Transferable warranties

teabelly

Is it legal for a manufacturer to say that the manufacturer's warranty only applies to the first owner of the goods? I know with cars they're generally transferable so that second, third owners also get the benefit of the warranty.

Is there an exception with electronic goods?

Thinking specifically about nikon as they don't honour the warranty for subsequent owners and if you buy from a seller that isn't a photographic retailer they won't honour the warranty either even if the goods haven't been used at all and are essentially as brand new as ones bought from elsewhere.

shaun_from_Africa

In general, manufacturers are under no legal obligation to provide any warranty unless you purchase directly from them.

Because their warranty is something that they provide that is extra to your statutory rights, they are at liberty to make their own terms and conditions such as limiting it to the original buyer.

With the camera it's exactly the same. It is the original retailer who is legally responsible for the condition and durability of the goods and not Nikon, so yes, they can state that the extra warranty they provide is only in force providing that you have purchased the camera from an authorised seller.

wealdroam

teabelly wrote: »

Is it legal for a manufacturer to say that the manufacturer's warranty only applies to the first owner of the goods? I know with cars they're generally transferable so that second, third owners also get the benefit of the warranty.

Is there an exception with electronic goods?

Thinking specifically about nikon as they don't honour the warranty for subsequent owners and if you buy from a seller that isn't a photographic retailer they won't honour the warranty either even if the goods haven't been used at all and are essentially as brand new as ones bought from elsewhere.

A manufacturer's warranty is in addition to your statutory rights.

As such, they can impose whatever conditions they like.
You in turn can refuse to buy the product, so manufacturers would be silly to be too restrictive, but legally they do not have to provide a warranty at all.

Your statutory legal remedy is with the supplier/retailer.

teabelly

I see. I always thought that m/f had to provide a minimum warranty period as this obviously leaves the consumer with nowhere to turn if the supplier goes bust and the m/f has a restrictive warranty.