Warranty Entitlement

Johnboy1951

This is purely discussion material and refers to no case I am aware of.

If I buy a PC, with a 3 year warranty, from a seller .... say someone like Komplett or Dabs or any one of many Irish sellers, I understand that in the event of a warranty claim the device should be returned to the seller and not to the original manufacturer, which could be IBM, HP, Dell or other.
The seller cannot refuse to honour the warranty (provided sufficient proof is available regarding the purchase).

Is this correct?


Now to complicate things a little further .....

If the user upgrades or replaces the operating system that came with the hardware, is the warranty still valid?
(It is my understanding that the warranty only covers the hardware.)
I would guess yes, but am looking for other opinions.
The OS would be a user 'serviceable' part of the device I expect.


Taking it a bit further ...... if the user upgrades a HDD in the machine, maybe because the original is too small for present use or maybe because the original failed but s/he does not wish to possibly expose personal information on the drive to whoever might inspect it, is the warranty on the rest of the hardware still valid?
Would the HDD be regarded as a 'user serviceable part'?
(I use the term because I know of no other )

To the last part of the question ...... if the OEM should put a sticker on the back of the case with a dire warning that if the case of the PC is opened for any purpose, the warranty is void, how much weight would this hold, if any?

I don't know how you all treat your PCs, but mine gets clogged with dust and requires a regular clean out to keep it operating at high efficiency. Doing so requires access to the inside of the case .... thus breaking the seal.

How do Irish and EU law/regulations stand on this?

To clarify matters, please take the view that any warranty claim I refer to above would not include something wrong with a HDD or an Operating System.

I am interested in how the consumer stands on these issues, because I hear a lot of 'talk' about warranty refusal where an OS has been changed, or a seal broken or HDD changed on a PC.

I honestly do not know where to start to find definitive answers.

Thanks for reading.

MarkAnthony

The warranty can contain any number of caveats, conditions, terms etc. So if the warranty says, you may not put in a bigger hard drive, then remove it because you don't want us to see your massive porn collection then they are perfectly entitled to do that.

What's not so straightforward is your rights under the Sales of Goods Acts. Generally here you've recourse for upto six years (as provided for by the statute of limitations). This would require you to deal directly with the seller. Can they require the goods be put back into the original condition? Dunno, probably. Can they refuse to help you because you changed components? Probably not.

It will really come down to the nature of the fault. If you know it's the DVD drive that's gone then really they shouldn't need to enquire into the rest of the machine. Is it constantly crashing with Windows 10 technical preview - they probably have a reason to tell you they're not helping until windows 7 goes back on it and that eliminates that as a possible issue.

As an aside, never buy pre built machines, never buy extended warranties.

If anyone mentions the 2 year EU warranty I'm likely to have a fit, it's bollocks and does not exist, shoe back to the consumer issues forum :pac:

Johnboy1951

Thanks for the response.
I let it stand for a while hoping to see a few more posts.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The warranty can contain any number of caveats, conditions, terms etc. So if the warranty says, you may not put in a bigger hard drive, then remove it because you don't want us to see your massive porn collection then they are perfectly entitled to do that.

... and that would apply even if the claim had nothing whatsoever to do with the HDD?
From what you say they could put anything they liked in the warranty provided it did not infringe on other rights.

Is there no 'reasonableness' involved, or any regulation govering this?

What's not so straightforward is your rights under the Sales of Goods Acts. Generally here you've recourse for up to six years (as provided for by the statute of limitations). This would require you to deal directly with the seller. Can they require the goods be put back into the original condition? Dunno, probably. Can they refuse to help you because you changed components? Probably not.

What might determine whether they can or not insist on the goods being in the original condition (less usual wear 7 tear I guess)?

It will really come down to the nature of the fault. If you know it's the DVD drive that's gone then really they shouldn't need to enquire into the rest of the machine.

Shouldn't is not very definite

Is it constantly crashing with Windows 10 technical preview - they probably have a reason to tell you they're not helping until windows 7 goes back on it and that eliminates that as a possible issue.

As already mentioned, this question was about a hardware fault not a software one.

As an aside, never buy pre built machines, never buy extended warranties.

If anyone mentions the 2 year EU warranty I'm likely to have a fit, it's bollocks and does not exist, shoe back to the consumer issues forum :pac:

I am no nearer a clear understanding of the situation unfortunately.


If a user opens a case, breaking a seal, can they still claim under warranty?
You seem to tell me NO.

Yet access to the inside of a PC case for the user is normal use ..... for cleaning inside, fitting an extra PCI/e card, upgrading the graphics card, adding more memory etc etc ..... so in this case it would only be 'Sale of Goods' act that would cover the user?

But there seems to be some doubt about that too ...... as the goods would not be in original condition ......

I found nothing at all in the Sale of Goods Act to help clarify any of this

I am hopeful some further information might be forthcoming that will help explain purchasers' rights.

