Danish Court Rules Apple Must Replace Man's iPhone With New Rather Than Refurbished Model

[I7guy]

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 where 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 fixes it and it does not matter if 1 year or 5 years passed.

That would be like bringing your car in one year after the warranty period expired and claiming there was a defect that needed fixing.

An iphone 4 stopped production in 2011 with applecare expiring in 2012. Unless this has been going on since 2011, which the article doesn't say, it is a sham.
[doublepost=1482587651][/doublepost]

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.

So that is the real story? Okay. If the phone that apple was replacing in fact had cosmetic damage I wouldn't except it either and apple shouldn't have offered up a phone with obvious cosmetic damage. But if the refurb phone was essentially in "as new out of the box" my take hasn't changed.

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

An iphone 4 stopped production in 2011 with applecare expiring in 2012. Unless this has been going on since 2011, which the article doesn't say, it is a sham.

RTFArticle. You're so wrong with the dates. If he had AppleCare it'd expire in 2014!
[doublepost=1482590795][/doublepost]

So that is the real story? Okay. If the phone that apple was replacing in fact had cosmetic damage I wouldn't except it either and apple shouldn't have offered up a phone with obvious cosmetic damage. But if the refurb phone was essentially in "as new out of the box" my take hasn't changed.

And the fact your take is wrong hasn't changed as well.

 

[I7guy]

RTFArticle. You're so wrong with the dates. If he had AppleCare it'd expire in 2014!
[doublepost=1482590795][/doublepost]And the fact your take is wrong hasn't changed as well.

Well if I'm wrong the person I quoted is wrong also. So why don't you tell us the "real" story.

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

Well if I'm wrong the person I quoted is wrong also. So why don't you tell us the "real" story.

RTFArticle and the link. I've already told you the real story 3 times. You could also reread my posts. The person you quoted is neither wrong nor right. The facts he listed are right, he is just the messenger.

 

[I7guy]

RTFArticle and the link. I've already told you the real story 3 times. You could also reread my posts. The person you quoted is neither wrong nor right. The facts he listed are right, he is just the messenger.

So then my response stands as written. Thank you!

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

So then my response stands as written. Thank you!

Yup, it stands wrong. Thank you!

 

[I7guy]

Yup, it stands wrong. Thank you!

Seems like it's correct if the person I quoted was correct. As you said.

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

Seems like it's correct if the person I quoted was correct. As you said.

Yup, it's correct that it stands wrong. As I said previously the person you quoted is neither incorrect nor correct, he's just the messenger.

 

[I7guy]

Yup, it's correct that it stands wrong. As I said previously the person you quoted is neither incorrect nor correct, he's just the messenger.

That equals factual to me. And my response stands which is an opinion.

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

And my response stands which is an opinion.

Which is wrong. Thank you!

 

[kdarling]

That would be like bringing your car in one year after the warranty period expired and claiming there was a defect that needed fixing.

Except in this case, the warranty was still in effect.

An iphone 4 stopped production in 2011 with applecare expiring in 2012. Unless this has been going on since 2011, which the article doesn't say, it is a sham.

There's nothing worse in a discussion than a talkative poster who hasn't even taken the time to read the decision link in the main article. Here:

"(The) Court in Glostrup has on 9 December 2016 (rendered) judgment in a case between Apple, and the consumer who in June 2011 had bought a new iPhone 4. After several complaints Apple (replaced it) in November 2012 with another iPhone 4, (which) was later disclosed (as) a remanufactured iPhone 4."
...
"Consumer Complaints Board ruled in the case July 14, 2014 and ordered that the consumer was entitled to rescind the contract."

Note the last sentence. He was entitled to cancel the contract and get his full purchase price back.

I bring that up because some here have opined that a new iPhone 4 would probably not be available by the time the case ended. That's true, and okay, because a refund is also an option for the customer.

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

Consumer Complaints Board ruled in the case July 14, 2014

Worth noting that complaint was lodged earlier.

 

[I7guy]

Except in this case, the warranty was still in effect.



There's nothing worse in a discussion than a talkative poster who hasn't even taken the time to read the decision link in the main article. Here:

"(The) Court in Glostrup has on 9 December 2016 (rendered) judgment in a case between Apple, and the consumer who in June 2011 had bought a new iPhone 4. After several complaints Apple (replaced it) in November 2012 with another iPhone 4, (which) was later disclosed (as) a remanufactured iPhone 4."
...
"Consumer Complaints Board ruled in the case July 14, 2014 and ordered that the consumer was entitled to rescind the contract."

