Do replacement products inherit the product they replaced's warranty?

[Rev_Green]

I have a laptop that Acer sent me in April this year to replace a previous one that was faulty. The laptop is an Aspire 5942g that replaced a Aspire 6930.

 

The new laptop now has the same problem as its' predecessor - it stopped playing Blu Ray discs, then stopped playing any type of disc.

 

I've asked Acer to fix it under warranty, but they say I have to pay because the warranty of the original laptop expired earlier this year. However, this is not the original laptop - it's one I've had 8 months that they sent to replace the original broken one.

 

I believe that the new laptop has its' own warranty, so should be repaired under that. Acer state that the warranty of the earlier broken laptop applies to the replacement. What's the legal standpoint on this?

 

Surely, a new unit has its' own warranty, and not the one of a broken unit it replaced - especially not a different model of laptop. Am I right?

 

 

Thanks in advance for all your help

[buzby]

No, your warranty is the original one of the first product. The reason? For the money you paid, you have a fixed term warranty. If the item is replaced then your warrant would be extended (unfairly) giving cover for (say 18 months). Therefore, someone who claims at 16 months is told no, no warranty, but you would have 8 months left to go.

[dx100uk]

however, under soga you are quite within your rights no matter how you got the product

 

dx

[buzby]

Not to return! Only to challenge the product, and that 'right' is pretty unspectacular. These rights are illusory, as the offer no magic bullet to resolving issues, simply grounds for negotiation, of which the result is not assured.

[dx100uk]

there is no link between any 'warranty' and SOGA.

matters not!

 

go get it sorted.

 

dx

[Surfer01]

Every time I have challenged under SOGA even on products nearlt three years old I have won becasue I used SOGA!

[buzby]

You will have won because the firm has made a decision based on their experience of consumer contact whether to provide a solution based on consumer goodwill policies. It would be a mistake and be naive to think that SOGA was the answer. Acer will be aware of the shortcomings of their design and accommodate customers who suffer as a result. For something that is not deemed a problem, but calculated to be consumer use/misuse SOGA will be of no benefit whatsoever as the firm will reject the claim, leaving the consumer to do what they will.

 

Unfortunately, many think SOGA can be trotted out, push a magic button and their problems resolved whether the the supplier or manufacturer want to be helpful or not. It doesn't work like that, and more damage is done by stroppy customers trying to assert some imagined (but mistaken) 'right', blowing any chance of an amicable settlement or resolution. For those, I have no sympathy whatsoever.

[Surfer01]

An excellent reply. Perhaps it would have been more helpful if you had said this in the first place instead of being so dismissive in your first posts!

[buzby]

Unfortunately, there is very little time (usually) to explain the reasoning. Indeed many don't care they just want to know if they can strong-arm a resolution, and want the 'go for it' messages of support from like-minded supporters. Either way, you just can't win! ;-)

[perplexity]

 

A consumers basic rights are determined by Article 3 of the European Community Directive 1999/44/EC which is a fact, the law, not at all illusory, not imagined, not mistaken:

 

Rights of the consumer

 

1. The seller shall be liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists at the time the goods were delivered.

 

2. In the case of a lack of conformity, the consumer shall be entitled to have the goods brought into conformity free of charge by repair or replacement, in accordance with paragraph 3, or to have an appropriate reduction made in the price or the contract rescinded with regard to those goods, in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6.

 

3. In the first place, the consumer may require the seller to repair the goods or he may require the seller to replace them, in either case free of charge, unless this is impossible or disproportionate.

 

A remedy shall be deemed to be disproportionate if it imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison with the alternative remedy, are unreasonable, taking into account:

 

- the value the goods would have if there were no lack of conformity,

 

- the significance of the lack of conformity, and

 

- whether the alternative remedy could be completed without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

 

Any repair or replacement shall be completed within a reasonable time and without any significant inconvenience to the consumer, taking account of the nature of the goods and the purpose for which the consumer required the goods.

 

4. The terms "free of charge" in paragraphs 2 and 3 refer to the necessary costs incurred to bring the goods into conformity, particularly the cost of postage, labour and materials.

 

5. The consumer may require an appropriate reduction of the price or have the contract rescinded:

 

- if the consumer is entitled to neither repair nor replacement, or

 

- if the seller has not completed the remedy within a reasonable time, or

 

- if the seller has not completed the remedy without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

 

6. The consumer is not entitled to have the contract rescinded if the lack of conformity is minor.

[buzby]

Conformity? Conform to what? This has nothing to do with usability. Also, has no relevance a year after purchase and the potential for misuse

[HSBCrusher]

Unfortunately, there is very little time (usually) to explain the reasoning. Indeed many don't care they just want to know if they can strong-arm a resolution, and want the 'go for it' messages of support from like-minded supporters. Either way, you just can't win! ;-)

 

without the "strong arm" of the law behind you, companies would sell crap and tell peeps to bog off. Youy need to make them aware you know what soga is all about.

 

Imagine for a moment the original lappy had not gone wrong but now it has. You would reasonably expect the blu-ray drive in a lappy costing several hundred pounds to last 18 months... (forget the 12 month "warranty" issue, thats a big red herring manufacturers use to put peeps off coming back after a year). You wouldnt expect a new lappy, but would certainly expect a new drive to be fitted to it.

But as it is, the original lappy was of poor quality and it was replaced with a new one of poor quality. You have an even stronger case IMHO.

 

I would never advise being shirty or agressive with staff, but know your rights and be assertive.

[Surfer01]

I think why people get a bit shirty is when you go into the store and discuss the issue in an amicable way being friendly and all and the assistant sites ther with a bored look and at the dn of your tale of woe just dismisses you. You then mention SOGA and the assistant is normally that stupid they think tou are referring to a new type of tea! You start becoming a bit exasperated, but no matter what you say to the assistant you are dismissed like something smelly on the bottom of their shoe. You then ask to speak with a manager and invariably the manager is not available, busy with a customer, busy on the phone or has just left the store! No wonder people lose their rag after this sort of treatment.

The last time I had this I stood by the managers desk while he was trying to do a sale and when he asked me what I wanted I explained to him in front of the customer. The custoerm got up and left!

In this case I would push as hard as possible using the correct sections in SOGA to justify them paying for a repair, but this route may involve small claims court.and having to call expert witnesses which can include the manufacturer. You will need solid evidence to back up your claim.

[perplexity]

Conformity? Conform to what? This has nothing to do with usability.

 

 

[/url]Goods must conform to contract.

 

Part 1. of section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act (one of the sections of the Act deemed to have implemented the Directive) provides that

 

Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality.

8-)

 

Also, has no relevance a year after purchase and the potential for misuse

 

 

 

1. of Article 5 of the Directive 1999/44/EC specifies a period of at least two years:

 

The seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods. If, under national legislation, the rights laid down in Article 3(2) are subject to a limitation period, that period shall not expire within a period of two years from the time of delivery.

[dx100uk]

would nice if the op popped in to update us, cag is here to help not argue with each other.

 

dx