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
Out of sane arguments?
I am glad to see that you are now limiting it to "common law precedent". Because that is not what you find in Danish Law, but you will still find precedents applied. Which is what most people here have been telling you.
[doublepost=1482478459][/doublepost]
No, Apples problem was that they could not repair it.
[doublepost=1482480031][/doublepost]
To be technical it is the seller who have to replace. And if you don't advertise the device as new, it is not necessary (but unless specifically specified, they will assume to be new). If the cost for the seller will be disproportionate they don't have to, but they still have to offer repair or (partial) refund.
It is also important to notice that the law may be nullified by agreement if the transaction is not with a final consumer of the device. I.e. in business to business settings it can be different, which have been a criticism of the law, as a reseller may have to take the full cost without backing from the manufacturer, distributor, importer or whoever is before him in the chain. The logic is that as a professional you have to know what you are doing, but a consumer should not need to be.
Either way, apple can repair anything. Even if they have to replace the guts and leave the case. However, I respect this one case as this is not a common occurrence around the world.
No, the phone was NOT repaired. That's the whole point.
In both EU cases Apple has stated that it could not be repaired. That's why they wanted to give a refurbished phone in exchange.
In the US and other places, we're used to thinking that's a good deal. In these other countries, consumers have even more rights, and are due a new device as replacement for what was a new device that failed.
Did the individual have a working phone at the end of it all. If so, it was repaired.
If you get into a collision with your car and your body shop uses a dent puller vs a new painted door from the junkyard, do you care provided the condition looks like new and functions as new?
If you've read the thread, you'd know that it does not matter.
In his country (and others), if a phone fails within the warranty period and a replacement is the chosen solution, then it must be new, not refurbished. Just as a refund must be of the full purchase price, not prorated.
What part of NOT EVEN APPLE CLAIMS IT WAS REPAIRED do you not get?
Instead, Apple is claiming that a refurb is the equivalent of getting a new phone.
(And threw in some environmental issues as a backup reason. The court said warranty law had nothing about catering to such issues, so they were not a valid excuse to give a refurb.)
Not even close to what happens when you get a refurb swap.
If you get into a collision with your car, and the body shop swaps your car for someone else's used car which had been patched up with used parts (but new paint and windshield), do you care provided that the swap looks newer (even though it might have a lot higher mileage, and been treated much rougher)?
Of course you do.
Last edited:
Well the way it was laid out in your comment about US and all that is that it's fair and right to get a new phone in replacement of a new or essentially new phone phone that is faulty, but how does that fairness and rightness apply to a phone that has been used for years and then became faulty? Is a brand new phone equivalent in value to a functional phone (without any faults) that has been used for years? Seems like the consumer is making out with more than they had in that situation.
Tell it to the judge
Your questions are good, but I didn't make the decision. I'm just repeating it.
You can read the ruling yourself. Link is in the head article.
PS. However if it helps, the basic ruling of this and the previous Dutch decision, is that getting a new working device is simply giving the customer what they had expected from the beginning. And that being given a device with used parts is an unknown value, but certainly less than new value, which EU warranty law demands. Remember, no prorating.
As for making out with more, I'm beginning to think that some of you must really mistreat your devices and thus are extra happy with a refurb. Myself, I treat my phones extra well and would never want someone else's unknown problem that was patched up with other people's Frankenstein parts. In other words, heck yes my phone is worth more to me than some refurb, new battery or not.
Last edited:
Point is for most of the world that logic doesn't fly. You have a working phone at the end of it just like you have a working car after the body shop work is completed. Denmark is entitled to their own laws, but the question is this the defacto standard(which is why the conversation about cars)If you've read the thread, you'd know that it does not matter.
In his country (and others), if a phone fails within the warranty period and a replacement is the chosen solution, then it must be new, not refurbished. Just as a refund must be of the full purchase price, not prorated.
What part of NOT EVEN APPLE CLAIMS IT WAS REPAIRED do you not get?
Instead, Apple is claiming that a refurb is the equivalent of getting a new phone.
(And threw in some environmental issues as a backup reason. The court said warranty law had nothing about catering to such issues, so they were not a valid excuse to give a refurb.)
Not even close to what happens when you get a refurb swap.
If you get into a collision with your car, and the body shop swaps your car for someone else's used car which had been patched up with used parts (but new paint and windshield), do you care provided that the swap looks newer (even though it might have a lot higher mileage, and been treated much rougher)?
