"Works as you expect it to" is not the same thing as "fit for purpose". The purpose of a hammer is (mostly) an objective fact. Your expectations of what the hammer can do, on the other hand, may or may not be reasonable.

(Though in this case I think it's perfectly reasonable to claim that the camera is not fit for purpose if the EULA terms were not clearly disclosed before the purchase was made.)

> "Works as you expect it to" is not the same thing as "fit for purpose"

For the purposes of that comment, I meant them to be equivalent ...under the presumption that a typical person knows what a hammer does. (I was avoiding the legalese)

Yeah. But I guess the distinction is quite relevant with things more complex than a hammer.

For example, you are not legally entitled to return a camera because you thought it could shoot in 3D and it couldn't, unless the advertising falsely claimed that. The seller might accept a return, but they're not obliged to.

The EULA thing is sort of on the edge of that. Many (most?) devices come with EULAs these days. So you could make an argument that the buyer can't reasonably expect there to not be additional terms that they must accept before using it. I don't really find that argument very compelling, though, if the terms are not available to the buyer at the point of sale.