The car without wheels is not a good example because you can't order it like a pizza by using an app like iFood. You need to check it by visiting the local store.
That means you can easily spot a problem, due to the nature of said product. That is, if such problem is not hidden.
Also, you can't buy said car SEALED, inside a box. There are some products that even if you buy from a local store, you will only open the package when you are on your way home. And if that's the case, you are allowed to return it, due to a hidden defect NOW discovered (and yes, the absence of a relevant part/accessory that hinders the continuous use is considered a flaw).
A car without wheels is considered a "plain", obvious issue, so evident that a normal person (even a layman) can notice it. I could say the same about a clock that doesn't show what time is it.
The absence of a charger, not so much in my opinion. It's assumed to be there (I mean, that you'll be able to continue using this phone somehow), otherwise it would not be sold.
For example, we don't usually buy a television set without the power cord, with the argument that we can find a similar one anywhere. Once you install this TV, you'll assume that it will turn it on.
Apple is relying on the assumption that you already own a computer that can charge said PHONE (I can do this with my iPAD, using my PC, despite taking more time) or a previous charger from an old iPhone.
This is a mistake, many people get rid of previous equipment or buy for the 1st time.
The iPAD (or iPhone) can be bought from a guy that lives 2000 miles + from you. Back when we still could buy from Apple ($$$$$$$), I purchased my IPP 10.5 from BHPHotoVideo, which is from N.Y., and shipped to Brazil using a freight forwarder. "eBay-like" websites are probably the most used. I don't think many people buy from local stores, including any from Apple. Because it's a lot more expensive if you choose them.
Probably because some online sellers avoid paying the same number of (import) taxes. You know how that works...
The same "Consumer Code" (from Brazil) states that you are allowed (provided you don't use it in a way that would prevent this right from being exercised, so don't abuse this) to return it and get 100% of your money back. For no reason.
You can never do the same if you buy some clothes and despite them still in the same package unopened, try to return it, if you do this from a physical STORE, where you had the chance to check it with your hands and eyes. The seller in such cases, have the right to refuse the product back or even that you replace it with a similar one (let's say you don't want the iPhone anymore and opt for a Samsung).
If you try to go back there with the iPhone box sealed, you may or MAY NOT get to exchange it.
I don't think you can get enough details of what you buy from your computer, if you bought from a guy living in another distant state where a few details may be missed (note: the CODE also says it's a right to be fully informed about all product traits). Even if you were, the law assumes otherwise, that your perception of what you bought was incomplete.
Art. 49. The consumer may desist from a contract in a period of up to seven days after the moment when the contract is signed or when the product or service is delivered, whenever the product or service is hired outside a commercial establishment, especially through a phone or house visit.
Sole paragraph. If the consumer decides to use his right to desist from the contract as foreseen in this article, any amounts that have been paid, for any reason, during the reflection period will be returned immediately, with financial adjustments.
Even if that right is there, these lawsuits don't touch on the subject of not being able to get the money back and buying another PHONE (for example), they mention that article I told you about: 18.
The one that you can't sell anything (at least here) if it's considered inadequate for the intended purpose.
This last news says this is based on:
Art. 39. Forbidden abusive practices by the products or service provider includes:
I - conditioning product or service delivery to the delivery of another product or service as well as specific quantitative limits without just cause;
The full decision (in portuguese) about the latest FINE against Apple can be read
here.
The judge said Apple is conditioning users to still buy the charger made by them, not another one. I mean, think about it:
- The alternative is NOT to avoid buying the CHARGER. You still need to do it.
So by removing it, you are still forced to buy it anyway, only this time you do this separately. The "ECO" argument is idiotic, because if you do a new purchase you harm the environment by shipping (again), and the old phone charger may not be compatible with the newest technology (assuming Apple only sends you the charger cable with the latest iPhone).
Apple also tells us that we should NOT buy similar CHARGERS, and even Amazon was sued by them for selling counterfeit products.
The ruling said this is another form of "conditioning" (as that article 39-I states). But this time, it's different: you are not prevented of buying if you don't get the charger, however you can't use it if you don't buy it.
It's like I sell you the air conditioner without the remote control to operate it.
You can still buy it without it. But since you can't (continue) using it without said remote control, you need to buy from me anyway.
Specious reasoning.