Of course you do.
In the context of the law and the decision, sure, I agree. I was just commenting more in the context of the discussion here basically (which won't really change anything, but it's a discussion nonetheless).Tell it to the judge
Your questions are good, but I didn't make the decision. I'm just repeating it.
You can read the ruling yourself. Link is in the head article.
PS. However if it helps, the basic ruling of this and the previous Dutch decision, is that getting a new working device is simply giving the customer what they had expected from the beginning. And that being given a device with used parts is an unknown value, but certainly less than new value, which EU warranty law demands. Remember, no prorating.
As for making out with more, I'm beginning to think that some of you must really mistreat your devices and thus are extra happy with a refurb. Myself, I treat my phones extra well and would never want someone else's unknown problem that was patched up with other people's Frankenstein parts. In other words, heck yes my phone is worth more to me than some refurb, new battery or not.
And while in some cases a refurb might be worse in some way than the used device was prior to the defect, in many it isn't. Furthermore, no matter how good a device is taken care of, a used one (that has been in use for some years let's say) is certainly not going to be close to a brand new one (even if a refurb might be worse in some ways).
True. That often goes for my lovely teen daughter's iPhones, for which she's quite happy to get a refurb
But abused devices are not covered by the EU warranty. See below.
True again, but you'd have to keep an equivalent refurb on hand to make it an equal swap. That sounds pretty impossible to do unless all our devices were instrumented like heck to log their handling.
--
Here's the EU deal, and it really isn't that overbearing at all: the manufacturer simply has to cover their products for production defects for two years.
Now don't you think it's reasonable these days to expect any product (especially one as expensive as an iPhone or a refrigerator) to run for two years if it's not abused? Of course. So if it fails due to a factory defect, then yeah I think it does make some sense to have it replaced with a new one. Would you want a USED refurb refrigerator if yours could not be repaired? I wouldn't.
Also, note that after the first six months the burden of proof switches from the seller to the EU buyer. Not too much of a burden though. If a product hasn't been visually abused, and the seller can't point out user caused damage, then most judges would automatically rule on the side of the buyer.
--
Again, note that in this case Apple did not claim the iPhone died because of the user. They admitted it was a factory defect. They simply claimed that a refurb was the equivalent of a new replacement. And lost that argument.
Ehm, no? Apple declared it cannot repair the phone and thus offered refurbished replacement. Customer rejected refurbished replacement stating that he bought new phone, not refurbished. Apple sued (Apple, not customer!). Court sided with the customer.
[doublepost=1482528454][/doublepost]
These laws are mostly the same across whole EU, they're also quite the same in whole Europe and half of Asia (i. e. incl. Russia of all places). And this is not even the first case in EU - the previous one has been in the Netherlands if I recall correctly with similar outcome. It's just that sadly consumers rarely call Apple (and other vendors) upon their ****. Hopefully it is starting to change recently.
[doublepost=1482528748][/doublepost]
You see, as stated numerously in this exact thread, you have to think that's a good deal. There are no consumer laws that protect you this far and other vendors provide awful customer service so Apple providing a refurbished device is seen as a blessing. At least this is the impression I've got from this thread. Sorry if I got it wrong. This behaviour of vendors is not what Europeans are accustomed to.
[doublepost=1482529030][/doublepost]
LOL, stop with this approach. Technically speaking device can never fail when it's new. Device is like a Schrodinger's cat - it's unknown if it's working while it's new, and when you know whether there is a problem it's already not new - you've tried it!
[doublepost=1482529110][/doublepost]
Yes! In the end of it Apple was forced by the court to give the individual a new working phone. At the end of it all it was "repaired". Yay! Something we can agree on!
[doublepost=1482529394][/doublepost]
Yes, because the initial contract was not for just a new phone, it was for a new phone without defects during the lawful period. Apple violated this contract by selling a defective device that failed during the period. And Apple refused to fix the problem as per contractual obligations (which include country laws), it tried to violate the contract again forcing the customer to accept refurbished replacement. Fortunately courts are not biased in some countries and Apple were made to fulfil the obligations.
Last edited:
A used device without any defects is with less than a brand new device without any defects. Thus a replacement of a used device with a brand new device is not an equivalnet replacement. That is the point I was commenting on and one that is pretty much a given.
