- Tell that to Apple, who was the plaintiff in this case.
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.
Danish Court Rules Apple Must Replace Man's iPhone With New Rather Than Refurbished Model
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you could know! it was not of your doing, you might have a point, but you can't. So instead they will repair your device and you will have to wait a week for it to come back and you will have a REFURBISHED device! It will just happen to be your refurbished device. You will not get a new case, new glass, or a new battery. But at least you will be able to wait for a week to get it back...... yea you!
[doublepost=1481321839][/doublepost]
Because he doesn't have a new thing anymore! To understand you need to think of Apple's legal alternative. They can simply fix his phone and he will have a refurbished phone that happens to be his. But unlike the one Apple normally would offer him. It will still have all of the scratches he has put on the screen and case and it will have the same used battery instead of brand new battery, screen and case.
- What's written in their warranty isn't very relevant. The law in force takes precedence, and under that law (as per this ruling), replacement items have to be new.
Further, under the law the choice between repair and replacement lies with the consumer, not with Apple.
- Wrong. Consumers have the choice between replacement or repair. It's not up to Apple.
- Actually, Apple can't choose to repair it. Repair or replacement is at the discretion of the consumer under Danish law.
Additionally, with continuous fails (that is beyond the initial claim), the consumer is entitled to a full refund, not just a replacement.
That's exactly what the video states. The hint is in the video title.
Twice. If you're going to capitalise statements for emphasis make sure they're accurate. 9m:50s.
As explained in the video it's an issue if they don't replace the underfill, it makes the device more susceptible to drop damage. 9m:00s.
I would consider your staunch defence of Apple that is not supported by the evidence reveals you have a major bias. Who am I more likely to trust in the specific matter, 'does Apple use water damaged boards in refurb products'? Somebody that has no experience in repairing Apple products and posts anonymously on a message forum? Or somebody that clearly has extensive repair experience and is willing to put their professional reputation on the line by posting an evidential video? If it wasn't true Apple would sue her out of existence.
Last edited:
It should. Example: I live in the US. I bought a new HGST 4TB Deskstar (post Hitachi, now Western Digital). That's an expensive drive for a TM backup. Anyway, it died less than two years later of intermittent use. When it died and I RMA'd it, I received a refurbished unit that lasted less than two years and I just RMA'd that one yesterday back to HGST (WD).
I am fairly certain that the unit that is replaced won't be NOS (new old-stock) but another refurbished item that can't and won't be trusted. And what do they care? They already have my money.
Lesson: Warranties are ******** unless you're receiving brand new replacement parts or products.
The Danish Court made the correct ruling.
Interesting logic. I disagree but I respect your opinion none the less.
Denmark does have some awesome consumer laws, would have been nice with the issues I have had with Sony in the past.
It seems to me to be a bit of both, though I might be completely wrong, if so my apologies
. The consumer can choose to get a replacement, but the seller can dispute that claim if certain circumstances apply, e.g. the cost of replacing the product exceeds the cost of repair (by a large margin) (http://www.forbrug.dk/Artikler/Test...eparation?tc=C5C36C52898F4B2FB4ADD359034C3A84).
Last edited:
- This is true. Though in most instances, replacement over repair won't be exceedingly onerous on the seller to a degree that would justify rejecting it. It's a clause that's very rarely used.It seems to me to be a bit of both, though I might be completely wrong, if so my apologies
Actually, whether you need to know or not depends.
According to the EU mandatory guarantee, defects discovered within 6 months from delivery are assumed to be due to manufacturing issues already present on the time of delivery. This means the buyer doesn't need to know anything, he can just claim it was delivered defective and the onus of proving otherwise belongs to the seller if he decides to dispute the claim.
The opposite is true after 6 months: then the one required to prove the defect was already present at the time of delivery is the buyer if the seller disputes the claim.
[doublepost=1481326147][/doublepost]
It's part of the EU minimum mandatory guarantee so this is actually true in all EU countries (as long as the buyer's choice is not either impossible or disproportionately expensive for the seller).
Apple should've not spent time litigating. Waste of time and money. They should've just offered a brand new iPhone SE based off how the Danish consumer protection services ruled. They just lost in Court. Hence why I said they had too much times on their hands.
Perhaps not. They will probably just ship the phones they take in over to the States, it looks like a number of posters on the thread don't seem to mind getting refurb stuff.
Pretty much the same ruling as back in July, when a Dutch (not Danish) court ruled for a consumer with a defective iPhone 6 Plus.