MarkAnthony

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Thanks for the response.
I let it stand for a while hoping to see a few more posts.

This is the legal equivalent of watching paint dry I'm afraid. Owing only to my own dullness and previous life as a retailer do I find it perversely interesting.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

... and that would apply even if the claim had nothing whatsoever to do with the HDD?
From what you say they could put anything they liked in the warranty provided it did not infringe on other rights.

Is there no 'reasonableness' involved, or any regulation govering this?

I'm open to correction but the warranty is governed by tort and not contract as you don't have the necessary components of a contract ie offer acceptance and consideration. That relationship is with the seller and governed by the statutory rights laid down in the Sales of Good Act. As such your rights and remedies under warranty are very different.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

What might determine whether they can or not insist on the goods being in the original condition (less usual wear 7 tear I guess)?

Shouldn't is not very definite

Reasonableness. It's not very definite as every situation is unique.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

As already mentioned, this question was about a hardware fault not a software one.

In your view but the other side must be given the oppitunity of deciding that for themselves.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I am no nearer a clear understanding of the situation unfortunately.

If a user opens a case, breaking a seal, can they still claim under warranty?
You seem to tell me NO.

Yet access to the inside of a PC case for the user is normal use ..... for cleaning inside, fitting an extra PCI/e card, upgrading the graphics card, adding more memory etc etc ..... so in this case it would only be 'Sale of Goods' act that would cover the user?

But there seems to be some doubt about that too ...... as the goods would not be in original condition ......

I found nothing at all in the Sale of Goods Act to help clarify any of this

I am hopeful some further information might be forthcoming that will help explain purchasers' rights.

It might aid your understanding if you forgot about the warranty and accepted that the manufacturer can put into a warranty whatever they like and worried more about your statutory rights under the sales of goods act.

You might also get more replies in Consumer Issues.

All that said, given I just happen to:

a) Have a passing understanding of the legalities of this
b) was a retailer for 15 years
c) spent 8 of those selling PCs for various people

you might give me some more info and I'll see if I can give you more specific advice.

Also ignore the word warranty in the sales of goods acts are not the same as a manufacturers warranty in common parlance.

MarkAnthony

Okay let's see if I can help in general terms in the mean time: Guarantees which is essentially what you're calling a warranty.

16.—(1) A guarantee shall be clearly legible and shall refer only to specific goods or to one category of goods.

(2) A guarantee shall state clearly the name and address of the person supplying the guarantee.

(3) A guarantee shall state clearly the duration of the guarantee from the date of purchase but different periods may be stated for different components of any goods.

(4) A guarantee shall state clearly the procedure for presenting a claim under the guarantee which procedure shall not be more difficult than ordinary or normal commercial procedure.

(5) A guarantee shall state clearly what the manufacturer or other supplier undertakes to do in relation to the goods and what charges, if any, including the cost of carriage, the buyer must meet in relation to such undertakings.

(6) It shall be an offence for the manufacturer or other supplier of goods to supply in connection with the goods a guarantee which fails to comply with this section.

So, as you can see no mention of reasonableness or any standards (other than some basics) listed above. So we can sign off on that one.

MarkAnthony

So PC has gone wrong. What do you do, you rely on the following:

21.—For section 53 of the Act of 1893 there shall be substituted the section set out in the following Table:

TABLE

Remedy for breach of warranty.

53.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), where there is a breach of warranty by the seller, or where the buyer elects, or is compelled, to treat any breach of a condition on the part of the seller as a breach of warranty, the buyer is not by reason only of such breach of warranty entitled to reject the goods, but he may—

(a) set up against the seller the breach of warranty in diminution or extinction of the price, or

(b) maintain an action against the seller for damages for the breach of warranty.

(2) Where—

(a) the buyer deals as consumer and there is a breach of a condition by the seller which, but for this subsection, the buyer would be compelled to treat as a breach of warranty, and

(b) the buyer, promptly upon discovering the breach, makes a request to the seller that he either remedy the breach or replace any goods which are not in conformity with the condition,

then, if the seller refuses to comply with the request or fails to do so within a reasonable time, the buyer is entitled:

(i) to reject the goods and repudiate the contract, or

(ii) to have the defect constituting the breach remedied elsewhere and to maintain an action against the seller for the cost thereby incurred by him.

Above is where we get the repair, replace, refund stuff from.

(3) The onus of proving that the buyer acted with promptness under subsection (2) shall lie on him.

The above requires that you show you reported the fault promptly.

Don't worry about the below

(4) The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting, in the ordinary course of events, from the breach of warranty.

(5) In the case of breach of warranty of quality such loss is prima facie the difference between the value of the goods at the time of delivery to the buyer and the value they would have had if they had answered to the warranty.

(6) The fact that the buyer has set up the breach of warranty in diminution or extinction of the price or that the seller has replaced goods or remedied a breach does not of itself prevent the buyer from maintaining an action for the same breach of warranty if he has suffered further damage.

