LOL nobody has proven anything wrong... I'm really just stating a fact.
If you don't think that Denmark's a civil law country and/or you don't understand what the civil law system is then that's your business, not mine.
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
LOL nobody has proven anything wrong... I'm really just stating a fact.
If you don't think that Denmark's a civil law country and/or you don't understand what the civil law system is then that's your business, not mine.
So much misinformation... The danish consumer law stats very clearly which choices a consumer has. When a consumer has at broken iphone, THE CONSUMER has the option to:
It is the consumer that has the option to choose. Only if a repair is proportional more expensive than a replacement, the consumers choosing can be ignored, and only the first two times a claim is made.
So when Apple choose to replace with a refurbished unit, it violated the danish laws. It is that simple.
The danish consumer laws a basically the same as in Norway and Sweden.
The translated info can be found here: http://bit.ly/2hpPKz4
- You can have the defect item repaired
- You can have the item replaced with a new product
- You can get a price reduction
- You can get your money back - cancel the purchase
It is the consumer that has the option to choose. Only if a repair is proportional more expensive than a replacement, the consumers choosing can be ignored, and only the first two times a claim is made.
So when Apple choose to replace with a refurbished unit, it violated the danish laws. It is that simple.
The danish consumer laws a basically the same as in Norway and Sweden.
The translated info can be found here: http://bit.ly/2hpPKz4
No, you are not.
In Denmark it is called "retspraksis" which is basically what sets precedents. If a similar case was to come up again, the judges will issue a ruling based on former final decisions ("retspraksis"), unless there are arguments against and then the challenge will usually only happen in the higher courts. In which case they will go back to the constitutional or statutory laws. Even unwritten as customary ("sædvane") and cultural tradition ("forholdets natur") are sources of law, which could be important in these cases.
For those of you who want to know the applicable danish law text, The Aarhus University semi-maintains an unofficial translation (it is missing the latest update but is not relevant in this case). http://www.sprog.asb.dk/SN/Danish Sale of Goods Act.pdf where the applicable law is § 78.
I don't recommend using Google Translate or similar at all when translating law!
It will be hard for folks in Common law countries, where the Judge's rule is final, to understand.
America's judicial system is probably the worst of any Common law country though, as the Supreme Court can dictate the country. Whereas, high courts in other more modern and advanced English countries get to pass matters back to the Parliament, for discussion.
The elected leaders then get to vote on an issue brought to a court, where a high court cannot apply existing laws. They don't just leave it up to a group of judges to do as they feel fit like America does.
Did I say be greatful for the faulty device somewhere in the sentence you quoted? No. I was simply saying be greatfuly for replacement warrant. Apple by all means should replace a faulty unit. How they do that is their policy. Some manufacturers will repair a device leaving the customer without a phone for weeks. Be grateful Apple have stores and will give you another device on the spot. Rather than whine it 'may' have one reused part.
The problem in this article is largely moot now anyway. Back in the days of the iPhone 4, Apple barely ever repaired iPhones (I think we used to be able to repair the back cover, camera and battery - nothing more. Anything other than that was a replacement unit (refurb) - which was considered a form of repair.
Nowadays, they repair pretty much anything in an iPhone.
[doublepost=1481703790][/doublepost]
Yep, in the UK the burden switches over 6 months. Normally, "not of satisfactory quality" is a much easier argument though, as it doesn't take much arguing to show that a reasonable person would expect a £600 phone to last 2 years or so.
In Denmark how they do it isn't their policy it's law. Whether you as an Australian or I as an American agree or not is wholly irrelevant.
The cost of a brand new sealed unit IS disproportionately expensive though.
In the UK a new 7 for example could be upwards of £900 but repairing a component like a camera module could be a £30 repair.
To a retail customer, yes. To Apple itself, not so much.
Which brings up the question of why it takes "weeks" for Apple to repair an iphone.
Our very busy local phone repair shop can usually fix even the most awful set of damages in an hour. At most, a day.
