New oven has no warranty?

wealdroam

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But if it has a warranty, then the terms of that warranty cannot be varied because of who installs it.

Absolutely right Flyboy.

I'm confused. Why did you bother to write that?

No-one has yet suggested that terms of the warranty are being varied, have they?

George_Michael

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But that would be unreasonable and likely to be unenforceable under UCTA.

Why? Do you have anything to back up your opinion that it's unreasonable?

Retailers and manufacturers have no obligation to provide a warranty and as such they can, and often do make terms that consumers have to follow to receive warranty cover.
These can be that you have to register for the warranty, have inspections carried out at certain intervals etc.
Why would stating that only approved people can install the appliance be any different?

As Wealdroam stated. If it's written into the warranty documentation then nothing is being varied.

Flyboy152

wealdroam wrote: »

Absolutely right Flyboy.

I'm confused. Why did you bother to write that?

No-one has yet suggested that terms of the warranty are being varied, have they?

Err....that is exactly what this thread is about.

Have you not read the OP?

neilmcl

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But that would be unreasonable and likely to be unenforceable under UCTA.

There are plenty of occasions where a warranty would only be valid if installation was carried out be trained professionals, admittedly this is probably not one of them but they do exist.

alleycat`

Assuming a house with modern electrics just how "trained" do you need to be to plug it in?

There are some instances, where i'd agree a competent, professional installation should form part of the warranty, but to suggest plugging in an oven would invalidate a warranty currys have got to be having a laugh?

Flyboy152

George_Michael wrote: »

Why? Do you have anything to back up your opinion that it's unreasonable?

That's because it is unreasonable. :huh:

Are you suggesting that it would be reasonable for the retailer to impose a condition that, for example, it has to be a three legged Patagonian electrician, with a wonky eye and whose father once met Lloyd George?

Flippancy aside, it would be considered an unfair term because of its restrictiveness.

Retailers and manufacturers have no obligation to provide a warranty and as such they can, and often do make terms that consumers have to follow to receive warranty cover.

Indeed they do, but that cannot extend to who fits the goods. It could, however be acceptable to include a reasonable condition as to how the item is installed or used, but not by whom.

These can be that you have to register for the warranty, have inspections carried out at certain intervals etc.
Why would stating that only approved people can install the appliance be any different?

It does not give the consumer the freedom of opportunity to seek the most skilled and the best possible price for the fitting of the goods.

Nonetheless, it is not just "approved" people, it is one person; the retailer.

As Wealdroam stated. If it's written into the warranty documentation then nothing is being varied.

That has nothing to do with the OP's OP. As I alluded to earlier, the OP's issue is exactly that; Currys are attempting to vary the terms of the manufacturer's warranty.

Flyboy152

neilmcl wrote: »

There are plenty of occasions where a warranty would only be valid if installation was carried out be trained professionals, admittedly this is probably not one of them but they do exist.

I agree and it could be considered reasonable to expect, but the retailer is insisting that the only trained professional allowed to install the goods is them.

George_Michael

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Err....that is exactly what this thread is about.

Have you not read the OP?

Have you?

They told him he he didn't get their people to fit the oven then it would void the warranty so if it broke after 6 months we wouldn't be able to get a replacement as their people didn't fit it

Care to point out where the OP has stated that the terms of the warranty are being changed.
All they have stated is what the retailer has told them that they are required to do to be covered by the warranty. Nowhere have they stated that this requirement is not stated in the warranty paperwork.

Indeed they do, but that cannot extend to who fits the goods

So you keep saying, but this is only your opinion. (unless of course you can provide a ruling or similar to back this up).

wealdroam

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Err....that is exactly what this thread is about.

Have you not read the OP?

You are talking (to use your words) out of your bottom again Flyboy.

I'll leave you to it, and all the other threads you consistantly ruin.

Merry Christmas to you.

Flyboy152

George_Michael wrote: »

Have you?


Care to point out where the OP has stated that the terms of the warranty are being changed.
All they have stated is what the retailer has told them that they are required to do to be covered by the warranty. Nowhere have they stated that this requirement is not stated in the warranty paperwork.

Flipping 'eck, you have just quoted the OP and have now asked me to quote the same extract. What are you on?

So you keep saying, but this is only your opinion. (unless of course you can provide a ruling or similar to back this up).

Why can't you come up with a ruling or similar that says Currys can insist that they are the ones who fit the goods?

I swear you are only on this thread to argue that black is white.