

iPad Pro 10.5in (2017) review

Comment booster votre iPhone ?