You are completely, absolutely wrong. You really need to read what these laws really say.
If I'm "completely, absolutely" wrong, no portion of my post would be correct. Please inform yourself before brashly claiming others are wrong.
There is no "statutory warranty for 6 years". 6 years is the _claim period_. "Claim period" means six years is the absolute limit of how much time you have to complain.
The 6 year "_claim period_" is effectively a 6 year warranty in this particular instance, since you are able to claim against faults for 6 years. The seller has to ensure that the goods are of satisfactory quality, if they are not, they are classed as faulty. Since Apple positions their products as best-in-class, failing after just over a year is not "satisfactory quality". A cheap Dell PC on the other hand wouldn't have a 6 year claim period, as one wouldn't expect it to be a premium quality machine, nor does Dell claim it to be.
From the OFT's guide:
The law says that a customer can approach you with a claim about an item they purchased from you for up to six years from the date of sale.
This does not mean that everything you sell has to last six years from the date of purchase! It is the time limit for the customer to make a claim about an item. During this period, you are legally required to deal with a customer who claims that their item does not conform to contract (is faulty) and you must decide what would be the reasonable amount of time to expect the goods to last.
By your own admission, you can complain up to 6 years after the purchase date. Surely this constitutes a 6 year warranty? If not, please explain why.
If you buy a Mac with a cheque, the cheque bounces, and Apple tries to get their money from you, there will be a claims period as well - if you avoid paying for so many years, they lose the right to the money.
I don't see how this has anything to do with warranties, since the check won't bounce later on after it's cashed, but a computer can fail after it's been bought. The claim period for a cheque bouncing is fixed, whereas the Sale of Goods act is based on a "reasonable amount of time", completely different. If the cheque wasn't cashed for 6 months, and it still bounced, you'd still be entitled to claim the whole value of the cheque.
You're also claiming that Apple could fob people off without repairs until they're outside the warranty, then they can just say sorry, you're out of warranty now..?
How long a product should last, depends entirely on the product. If I buy a marble statue for my garden, that should last 50 years. But if I buy a computer, that will not be expected to last six years. 2 years if you're lucky, your rights are not against Apple, but against the seller (which may or may not be Apple), as you note yourself you have to prove that the defect was present when you received the product (that doesn't mean the defect must be noticeable, it can be a hidden defect that stops the computer from lasting as long as it should). And if you get money back, the use that you had will be taken into account as well. So you could never expect to get your full money back if a computer breaks after two years.
Hold on, you're catting confused between laws. The EU law is that the defect has to be present when the item was delivered, that is not how the Sale of Goods Act is written.
The Sale of Goods Act does say it should last a reasonable amount of time. Is it your opinion that a computer "will not be expected to last 6 years", or some kind of fact you've retrieved from somewhere? Two years is a "lucky" timeframe? Geez, that's an extremely pessimistic view if it's yours. Most of my computers have lasted much longer than 6 years. In fact, perhaps I'm in the minority here, but virtually all of my electronic equipment is well past 5 years old and still running fine. Generally, it's quite rare for electronics to fail without abuse. You think it's fine that cheap £15 christmas lights have the same warranty as a £2000 computer?
Additionally, since you could easily prove other iMacs of the same model had the same defect, you could again argue this as part of the "not satisfactory quality" clause. A one-off problem isn't a quality control issue, but multiple failures of the same type on the same model is certainly a quality control issue, which means it is not of satisfactory quality.
KeegM480 said:
Same here my current MacBook Pro is the only device I have owned with an issue that is apples fault and it is being fixed free. This technically is apples fault but they can't be held responsible because the owner had the option to buy a warranty
A widespread fault on a particular model and Apple can't be held responsible? The product shouldn't have the widespread fault, if it does, that's an Apple responsibility. Just because the owner could have bought AppleCare doesn't mean Apple isn't responsible. AppleCare's more to cover one-off random issues that don't affect a significant percentage of that model. If there's a problem with that model that is widespread, such as this screen issue, Apple should cover it under a repair extension as they have in the past.