They also use new parts, unlike Apple refurbs. Refurbs are ultimately about saving Apple money.
Last edited:
Of course you did. And now you did it again.
And just so you know - Apple does not do what you say globally.
[doublepost=1481726330][/doublepost]
I understand disproportionally in the context of the laws means something like "could ruin the whole business". It's not like "it'd cost 3 times more than repair, we deny it" because this thing could be said about almost anything i. e. the law would be useless and it is not.
Let others fix me if I'm wrong.
[doublepost=1481726431][/doublepost]
Because
Last edited:
It does not need to be that much disproportionate to be valid. But it depends on functionality and value as well. A 300 kr repair versus a 9000 kr device is generally disproportionate, but that is usually not the case. Repair costs are not just part but also labor and inconvenience for the buyer. In this case this is of no interest anyway as Apple was unable to repair it.
I am getting bored of your heckling. Nobody has disproven my statement that Denmark is a civil law country...
If you study law, it's a pretty simple fact. Most of Europe uses the civil law system and it's nothing like the system in the USA. Please read up on it rather than making shrill remarks, as they are unhelpful.
1. Your page lists decisions for information only... it lets you see how judges have ruled. Your previous reference was in relation to the CISG (which I studied in International Sale of Goods Law and worked with at the Vis Moots). It was mostly a reference for foreign lawyers so they can get a feel for how different countries will interpret the CISG (the international 'Convention on the International Sale of Goods'... which is sometimes used as a source of law when drafting contracts for the sale of goods between countries, so it's off-topic really, but the relationship between it and domestic law can be interesting. Clearly there's patterns and consistency in the law - even in civil law countries - but this does not mean that cases are a primary source of law like they are in common law countries).
2. 'Retspraksis' translates as 'jurisprudence' and my friend Trine (who is Danish) backs up this translation. Jurisprudence at uni is called 'legal theory' these days... it's mostly for academic purposes (e.g. studying theories about how the law should be applied).
Denmark is a civil law country, and this is a fact you cannot refute (it's common knowledge and I've backed it up despite the fact any lawyer will simply know it without need for argument).
Tell me what your understanding is about the difference between civil law countries and common law countries. Do a web search, tell me in your words, what is the difference?
[doublepost=1481803161][/doublepost]
I disagree... in Australia (where I live) there is res judicata. A decision of the High Court (in its appellant jurisdiction) is final and becomes law. This may then influence how future legislation is drafted, however, one cannot be judged on something that was not law at the time when they acted.
It's called 'judicial activism' when the High Court 'creates' law through its interpretation. Mabo is a high-profile case. Too long to summarise but in essence an indigenous Australian proved that he had an uninterrupted native title to an area of land where his people lived. The High Court held that land could only be colonised in 3 ways and the British reasoning of 'terra nullius' was false because indigenous Australians lived on the land.
In Mabo, Australia didn't have any statute about native title so the High Court had to review the existing law and decide what the status of their title was. They held that it was valid (which was the first time this had been done). Australia's founding fathers are quoted as saying that indigenous Australians are an 'inferior race' that would not survive. This was racist, colonial rubbish that proved to be wrong. The law makers never thought about this happening so the High Court had to fill the gaps.
After Mabo, statute was enacted that defined the boundaries of native title. This is quite normal, but can't change an existing decision. Once there's res judicata, you can't change the law by adding a new law. So... if you find a loophole, it can't be 'patched' specifically to mess you over (when you were following the laws of the time).
I guess this is where we get back to civil law countries like Denmark. Civil law countries have what's called a 'civil code' and that is THE law. As I'm trying to explain to our fact-resistent comrade, there's no 'precedents' in common law countries and cases are judged on a case-by-case basis.
