Following instruction manual caused item to fail

chickenskin

Hi,

Hopefully this is quite an unusual situation, but a clear one for someone to advise on.

I recently bought a camera second-hand (but let's not worry about that bit yet), which functioned fine but was advising me to perform a firmware update. I followed the provided instructions but the update would not complete. Turning to the instruction manual (still current and online), I followed the procedure to undertake a "factory firmware reset", as suggested in the troubleshooting section for when problems exist after a firmware update. Unfortunately the camera will no longer turn on.

I assume that there must be some protection as an owner of an item regarding this type of issue, where following the manufactures instruction correctly is the route cause of a product failure. Having used the magic of google, I see that I'm not alone in falling into this trap.

The difficult bit is, I do not have proof of purchase in order to send this camera back (as it is still under warranty)?

Any idea where I might stand from a legal perspective?

Thanks.

Caz3121

is the warranty transferrable?
if so could you ask the person you purchased it from for proof of purchase?

boo_star

The item being secondhand is exactly what you should be worrying about.

Who did you buy it from?

chickenskin

I bought it from a friend, but he doesn't have the proof of purchase either unfortunately. The shop he bought it from are happy to confirm that they sold it.

chickenskin

I suppose my question is whether the warranty is important, or whether the fact that the incorrect instructions within the owners manual were the route-cause of the items failure meant that it wasn't fit for purpose in the first place? I'm not sure if that makes any difference.

neilmcl

chickenskin wrote: »

I suppose my question is whether the warranty is important, or whether the fact that the incorrect instructions within the owners manual were the route-cause of the items failure meant that it wasn't fit for purpose in the first place? I'm not sure if that makes any difference.

It makes a difference in the fact you have no consumer rights to fall back on as you didn't purchase the camera in the first place.

chickenskin

neilmcl wrote: »

It makes a difference in the fact you have no consumer rights to fall back on as you didn't purchase the camera in the first place.

Would the situation be any different for the person who made the original purchase, even if they couldn't find their proof of purchase?

BoGoF

When did your friend originally buy it?

neilmcl

chickenskin wrote: »

Would the situation be any different for the person who made the original purchase, even if they couldn't find their proof of purchase?

If there's no proof of purchase then even the original consumer is going to struggle in exercising their rights.

What is the make/model of the camera?

chickenskin

BoGoF wrote: »

When did your friend originally buy it?

It's got a 3 year warranty, and it's about 2 years old.

shaun_from_Africa

chickenskin wrote: »

It's got a 3 year warranty, and it's about 2 years old.

Ask your friend if they had to register the warranty when they bought the camera. If they did then it's possible that a warranty repair won't need any proof of purchase.