4 ms·
In the United States there's the Magnuson-Moss warranty act which (among other things) places the burden on the manufacturer to prove that your miscare caused t
by KennyBlanken 5y ago
In the United States there's the Magnuson-Moss warranty act which (among other things) places the burden on the manufacturer to prove that your miscare caused the failure; they can't simply say "you jailbroke the firmware, no warranty for you!", nor can they say "you broke that seal, no warranty!", nor can they say "you didn't install a Dodgerific oil filter in your Grand Caravan, so no, we're not going to warranty your spun main bearing" (however, nothing stops them from saying "that oil filter you installed does not have an anti-drainback valve like our oil filter does, thus your engine did not receive lubrication as quickly as it should each time it was started, so that's why your engine is damaged, and we're not going to warranty that."
From Wikipedia:
> The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.
The MM act also provides for awarding attorney's fees in a lawsuit against a manufacturer for violations of the act. Pretty sweet.
Separately, there are implied warranties of merchantability and fitness under the uniform commercial code.
US customers are almost completely ignorant of this. It really steams my cabbage when I see people heap praise on a company for warrantying an item that failed horribly, just outside the warranty period, and was an item that is usually quite durable and long-lasting.
- hunter2_ 5y agoDoes any of this cover the scenario of a customer applying an irreversible manufacturer's update that leads to the product no longer performing every aspect of what was originally advertised? The notion of "damage while in the possession of the consumer" gets a bit murky... I'd try to argue that the consumer temporarily placed the device into the manufacturer's possession during the update process, but I'm not sure if that would hold up.