Generally it does not:
Microsoft Windows EULA states:
"Disclaimer. Neither Microsoft, nor the device manufacturer or installer, gives any other express warranties, guarantees, or conditions. Microsoft and the device manufacturer and installer exclude all implied warranties and conditions, including those of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. If your local law does not allow the exclusion of implied warranties, then any implied warranties, guarantees, or conditions last only during the term of the limited warranty and are limited as much as your local law allows. If your local law requires a longer limited warranty term, despite this agreement, then that longer term will apply, but you can recover only the remedies this agreement allows."
Source: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/U...
Oracle EULA states:
"Disclaimer of Warranties; Limitation of Liability THE PROGRAMS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. ORACLE FURTHER DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS AND IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NONINFRINGEMENT."
Source: https://www.oracle.com/downloads/licenses/standard-license.h...
And that's a real damn shame, too. If only we had actual Engineering certifications for software engineers.
Things would be a lot more expensive... but perhaps they'd be a lot more consumer-friendly too.
An ethics course is no panacea. But what I learned in ethics has been far more useful in my career than a lot of my hard CS subjects.
See Canada: Software Engineers are called Software Developers there, problem solved.
(Now, there might be an argument you could make that, if software engineers had actual certifications, they would have the leverage to push back against Microsoft management and say "no, we're not going to ship that". But I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work, at least not at this stage of the game. Microsoft would just find coders in India or the Philippines or somewhere to implement it where there are no such professional regulations. No, when a company the size of Microsoft does something like that, the problem is not with the individual contributors.)
I mean, you don’t sign a 20 page contract when you visit a restaurant saying you agree not to sue them if you get food poisoning. Or sign something saying you take responsibility if you die in a plane crash, or from a shoddy building collapsing on your head. Companies in all other areas of society are held responsible for foreseeable harm caused by the products they sell. EULAs make a mockery of that, and the law should void or ban them.
Software also suffers of untold expectations. Companies regularly spend as much time writing specs as developing the real software, and yet, imprecision still dominates the implementation.
In fact, in the US, if you get a licensed engineer to do an inspection or design job, they will also often include a list of disclaimers to avoid liability. You often have to negotiate the lack of said liability waiver in advance for a higher fee. Note, liability waivers don't protect from negilence, just all other scenarios.
That's a deep rabbit hole that leads to the Underdark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdark) of Enterprise Legal Agreements.
Only high-level legal wizards and magisters can go there and expect to understand anything and keep their sanity.
Not a lawyer, but I expect it comes down to "if you follow our guidelines and pay us enough we can make the following guarantees, but there are certain things that we simply do not cover."
This is exactly what a warranty is though.
Yes, but it is not for consumers. It is for big businesses that pay millions and have specific expectations. The more you are willing to pay to more you can get within specific limits.
Your original statement, "If you pay for software it generally comes with some warranty and guarantee of fitness for purpose." does not hold for consumers and only partially holds for enterprise customers.
It might be better stated: "If your business / entity / government has specific needs (e.g. compliance with legal or medical regulations, industry certifications, ISO requirements, auditing, etc.), has a large sack of money to pay, and a team of lawyers, then there are some software publishers who will sign contracts to guarantee you certain qualities about the software you license with them and perhaps some level of support of that software."
---
Limited Remedy. If Microsoft, or the device manufacturer or installer, breaches its limited warranty, it will, at its election, either: (i) repair or replace the software at no charge, or (ii) accept return of the software (or at its election the device on which the software was preinstalled) for a refund of the amount paid, if any.
---
Unless it's some sort of bespoke software with a detailed contract (the details of which aren't available), I don't believe that's true.
Every single software license (as well as websites and other services) I've ever read (over the past 30 years or so) has had some similar disclaimer.
Would you provide an example that doesn't follow that pattern?