Note the last sentence. He was entitled to cancel the contract and get his full purchase price back.

I bring that up because some here have opined that a new iPhone 4 would probably not be available by the time the case ended. That's true, and okay, because a refund is also an option for the customer.

I had a hard time deciphering the decision, see attachment.

So basically my opinion still stands that in this one case in this one country, this is allowed to happen. With all sorts of ramifications should this be the case for every manufacturer across the board.

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

I had a hard time deciphering the decision, see attachment.

Oh poor soul. If only we had several online translator services readily available for anyone anytime... I hope someone invents such a service sometime! :sarcasm:

So basically my opinion still stands that in this one case in this one country, this is allowed to happen. With all sorts of ramifications should this be the case for every manufacturer across the board.

Of course! Your opinion still stands! Sadly, stands wrong, but still stands! No one debates this.
As for the facts, this is at least the second case with similar outcome, this is the case for the whole EU and even for the whole Europe and half of Asia (incl. Russia of all places), and this will be the case for any manufacturer be it Apple or Google or Microsoft or anyone. Some minority of countries in the world do not implement such consumer laws. Coincidentally USA does not implement them either.

 

[I7guy]

Oh poor soul. If only we had several online translator services readily available for anyone anytime... I hope someone invents such a service sometime! Of course! Your opinion still stands! Sadly, stands wrong, but still stands! No one debates this.
As for the facts, this is at least a second case with similar outcome, this is the case for the whole EU and even for the whole Europe and half of Asia (incl. Russia of all places), and this will be the case for any manufacturer be it Apple or Google or Microsoft or anyone. Some minority of countries in the world do not implement such consumer laws. Coincidentally USA does not implement them either.

So how can an opinion be wrong? Do elucidate please. Second case with 100s of millions of idevices? Doesn't seem like an overwhelming court decision.

It's the slippery slope aspect of this all.

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

So how can an opinion be wrong?

I dunno, you tell us, it's your opinion which is wrong.

Second case with 100s of millions of idevices? Doesn't seem like an overwhelming court decision.

It's not a popularity contest.

 

[I7guy]

I dunno, you tell us, it's your opinion which is wrong. It's not a popularity contest.

Well actually yes it is. Not a lot of precedent.

 

[kdarling]

I had a hard time deciphering the decision, see attachment.

That's what online translation sites (or in some browsers, right-click and choose Translate) are for.

So basically my opinion still stands that in this one case in this one country, this is allowed to happen. With all sorts of ramifications should this be the case for every manufacturer across the board.

Your opinion is lacking a lot of background both from recent news and from this very thread.

As has been pointed out, this exact same scenario recently occurred in Holland as well. See "Dutch Court Orders Apple to Replace Customer's Broken iPhone With New, Not Refurbished, Model" - MacRumors July

Moreover, I think it's been true in general in the EU since at least 2008, when a central court ruled that it was okay for a member country to declare that a working NEW unit was simply the consumer receiving what they had originally paid for.

See my post #339 in this very thread for details.

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

Well actually yes it is.

This is not how courts work or should work. If courts are popularity contest in your country, my condolences.

 

[I7guy]

This is not how courts work or should work. If courts are popularity contest in your country, my condolences.

Well it is our legal system, it is what it is. Can't say one legal system is any better or worse than another.
[doublepost=1482608716][/doublepost]

That's what online translation sites (or in some browsers, right-click and choose Translate) are for.



Your opinion is lacking a lot of background both from recent news and from this very thread.

As has been pointed out, this exact same scenario recently occurred in Holland as well. See "Dutch Court Orders Apple to Replace Customer's Broken iPhone With New, Not Refurbished, Model" - MacRumors July

Moreover, I think it's been true in general in the EU since at least 2008, when a central court ruled that it was okay for a member country to declare that a working NEW unit was simply the consumer receiving what they had originally paid for.

See my post #339 in this very thread for details.

there doesn't seem to be millions of new units be handed out, does there? Given there must be similar warranty claims all over the globe and the myriad of lawsuits from this and that.

 

[kdarling]

there doesn't seem to be millions of new units be handed out, does there? Given there must be similar warranty claims all over the globe and the myriad of lawsuits from this and that.

As noted in both iPhone cases, the practical end result is that the customer gets a full refund, since Apple can neither repair their phone nor is willing / able to replace it with a new one.

It might also end up meaning that Apple will somehow reserve its best units for Europe, or at least improve testing.