Where my comrade's confusion lies is that he's saying 'yeah but Denmark's not like France where they just give a decision and no explanation... so it's kinda like common law countries where reasoning is given'. This is true, and countries like Denmark tend to publish their reasoning, which is called 'jurisprudence constante'. Our friend is confusing jurisprudence constante with precedent, which is incorrect. Yes judges in Denmark publish their reasoning in great detail (unlike French judges) and this is discussed heavily by lawyers who wish to find patterns of reasoning. It may even feel like a 'precedent' when the same reasoning is used over and over. However, it is not to be confused with a 'precedent' (which is a primary source of law). Jurisprudence constante is subordinate to Denmark's civil code, and Danish judges are not allowed to 'create law'. Although, they are more open about their reasoning than some other civil law countries.
In common law countries (e.g. the USA, GB, Australia, NZ, Canada...etc) it is completely different. Res judicata is a primary source of law and the lower courts must all follow it (or it will be appealed on the basis that they didn't rule consistently with a higher couet). In Denmark, saying 'your decision was different from another decision' will NOT cut the mustard for an appeal - it's simply not a valid line of reasoning.
Last edited:
I've never had it take weeks to repair an iPhone.
I had my smashed screen repaired in ~1h at an Apple Store, and I had a replacement previously next working day.
No, it's not, or at least not always. Not all repairs are quick and easy cheap jobs, some repairs are much more expensive and that's the reason Apple's own out-of-warranty repair prices are pretty high: e.g. out-of-warranty repair for an iPhone 7 is $319 and it might not even get repaired but replaced instead.
Ah, thanks. So all the people in this thread who wrote posts saying that getting a refurb right away was better than having to (e.g) "leave the phone in the store, and pick it up two weeks later when it is repaired", were engaging in a bit of hyperbole?
Folks, has anyone here gotten their phone repaired (not replaced) by Apple and had it take a week or more?
That sounds more like Apple selling someone a refurb for a profit.
1. I have not referred to any such page(s).
2. Jurisprudence in Danish is "retsvidenskab", to break it up to you: "ret" translates as law (Jura) and "videnskab" translates as science, i.e. the science of law. "Praksis" translates to practice, application, custom, i.e. the application or custom of law.
3. I don't believe anyone refute that Denmark is categorized as a civil law country, but there is no absolutism in such categorization. It is not correct that Denmark is a pure civil law country, if you apply the term as in your bigoted view. It is however not a pluralistic system, and the judiciary cannot create new codification, or to be "retsskabende". The nuance from stare decisis in common law is that precedents can be overturned, usually only by a higher court. In Denmark this will only happen if you can argue that they conflict with constitutional or statutory laws. You have to see the sources of law in layers, where constitution trumps statutory, and statutory trumps precedents, etc. The precedents are still a source of law, and will be used to clarify interpretation and ambiguity in code. It will be binding if it fails to conflict with constitution or statutes or "repealed" by editing those.
EU law are however pluralistic, which means that if cases are put forward for the EU court of justice, the system is generally civil in nature, but stare decisis will have equality and be binding.
My sons i6 was exhibiting problems. He Made an appointment brought it to Apple. 24 hours later he went back, they gave him a refurb, the issue was covered under AppleCare.
Sorry but you are completely ignoring the fundamental difference between common law systems and civil law systems and attempting to cunfuse it by juxtaposing definitions between jurisdictions.
No civil law system accepts the common law definition of precedent. Suggesting that a common law precedent is possible in any civil law country if a farce.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
In civil law system ambiguity of the law leads to supreme (or similar) court either comment the law and 99.99% judges that will not agree with this comment in future judgements will be successfully appealed thereafter, or order legislative branch to fix the law if the ambiguity is too high. This in practice is similar to a precedent since one specific case appealed as high as supreme court leads to the whole judgement practice to be led in one and only way thereafter. Of course this is not exactly the same as precedent in common law. No one except you has said that it is.
Lemon laws in the US give a new car owner the right to ask for a full refund or replacement, sometimes up to (e.g. in NJ) two years after purchase, if something major can't be repaired.
That's a lemon law, not a repair. Lemon laws are very specific about a car not being able to be repaired for the same issue in x amount of time. In this case the phone was repaired and working.
However, it's more like getting your car into an accident and then there potentially is diminished value. But the keyword is potentially.