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...phone-with-new-not-refurbished-model.1982419/
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...phone-with-new-not-refurbished-model.1982419/
Last edited:
I challenge the snootiest buyer to distinguish between a proper Apple refurb and a new finished good. They are impeccable. If the dude got a refurb with an imperfection thats an outlier.
Waa waa waa blah blah blah
Just follow the local laws and all would be so much easier
Just follow the local laws and all would be so much easier
That's just exterior cosmetics, though.
He would have no idea what physical, electrical and thermal stresses the used parts inside have been subjected to by each of the previous owners of those parts. (The only new internal part will be the battery.)
That is why a higher percentage of refurbs fail than new devices, according to repair and insurance companies.
(Personally, I've had good luck with refurbs so far. The warranty and price are the attractions.)
Last edited:
I would put Apple in a league of their own as far is refurbishment is concerned. They deeply understand the dynamics of a single failure versus multiple failures on the business/customer/product relationship. Its true that you dont know those factors and Id argue based on experience that if parts are gonna fail theyre usually gonna fail sooner than later. Thats where the bathtub curve comes into play.
Good points but i have to disagree with the car statement. Car salesman are simply scandalous and the lemon laws hardly cover anything other than the car blowing up in the first few days.
[doublepost=1481342167][/doublepost]
Oh man I remember my first walkman and then discman! Walking with the discman was such a grueling task when they first came out. Anyway, my point is regardless how many companies state what you mentioned above I think that high dollar value items should be replaced with the newest model available during the warranty period. Of course I would say that the "defective" devices need to closely watched and if the device breaks during the warranty period it needs to be replaced with a new device.
On eBay I always buy used in mint condition. I won't buy refurbished and I know many others who feel the same. so I suppose that the iPhone user is correct that it might lower the resale value. And actually I have seen a small amount of people while I'm out who are rocking an iPhone 4 or 4s still over the last year.
Last edited:
"since it may contain recycled parts, which could result in a lower resale value ...."
Good grief Charlie Brown ... some people just need to complain about something else!!!
Wow I had no idea that people checked the parts inside a used iPhone before purchasing one!!!
All they are trying to do is get a free iPhone 7 for there broken and dropped iPhone 4.
Good grief Charlie Brown ... some people just need to complain about something else!!!
Wow I had no idea that people checked the parts inside a used iPhone before purchasing one!!!
All they are trying to do is get a free iPhone 7 for there broken and dropped iPhone 4.
"newer replacement parts" lol this couldn't be farther from the truth.
Apple will use whatever is cheapest and will make the machine "work"... They are known to put in crap parts as long as the device will work, here you can see they were caught using water damaged boards for a "refurbished ipad mini".
lol @ people defending Apple in this case... they abuse the laws of every country they are in to their own benefit and take advantage of every tax loophole/law there is for their benefit, but for some reason when an average consumer tries to use the law for their advantage it's suddenly just them "complaining" or "crying" about things.
I see nothing wrong with what this guy did, as BY LAW he is entitled to it which was supported by the courts in Denmark. I'm sure Apple can afford to take care of the bill on this one with all the money they've saved using tax avoidance loopholes in Ireland.
Last edited:
Could happen in Australia-under our consumer law, Apple would have to offer spare parts for iPhone 4's , refurbished or new iPhone 4's.
Yet Apple doesn't allow Apple Stores and AASPs outside of California, Turkey and France to offer parts, repair, refurbishment or as new for devices classed as vintage like the iPhone 4 even though in Australiafor example, Apple's Australian warranty page states Apple must make parts and repair for Apple products available for a certain period of time.
Surely, Apple would have to offer parts, new phones, refurbished phones, and repairs for iPhone 4 in Denmark-but guess what only this happens in California, France and Turkey as required by law there.
Denmark and Australia for instance are grouped with the countries where Apple does not make an exception for parts & repair for "vintage" products as per an Apple support article.
Yet Apple doesn't allow Apple Stores and AASPs outside of California, Turkey and France to offer parts, repair, refurbishment or as new for devices classed as vintage like the iPhone 4 even though in Australiafor example, Apple's Australian warranty page states Apple must make parts and repair for Apple products available for a certain period of time.
Surely, Apple would have to offer parts, new phones, refurbished phones, and repairs for iPhone 4 in Denmark-but guess what only this happens in California, France and Turkey as required by law there.
Denmark and Australia for instance are grouped with the countries where Apple does not make an exception for parts & repair for "vintage" products as per an Apple support article.
Last edited: