Tablet replaced in warranty, now replacement failed.

Takmon

reg091 wrote: »

I understand what you are saying is the case, but surely that is just wrong! I thought the CRA was supposed to stop people palming shoddy goods off on you.

I suggest that the date you take delivery of a product should be when your rights start. I can't see that warranty periods, or date of purchase, should have any bearing on it. If you have a product that fails within an unreasonable timescale then the law should be on your side.

I fully understand from all your replies that that is not the case, so thanks for the info, but in my opinion it should be. I know, write to my MP.....

But if the clock reset when you got a replacement under warranty then you would end up being better off than if you had the original unit. The law isn't meant to make you better off it is meant to put you back into the same position as if you didn't have faulty goods.

The warranty actually put you in a better position by giving you a brand new unit.

If they were forced to give out warranty's on replacement units then companies could simply instead choose to refund you the cost of a two year old second hand unit (to take into account of 2 years use). This would make people worse off if they stopped offering warranties on their products that gave replacements.

neilmcl

reg091 wrote: »

I understand what you are saying is the case, but surely that is just wrong! I thought the CRA was supposed to stop people palming shoddy goods off on you.

I suggest that the date you take delivery of a product should be when your rights start. I can't see that warranty periods, or date of purchase, should have any bearing on it. If you have a product that fails within an unreasonable timescale then the law should be on your side.

I fully understand from all your replies that that is not the case, so thanks for the info, but in my opinion it should be. I know, write to my MP.....

Think about what you're suggesting. If you had rights to replace a subsequent replacement then in theory you could do this indefinitely, which is ridiculous. A seller is only liable for the breach of contract not to give you a lifetime supply of your goods.

bris

A replacement isn't a new item in law despite having a shiny seal on it.


The item is classed as the same item you purchased, it's treated like the fault never occurred in the first place. so despite being in a sealed box it's classed as two years old.


What you want is an infinite warranty, just find a fault and get it replaced every 2 years, I am sure you can see the abuse this would create.


This does not however affect your consumer rights.