5 ms·

In fact limited warranties are a scam. You have express and implied warranties by default. So if you expect your dishwasher to last 10 years but it only lasts

by sjg007 9y ago

In fact limited warranties are a scam. You have express and implied warranties by default. So if you expect your dishwasher to last 10 years but it only lasts 5 and the limited warranty said 1 year.. if that limited warranty was not disclaimed properly then you can take the manufacturer to small claims and most likely win. Companies try to get you to sign a product registration card to get you to agree to the limited warranty. It's all a scam. If your dishwasher blows up, call the manufacturer, ask them to fix it, if they refuse, pay for the repairs then take the manufacturer to small claims court and you will most likely win.

dangero 9y ago
How long do expressed and implied warranties last though?
- sjg007 9y ago
  Basically the idea is what reasonable people think it should last. I've seen dishwashers still working from the 1970s. So if quality is constantly improving then why didn't my new dishwasher last? So if you can show that, especially from the same manufacturer or brand you should be ok. Otherwise this relies on the judge (who is reasonable by definition) and will have an opinion on the matter. You could also take a random survey of people as to their expectation. Everyone will say 10 years at least. Or just buy a report from a consumer survey company.
  - ReverseCold 9y ago
    > I've seen dishwashers still working from the 1970s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias No comment on whether things really are becoming lesser quality, but just so you know this exists.
lysp 9y ago
This is a big thing in Australia, new laws that came out in 2011 to emphasis the point. Especially that products should last "as long as you expect them to last". Take TVs for example - if you buy a 80" OLED for $500, it might be expected it'll only last 12-18 months. However if you purchased a 50" 4k TV for a few thousand dollars, the implied warranty might be 5+ years as it's a product of reasonable quality and cost. The best bit about it is that if there is a major fault with the product, the remedies are: 1) Refund, 2) Replacement, or 3) Repair. And it is the consumer/purchaser's choice. So if you purchased a TV for $5000 and then a fault causes it to blow up 5 years later, you can ask to get a full refund, even though the current street value might only be a few hundred dollars. The benefit of this is it forces manufacturers to actually build quality products, knowing they are liable for full refunds if they fail. It reduces the chance that they'll build "planned obsolescence" using cheap parts that might only last 12 months and 1 day (1 day past their "warranty"). A longer explanation is here: https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/repair-replace-refund https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees...
- ams6110 9y ago
  > So if you purchased a TV for $5000 and then a fault causes it to blow up 5 years later, you can ask to get a full refund, even though the current street value might only be a few hundred dollars. That doesn't seem quite fair to the manufacturer to me. You got 5 years use out of the TV, even if it didn't last as long as you expected you still got value out of it and shouldn't deserve a full refund at that point.
  - lysp 9y ago
    > That doesn't seem quite fair to the manufacturer to me. That's exactly why the law was changed. The balance of power was initially on the manufacturer's side. All they had to do was say "1 year warranty" and everyone was out of luck if/when it failed. Consumers were required to upgrade and buy a replacement product. Now the balance of power is on the consumer's side. Most of the time TVs will last 5+ years, but in the case where it doesn't, and lots fail early due to a manufacturing issue - then the cost (is rightly) put back on to the manufacturer. It forces them to stand by their product, ensuring the quality is up to a good standard. They must use quality long lasting components and make sure their testing process is up to scratch. Otherwise they will be up for the cost to remedy that. If they make sure their product doesn't fail early, the cost is minimal to them. So this changes their mindset in terms of the manufacturing and design processes.
    - chrischen 9y ago
      The market already addresses that, and if the government intends to address those issues directly it will quickly become a game of whack-a-mole. You’re not “out of luck” when it fails, as it would be your fault for buying a shoddy (nonessential) product.
  - Adverblessly 9y ago
    Seems very fair to me. I paid $5000 for a good TV for 5 years. If after 2.5 years it breaks and they refund me $2500, which I am then forced to use to buy a shitty $2500 TV that will only last me 2.5 years, then effectively I paid $5000 for 2.5 years of good TV followed by 2.5 years of shitty TV, which is unfair to me. If instead I take the $2500 and add my own $2500 to buy a new good TV for 5 years, then they instead switched the deal on me to 7.5K for 7.5 years, which is not what I originally signed up for, so it becomes an unfair bait and switch.
gnicholas 9y ago
I am a (former) US lawyer, and this doesn't scan for me. Just because a buyer—or even most people—expects a dishwasher to last 10 years doesn't mean that they can get free warranty service until then. Is your experience outside the US? I'll admit I never worked in this area of law, but I do keep up on consumer rights types issues, and this seems at odds with the general contours of US consumer law that I'm aware of. I am very curious to know more about where/how these legal theories apply.
- alephnil 9y ago
  In all of EU, it is legally required to repair stuff that does not last for reasonably long time, but it is not up to each induvidual to define how long they think a product should last. That is defined per category of product. Most electronics and appliances are expected to last at least 5 years.

