4 ms·

I saw her take on this on Twitter and flinched. We had a similar experience with a > $5K eval board from Xilinx that we were basing a product on, and a customer

I saw her take on this on Twitter and flinched. We had a similar experience with a > $5K eval board from Xilinx that we were basing a product on, and a customer wanted to start software development before the product was ready so we sold them a setup that was equivalent to our product in design (and embedded the Xilinx board) They found a problem which turned out to be a design defect on the eval board so we went to Xilinx for a warranty replacement, they refused saying they expressly disclaim any "fitness for purpose" on their eval boards and their terms of service disallow using their eval boards in a product. I rather rudely asked them why they charged money for them then. A very annoying experience.

ChuckNorris89 6y ago
Yep, the hardware industry is notoriously bad for making and supporting quality eval boards. Heck, where I worked, most eval boards ware usually side projects given to summer interns or new grads or outsourced to India.
- ChuckMcM 6y ago
  Ouch, this just makes me sad.
R0b0t1 6y ago
In Kansas there is a law explicitly dealing with this: You can not disclaim an implied warranty or suitability for a particular purpose. In the broader context of the entire US, this is just a restatement of common sense law that is already on the books. I bought the product to fulfill a need. If it can't do that, then you don't get to keep the money. Nobody hands money over for some vague, nebulous promise of something in return.
- ChuckMcM 6y ago
  That is pretty neat, I thought California's warranty laws were pretty strong but the lawyer suggested we wouldn't win if we sued. (not that we'd likely sue the only supplier of a part we need but you know, "in principle"). Does the Kansas law apply to software as well? That would be a neat trick. There was a national effort to get this level of support in the UCC (universal commercial code) but as I recall it was unsuccessful.
- wahern 6y ago
  AFAICT, that only applies to "an individual, husband and wife, sole proprietor, or family partnership".[1][2] All other transactions, such as B2B, are subject to the typical UCC rules.[3] [1] K.S.A 50-624, http://kslegislature.org/li/b2019_20/statute/050_000_0000_chapter/050_006_0000_article/050_006_0024_section/050_006_0024_k/ http://kslegislature.org/li/b2019_20/statute/050_000_0000_ch... [2] The actual limitation to disclaimers is at K.S.A. 50-639, http://kslegislature.org/li/b2019_20/statute/050_000_0000_chapter/050_006_0000_article/050_006_0039_section/050_006_0039_k/ http://kslegislature.org/li/b2019_20/statute/050_000_0000_ch... [3] E.g. K.S.A 84-2-314, http://kslegislature.org/li/b2019_20/statute/084_000_0000_chapter/084_002_0000_article/084_002_0314_section/084_002_0314_k/ http://kslegislature.org/li/b2019_20/statute/084_000_0000_ch...

ChuckNorris89 6y ago

Yep, the hardware industry is notoriously bad for making and supporting quality eval boards. Heck, where I worked, most eval boards ware usually side projects given to summer interns or new grads or outsourced to India.

ChuckMcM 6y ago
Ouch, this just makes me sad.

R0b0t1 6y ago

In Kansas there is a law explicitly dealing with this: You can not disclaim an implied warranty or suitability for a particular purpose. In the broader context of the entire US, this is just a restatement of common sense law that is already on the books. I bought the product to fulfill a need. If it can't do that, then you don't get to keep the money. Nobody hands money over for some vague, nebulous promise of something in return.

ChuckMcM 6y ago
That is pretty neat, I thought California's warranty laws were pretty strong but the lawyer suggested we wouldn't win if we sued. (not that we'd likely sue the only supplier of a part we need but you know, "in principle"). Does the Kansas law apply to software as well? That would be a neat trick. There was a national effort to get this level of support in the UCC (universal commercial code) but as I recall it was unsuccessful.
wahern 6y ago
AFAICT, that only applies to "an individual, husband and wife, sole proprietor, or family partnership".[1][2] All other transactions, such as B2B, are subject to the typical UCC rules.[3] [1] K.S.A 50-624, http://kslegislature.org/li/b2019_20/statute/050_000_0000_chapter/050_006_0000_article/050_006_0024_section/050_006_0024_k/ http://kslegislature.org/li/b2019_20/statute/050_000_0000_ch... [2] The actual limitation to disclaimers is at K.S.A. 50-639, http://kslegislature.org/li/b2019_20/statute/050_000_0000_chapter/050_006_0000_article/050_006_0039_section/050_006_0039_k/ http://kslegislature.org/li/b2019_20/statute/050_000_0000_ch... [3] E.g. K.S.A 84-2-314, http://kslegislature.org/li/b2019_20/statute/084_000_0000_chapter/084_002_0000_article/084_002_0314_section/084_002_0314_k/ http://kslegislature.org/li/b2019_20/statute/084_000_0000_ch...