2 ms·
We are in agreement that your phone should not blow up, and that you should have legal recourse in such an event. But that's totally irrelevant. We're talking
by marcoperaza 10y ago
We are in agreement that your phone should not blow up, and that you should have legal recourse in such an event.
But that's totally irrelevant. We're talking about mandatory warranties for products, not civil liability for damages caused by them.
You're drawing a false equivalence between the two. My phone no longer working is a totally different situation, covered by different laws, than my phone blowing up and hurting someone or burning down my house.
- shakna 10y agoI think you've missed the point. One is less likely because of the other. Higher base standards protect against products that are less likely to fail safe. The insurance firm I worked with would lower premiums for products from companies that acknowledged Consumer Law, as they were both less likely to fail, and fail catastrophically.
- aninhumer 10y agoNot really. Quality of functionality tells you nothing about the safety of the product. A TV might function perfectly fine with an excellent picture, right until the point it overheats and burns down my house.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]