by sjg007 9y ago

dangero 9y ago

How long do expressed and implied warranties last though?

sjg007 9y ago
Basically the idea is what reasonable people think it should last. I've seen dishwashers still working from the 1970s. So if quality is constantly improving then why didn't my new dishwasher last? So if you can show that, especially from the same manufacturer or brand you should be ok. Otherwise this relies on the judge (who is reasonable by definition) and will have an opinion on the matter. You could also take a random survey of people as to their expectation. Everyone will say 10 years at least. Or just buy a report from a consumer survey company.
- ReverseCold 9y ago
  > I've seen dishwashers still working from the 1970s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias No comment on whether things really are becoming lesser quality, but just so you know this exists.

lysp 9y ago

This is a big thing in Australia, new laws that came out in 2011 to emphasis the point. Especially that products should last "as long as you expect them to last". Take TVs for example - if you buy a 80" OLED for $500, it might be expected it'll only last 12-18 months. However if you purchased a 50" 4k TV for a few thousand dollars, the implied warranty might be 5+ years as it's a product of reasonable quality and cost. The best bit about it is that if there is a major fault with the product, the remedies are: 1) Refund, 2) Replacement, or 3) Repair. And it is the consumer/purchaser's choice. So if you purchased a TV for $5000 and then a fault causes it to blow up 5 years later, you can ask to get a full refund, even though the current street value might only be a few hundred dollars. The benefit of this is it forces manufacturers to actually build quality products, knowing they are liable for full refunds if they fail. It reduces the chance that they'll build "planned obsolescence" using cheap parts that might only last 12 months and 1 day (1 day past their "warranty"). A longer explanation is here: https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/repair-replace-refund https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees...

ams6110 9y ago
> So if you purchased a TV for $5000 and then a fault causes it to blow up 5 years later, you can ask to get a full refund, even though the current street value might only be a few hundred dollars. That doesn't seem quite fair to the manufacturer to me. You got 5 years use out of the TV, even if it didn't last as long as you expected you still got value out of it and shouldn't deserve a full refund at that point.
- lysp 9y ago
  > That doesn't seem quite fair to the manufacturer to me. That's exactly why the law was changed. The balance of power was initially on the manufacturer's side. All they had to do was say "1 year warranty" and everyone was out of luck if/when it failed. Consumers were required to upgrade and buy a replacement product. Now the balance of power is on the consumer's side. Most of the time TVs will last 5+ years, but in the case where it doesn't, and lots fail early due to a manufacturing issue - then the cost (is rightly) put back on to the manufacturer. It forces them to stand by their product, ensuring the quality is up to a good standard. They must use quality long lasting components and make sure their testing process is up to scratch. Otherwise they will be up for the cost to remedy that. If they make sure their product doesn't fail early, the cost is minimal to them. So this changes their mindset in terms of the manufacturing and design processes.
  - chrischen 9y ago
    The market already addresses that, and if the government intends to address those issues directly it will quickly become a game of whack-a-mole. You’re not “out of luck” when it fails, as it would be your fault for buying a shoddy (nonessential) product.
- Adverblessly 9y ago
  Seems very fair to me. I paid $5000 for a good TV for 5 years. If after 2.5 years it breaks and they refund me $2500, which I am then forced to use to buy a shitty $2500 TV that will only last me 2.5 years, then effectively I paid $5000 for 2.5 years of good TV followed by 2.5 years of shitty TV, which is unfair to me. If instead I take the $2500 and add my own $2500 to buy a new good TV for 5 years, then they instead switched the deal on me to 7.5K for 7.5 years, which is not what I originally signed up for, so it becomes an unfair bait and switch.

gnicholas 9y ago

I am a (former) US lawyer, and this doesn't scan for me. Just because a buyer—or even most people—expects a dishwasher to last 10 years doesn't mean that they can get free warranty service until then. Is your experience outside the US? I'll admit I never worked in this area of law, but I do keep up on consumer rights types issues, and this seems at odds with the general contours of US consumer law that I'm aware of. I am very curious to know more about where/how these legal theories apply.

alephnil 9y ago
In all of EU, it is legally required to repair stuff that does not last for reasonably long time, but it is not up to each induvidual to define how long they think a product should last. That is defined per category of product. Most electronics and appliances are expected to last at least 5 years.