Again the warranty, which is online is quite clear on this matter. The legal version even uses the word referbished. IMHO this just a bunch of ambulance chasers who are hoping they can make a jury buy into their insanity.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Class Action Lawsuit Over Apple Providing Refurbished Replacement Devices Proceeding to Trial in August
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That the warranty allows Apple to use "not new" parts for repairs it's clear, but it has nothing to do with the answer you cited.
My answer was to your claim that "if this new part is tested before you get it, it has been used and is therefore no longer new anymore". Since brand newly manufactured parts are often routinely tested during manufacturing or installation, the claim is clearly incorrect.
"The term 'refurbished' refers to products that are sold after they were returned to a manufacturer or vendor for various reasons."
If someone takes a machine out of the box, powers it up, and finds somebody at the shipping company goofed and sent them a 8 GB rather then a 16 GB and returns it for what they ordered that technically is a refurbished. In fact, in some localities once you open the box the product isn't considered new. Boxed software was (and is) sold this way for example. The same is true of certain hardware components
I put it to you; is this type of refurbished machine on par with a new machine? If not why not?
And if, one by one, you replace each part of the machine with a new part, at the end, is it really the same machine?
Asking for my friend, Theseus.
The Ship of Theseus is an interesting thought experiment but again the warranty (especially the legal version) is quite clear about this. Unless some shock the conscience argument can be made (and since you can read the warranty online before buy the product I don't think that would fly) this is a valid contract and the judge should have thrown the suit out from the get go.
So do you have to agree to the warranty terms before purchase? Is the warranty a contract? Is it a contract of adhesion? (I don’t care about these questions.)
As iffy as it is wikipedia gives the basics on Express warranty which is what the whole lawsuit is about.
Is it legal to send refurbished parts in warranty? (which is about Dell) we are given this:
"We use new and refurbished parts made by various manufacturers in performing warranty repairs and in building replacement parts and products. Refurbished parts and products are parts or products that have been returned to Dell, some of which were never used by a customer. All parts and products are inspected and tested for quality. Replacement parts and products are covered for the remaining period of the limited hardware warranty for the product you purchased."
Apple is not doing anything different from Dell.
5 Myths About Buying Recertified or Refurbished Hardware implies (but does flat out state) that any item returned within the time period (sometimes at long as 30 days) would be considered refurbished.
Heck, as I said before in some locations simply opening the box counts as refurbished. In such locations if someone opens up the box and sees the computer is silver when they asked for dark metal and they returned it without even using it - it would still be considered a refurbished computer.
Doesn't this make a lick of sense? No, but that is the wacky way some of the local laws are written. I up the ante on bsolar and ask if this machine which by the local law is refurbished even though never actually used is new? This is why Apple's warranty is written the way it is and if the judge had any sense they should have thrown this case out on its ear but as Kelo shows sometimes even Supreme Court judges are lacking in basic common sense.
If the box was opened by the end-user the machine cannot be considered "new". Apple cannot just trust the end-user claim that he didn't do anything with the machine and that's the reason they have to perform very detailed tests on anything returned by an end-user before they can re-use anything.
A refurbished machine is IMHO not "on par" with a new machine: first of all, it cannot even be legally sold as new, meaning that the law does recognize a difference. Furthermore, the monetary value is inferior to a brand-new equivalent machine: Apple's prices for a refurbished model are significantly lower compared to a new one.
This doesn't mean these devices are a bad deal though... but new they are not.
Therefore people wanting a replacement cannot get a new machine because it is no longer a new machine by this criteria. This is, along with the fact companies like Dell are doing the same things, why the lawsuit is such a bunch of BS.
The flaw in “refurbished” means it cannot be new is that what happens if you replace every single part with a new one, one part at a time. Now every part is brand new, and never been in a customer’s hands. Yet the device was refurbished up until i swapped the last and final part for a new one? Is it refurbished after that swap?
IMHO, it's refurbished, because the device is considered having its own identity and no matter what you do once it's not new anymore it cannot return new. Sometimes the term "remanufactured" is used when a device or product is completely reassembled by replacing all its components.
In which case, complaining about “refurbished” is silly, as there is no difference between a device so refurbished and a new device.
Of course, people have been thinking about this for thousands of years.
Ship of Theseus - Wikipedia
Well, since we are in thought experiment, arguably there still is potentially a difference, since a remanufacturing is unlikely to have the same manufacturing process as a new device.
Furthermore, a thought experiment is interesting but we need to look at practical reality: usually a refurbished product is not totally remanufactured based on new pieces, it's a used product with potentially some pieces replaced.