Nest Reminds Customers That Ownership Isn't What It Used to Be

Re:Nest Reminds Customers That Ownership Isn't What It Used ... by victorhooi on Wednesday April 06, 2016 @08:22AM (#11438246)

Are you actually saying that you'd be able to successfully take a company to court, because their non-smart heating controller stopped working after 10 years?

Heck, even 5 years?

All of this for some cheap widget? (I assume from your description it's cheap).

If you can find a single case (or similar case) where this happened, I will stand corrected.

If this was a $2000 laptop, I can absolutely see that - e.g. Apple Macbooks in Australia have a statutory warranty longer than the manufacturer's 1 year warranty. But I think you'd be hard pressed trying to claim after 3-4 years that it should still apply there. And this is for a $2000 laptop.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nest Reminds Customers That Ownership Isn't What It Used ... by pjc50 on Wednesday April 06, 2016 @09:44AM (#11438699)

The consumer protection law stands for 6 years. Price is taken into account. What's "reasonable" is certainly something that can be argued one way or the other. http://www.whitegoodshelp.co.uk/faulty-appliances-sale-of-go...

Here's an example of how it often works in practice, although on a shorter timescale: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=52242

Laptop power socket fails within 6 months. Is repaired, fails again. Demands refund, is refused. Takes company to small claims court; they fail to mount an effective defence and are in any case in the wrong, so he wins £400+costs.

[ Parent | on HN ]