4 ms·

> It's doubtful whether IKEA provides any warranty. It's not listed on IKEA's warranty page. When I called IKEA, I was told that there was a 90-day return polic

> It's doubtful whether IKEA provides any warranty. It's not listed on IKEA's warranty page. When I called IKEA, I was told that there was a 90-day return policy with receipt. Wow, I wasn't aware consumer protection was quite that bad in the USA. I've got a BEKANT (the smaller table-top version that the linked reviews say doesn't exist) and haven't had the slightest problem with it, but I admit I might have been more nervous if not for the 10 year guarantee it's given in the UK.

lorenzhs 11y ago
It seems that BEKANT has a 10yr warranty in the USA as well, but what's more crazy to me is that you can offer products without any warranty in the USA at all. In the EU, 2 years warranty is the legal minimum, during the first six months of which the manufacturer has to prove that you caused the damage, and during the remaining 18 months you have to prove that it was damaged from the start (reversal of the burden of proof). That's the absolute minimum that's legally allowed, most manufacturers don't make use of the reversal of the burden of proof and will cover reasonable claims anyway. It's probably just too expensive to verify proof ;) Oh and I also have a BEKANT at work and never had any issues with it. I honestly don't understand the review that was linked in the article. I use it with a different table top which was a complete non-issue to attach if you have a drill.
adventured 11y ago
> I wasn't aware consumer protection was quite that bad in the USA You're of course blaming the wrong culprit. That's on IKEA for not offering a warranty. Companies should not be forced to offer warranties on products. Instead companies should mostly be left to compete on their offerings. A minimum warranty time won't make sense from one product to another. Six months for this, seven years for that, 90 days for this. Inserting bureaucrats into the process of setting warranties on products is just another small but wonderful way to add to the endless parade of regulation that has seen most of Western Europe's growth plummet to almost nothing for a decade.
- MatthewWilkes 11y ago
  Firstly, you're confusing correlation and causation. These regulations were introduced in the late 1970's in the UK, not in the last 10 years. Secondly, the right for redress within 2 years is subject to a legal test for if it is reasonable. Anything that's designed to last less than 2 years should be obvious. For example, by supplying a use-by date on the packaging, or by being a consumable. Thirdly, companies are left to compete on their offerings. What these regulations do is give consumers the right to legal redress from the seller on grounds of reliability being significantly poorer than expected, something that consumers cannot generally know at the point of purchase. This puts additional competitive pressure on the manufacturer, as poor quality products will damage the seller's profit margin. Finally, there are no bureaucrats involved. If the seller doesn't meet its obligation the only recourse is legal action. There is no government office of extended warranties, or similar.

lorenzhs 11y ago

It seems that BEKANT has a 10yr warranty in the USA as well, but what's more crazy to me is that you can offer products without any warranty in the USA at all. In the EU, 2 years warranty is the legal minimum, during the first six months of which the manufacturer has to prove that you caused the damage, and during the remaining 18 months you have to prove that it was damaged from the start (reversal of the burden of proof). That's the absolute minimum that's legally allowed, most manufacturers don't make use of the reversal of the burden of proof and will cover reasonable claims anyway. It's probably just too expensive to verify proof ;) Oh and I also have a BEKANT at work and never had any issues with it. I honestly don't understand the review that was linked in the article. I use it with a different table top which was a complete non-issue to attach if you have a drill.

adventured 11y ago

> I wasn't aware consumer protection was quite that bad in the USA You're of course blaming the wrong culprit. That's on IKEA for not offering a warranty. Companies should not be forced to offer warranties on products. Instead companies should mostly be left to compete on their offerings. A minimum warranty time won't make sense from one product to another. Six months for this, seven years for that, 90 days for this. Inserting bureaucrats into the process of setting warranties on products is just another small but wonderful way to add to the endless parade of regulation that has seen most of Western Europe's growth plummet to almost nothing for a decade.

MatthewWilkes 11y ago
Firstly, you're confusing correlation and causation. These regulations were introduced in the late 1970's in the UK, not in the last 10 years. Secondly, the right for redress within 2 years is subject to a legal test for if it is reasonable. Anything that's designed to last less than 2 years should be obvious. For example, by supplying a use-by date on the packaging, or by being a consumable. Thirdly, companies are left to compete on their offerings. What these regulations do is give consumers the right to legal redress from the seller on grounds of reliability being significantly poorer than expected, something that consumers cannot generally know at the point of purchase. This puts additional competitive pressure on the manufacturer, as poor quality products will damage the seller's profit margin. Finally, there are no bureaucrats involved. If the seller doesn't meet its obligation the only recourse is legal action. There is no government office of extended warranties, or similar.