 

[djgamble]

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.

Mate I think we'll just leave it here. All I can say is that if you were to do a law degree you'd learn that:
1. Civil law is not a 'jurisdiction'... it's how most of Europe and Asia work... so your attempt to bat with me by copying words I've used doesn't even make sense.
2. No amount of weasel words will change point #1. I've taught you these terms... 'civil law' and 'common law'. Why you now think you are the guru on them based on a web search (attempting to prove me wrong, rather than doing a broad search for facts) is confusing at best. You clearly haven't studied law, which is why you continue to rattle on with your nonsensical points (aimed at 'having the last say' rather than being legally accurate).
3. Googling an article on the implementation of the CISG, observing that Scandinavian countries have more consistent rulings than other countries does not mean that these systems use the common law definition of 'precident' or that a decision from their highest court is binding on lower courts. Again, if you'd studied this, you'd know what the CISG is and not make such rookie errors.
4. As I've explained on multiple occasions, a lower court appeal of an administrative decision won't be a merits review. So... even if we pretend this was in a common law country, you still have no understanding of how precedents work (no amount of Googling will teach you either... try going to university instead if you are interested in how legal systems work).
5. This is my last reply. I suggest that you refrain from recycling no sensical points that to a professional merely demonstrate that you lack a basic understanding of legal systems (which will be your first subject if you get into law school and study law).

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

...

During this whole thread you've been schooled that there are similar things to precedents in civil law systems. Not the same precedents as in common law systems but similar. Similar not the same.
Now go ask your law teacher to explain it to you in details.
Me, @Superhai and others have shown you're wrong numerous times. We're not here to educate you. Pay for a decent law degree yourself.
[doublepost=1482623591][/doublepost]

5. This is my last reply.

Cheers! Hope you're not lying!

 

[Superhai]

Mate I think we'll just leave it here. All I can say is that if you were to do a law degree you'd learn that:

I'll keep it short. 1. I did not claim such thing. 2. It is not about me, or you. But about how precedents work in legal systems. 3. Only you brought up CISG, although Købeloven implements both it and EU consumer laws, as Denmark have ratified both, I don't see why it is relevant here or in the general discussion of precedents. 4. Again you try to make it personal and about common law. 5. No, it is not about me, or intimidating me from arguing.

Your claim is that in the Danish implementation of the legal system, because it is civil law, there exist no such thing as precedents. Not in any form nor shape.
I say you are wrong. My claim is that there are precedents in the Danish legal system, but they are of course not the same as in common law. They are not above or equal to constitutional or statutory laws as created by a legislature, but they still are a source of law.

Your argument have so far been; it is civil law and therefore impossible, this or that is not sensical, I have taught you terms, you do lousy web searches, or google searches, go study this.

 

[thebjorn]

So how can an opinion be wrong? Do elucidate please.

*sigh* I blame Fox "News" for the silliness that this can even be raised as a seemingly serious question... Let me elucidate.. Everyone can have an opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Importantly, however, (1) one doesn't have to have an opinion about something(!) and (2) Opinions are not equally valid. A simple example: some people are of the opinion that the earth is flat (https://www.tfes.org/). Their opinions about the shape of the earth are not valid (because of https://goo.gl/zMXYpw), even though they sincerely have these opinions and surely are entitled to have them. Paying attention to opinions instead of facts is dangerous and wastes everyone's time. If you need even more elucidation I would suggest Jef Rouner's "No, It's not Your Opinion. You're just wrong" (http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/no-it-s-not-your-opinion-you-re-just-wrong-updated-7611752)
[doublepost=1483297797][/doublepost]

The seller should not be held responsible for out of date consumer electronics; [...]

Of course not. The definition of "out of date", while possibly up to the manufacturer in the US, is defined in the legal code in Europe - in a way that manufacturers cannot write out of sales contracts. In Norway that is 5 years, meaning that a new iphone 7 costing 850 USD (including 25% VAT) ought to last for 5 years.

Denmark, as you now know, has a slightly shorter period before "out-of-date" happens. Certain events, like e.g. repairs or replacements, can prolong this period. If the seller cannot repair or replace the product as originally purchased, then the buyer can demand the full purchase price refunded.

The common belief is that beyond giving some power back to the consumer, it will also force companies to produce higher quality items, provide less landfill pressure, and not incentivize manufacturers using drawn out processes.

Why US consumers are content with almost no consumer rights is beyond my understanding - what sensible person would agree to an arbitration clause if they had any real choice..?