So no mention of returning the goods to their previous condition, however practically speaking the seller may request that to satisfy themselves as to the fault. They may also allege you caused the damage, that turns on any evidence presented.

MarkAnthony

There are numerous other provisions and other pieces of legislation that might assist. It would bore us both to death to go through them individually. To my knowledge none of them restrict you from upgrading one part and claiming on another.

I'll help if I can, sorry of the stuff above doesn't help... oh so tired! :pac:

Johnboy1951

Thank you for taking so much trouble replying. Its appreciated.

I do want to state again this does not concern any particular instance or claim.
The subject arose on another (PC) forum and piqued my interest, so I wanted to try to clarify what the situation is in this jurisdiction .... and failed miserably on my own.

MarkAnthony wrote:

It might aid your understanding if you forgot about the warranty and accepted that the manufacturer can put into a warranty whatever they like and worried more about your statutory rights under the sales of goods act.

OK, if I accept that the OEM can put anything they wish into their warranty, regardless how unreasonable it might be, such as a seal on a PC preventing normal maintenance, that avenue of investigation is gone.

That leaves the sale of goods act, and consumer rights under that act.

There is nothing in that act that refers to or even implies that the goods would have to be returned to original condition if a claim was made.
So the seal, which might void the OEM warranty, does not affect the consumer rights under this act.
If Win XP was changed to Win 7 that too would not affect the claim.
Neither it seems would replacing a small HDD for a bigger one, providing none of the above were involved directly in the claim.

OK, in a practical sense there might be some requirement to prove a faulty part.
If for instance the PSU died and the PC could not switch on, that would be obvious.

There would be no requirement for a HDD or Software to diagnose or fix such a problem, so presumably removing the HDD before returning the PC for repair, would be acceptable.

I also understand that some of the above would probably require some 'negotiation' with the seller who would be expected to do all they can to eliminate false claims. That is not really a concern for this discussion.


So referring back to my original post, I have the following understanding .....

1. The seller cannot refuse to honour the "warranty" (as understood in the Sales of Goods Act and not the OEM warranty)

2. Upgrading the operating system would not affect those rights under the Act.

3. Neither would upgrading/changing the HDD

4. The OEM's sticker 'seal' has no standing.

Thank you yet again for taking the trouble to walk me through this.

I have once that I recall, relied on the Sale of Goods Act (it seems) when returning a PC to Komplett (I believe), for a faulty CPU/Heatsink retainer.
(The plastic broke, and the CPU began to over heat)

I removed the HDD before returning the PC, because there was business information on that drive. I did inform Komplett I was doing so. I had no problems.

It appears that compared to other jurisdictions, the Sale of Goods Act is a hugely positive piece of legislation on behalf of the consumer.

Regards.

MarkAnthony

I can't comment on other jurisdictions, well other than the UK where it's broadly similar.

The situation is that although the Act does not require you to do something a retailer may. This is all contract. The statutory framework is exactly that, a framework. You have to be aware of the other contractual terms you're agreeing to. Might the SoGA displace something in that agreement? Yes. Might another piece of legislation or common law (judge made law) displace something else, yes too.

You may also find a contract is silent on something, such as removing the hard drive. Then it comes down to what is reasonable. Lets say your an end user who doesn't know their arse from their elbow and have a general fault ; of 'it keeps crashing' well then it's reasonable the machine goes back in as it was. If you're a competent user and you know it's the PSU and you can show that, then there is no need for the hard drive. The problem becomes that the retailer/seller must be given the opportunity to inspect the goods, so again where is this line drawn? It comes down to debate between you and the retailer and ultimately a Judge if needs be.

Johnboy1951

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I can't comment on other jurisdictions, well other than the UK where it's broadly similar.

The situation is that although the Act does not require you to do something a retailer may. This is all contract. The statutory framework is exactly that, a framework. You have to be aware of the other contractual terms you're agreeing to. Might the SoGA displace something in that agreement? Yes. Might another piece of legislation or common law (judge made law) displace something else, yes too.

You may also find a contract is silent on something, such as removing the hard drive. Then it comes down to what is reasonable. Lets say your an end user who doesn't know their arse from their elbow and have a general fault ; of 'it keeps crashing' well then it's reasonable the machine goes back in as it was. If you're a competent user and you know it's the PSU and you can show that, then there is no need for the hard drive. The problem becomes that the retailer/seller must be given the opportunity to inspect the goods, so again where is this line drawn? It comes down to debate between you and the retailer and ultimately a Judge if needs be.

Yes, there is some requirement to be reasonable.
As I understand the SoGA, the different parts of the complete goods are individually warranted/guaranteed/whatever-the-term-is, so it would be reasonable for an 'add-in' part to be extracted and returned.

Of course the retailer might not be so 'reasonable' as to accept this, and insist on the 'whole' being returned.
In that case a third party might be required to make the decision.

Thank you ..... I have I believe a better understanding of the situation now.