But your analogy is wrong. They've tried to replace a used (that was new, not refurbished initially) device with defects with a refurbished device (allegedly) without defects. Court made them give the consumer a new device (allegedly) without defects. Defects is what changes all the picture. No law or judge will make nor any vendor will agree to replace a used device without defects. Defects is what makes a difference.
And getting a brand new device in return is still not equivalent (short or the original device being a lemon or still early in its usage perhaps). Courts might declare that to be the case, and that's what it is based on the legal decision essentially, but it's not the same thing as far as comparison of devices essentially.
A almost seven year phone way out of warranty is being discussed here, with all of the hubris I forget we are discussing an iphone 4. While the law in Denmark is the law, in the rest of the world repairing an obsolete phone, shouldn't even be an issue in that the customer buys a new device or accepts a refurb. Apple provides support for 5 years. Stuff happens with old electronic devices.
And has been asked, would the same thing happen with obsolete TVs, cordless phones, old monitors? Any consumer electronic device that is reasonably past it's lifetime and can't be repaired, the manufacturer should give a new model?
I'll repeat myself: vendors must be grateful proper replacement is the only thing they have to do by law. More of these shenanigans with trying to prove the court that refurbished phone equals new, and sooner or later they will also have to pay a fine in addition to proper replacement.
By selling defective device they violate the contract. And the penalty in the contract is that low only because consumer is the weaker side of the contract and has no say in its formulation. In civilized societies consumer laws compensate this problem. In some societies vendors do what they want to consumers, consumers hate them and whine and see a refurb for a defective premium product as a blessing. Because it's either that or worse, and vendor chooses, not the consumer.
[doublepost=1482553534][/doublepost]
LOL, the rest of the world. It's the same in whole EU, it's quite the same in whole Europe and half of Asia (incl. Russia of all places). And I'm not even sure about Americas. Surely, in the USA this might be the case only somewhere in California... but I really wonder if Canada is like USA or like the rest of the world. I'm assuming it should be like the rest of the world.
Yes, if manufacturer (actually - the seller) sues the customer and prolongs the process for years, he either has to provide new instance of the same model, or new instance of a new model. At. The. Very. Least. And should be grateful this is the only thing he has to do.
Last edited:
The seller should not be held responsible for out of date consumer electronics; unless there is some type of a recall. This is a very slippery slope and could apply say to microwaves built in the 1980s. Or is this just a one-off case?
If seller prolongs the replacement process by 30-36 years by suing the customer - hell yes he has to be held responsible.
Well not if the buyer of the 1980 microwave brought it back for warranty service in 2016. In 2014 the phone was 4 years old no warranty or AppleCare. So I think in general this is on the buyer not the seller.
Don't embarrass yourself please, read the initial post and the link. You're wrong with the dates.
Even if you were not, it'd not make a difference since in EU it's pretty much 6 years guarantee... But you are.
An electronic device that develops an issue years down the road is hardly automatically some conspiracy of a defective device being sold that the manufacturer is just guilty of and has to be punitively punished for.
That was not the timeline. The customer bought the phone in mid 2011, a year later it was replaced after failures, and some month later it failed again. Apple gave the customer a refurbished phone where there was some cosmetic damages according to him. He did not accept that phone and as Apple disagreed to replace with a new or repair the original bought item, he complained to the complaints board. We are still in 2012, their ruling was however not made until 2014. And after that Apple sued the customer to have the boards decision tested and overturned in court. Their ruling came when this article was written in 2016. They agreed with the complaints board decision and understanding of the law, and told Apple that they have to cancel the sale and refund the customer.
It's funny that it seems first complaint was even inside 1 year warranty period (bought June 2011, in November 2012 it was already replaced by a refurbished after numerous complaints) i. e. it seems he was not going to use the law to make Apple behave, he just used Apple's own policy - 1 year warranty, then 90 days after repair, then again 90 days after repair - and only in the end after numerous repairs with Apple being the little bitch they are he had to fall back to the law and make them behave as they were going to give him a worse replacement despite all the inconvenience they've already caused. Yet all the Apple apologists say about "years down the road". Pathetic.
[doublepost=1482585912][/doublepost]
1. It was not years down the road in this case. Please don't embarrass yourself like @I7guy and read the initial post and the link.
2. Even if it were there are two distinct sequential questions in cases where it's "years down the road": first customer proves the defect was initially there; then vendor unconditionally fixes it the way customer chooses* and it does not matter if 1 year or 5 years passed.
* exceptions apply
Last edited: