What is your definition of rebuilt? My understanding is that the parts not designed to wear out are kept and that that do wear out are replaced. Seems to me that is exactly what Apple does to create refurbished devices. No?
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
What is your definition of rebuilt? My understanding is that the parts not designed to wear out are kept and that that do wear out are replaced. Seems to me that is exactly what Apple does to create refurbished devices. No?
Read the warranty for any product you buy. What you think you should be entitled to and the warranty contract that comes with the product are two different things.
Here's an excerpt from the warranty of a Sony Bluray player:
Here is an excerpt from the warranty of a Keurig coffee maker:
It's like this for almost every consumer product and has been like this for decades.
Sure. Then there are the minimum legal warranties you have, at least in civilized countries ;-)
(ref.: http://www.europe-consommateurs.eu/...RT-_GUARANTEE/tableau_EN_Legal_commercial.pdf)
[doublepost=1481307225][/doublepost]
..of equal value. Apple doesn't sell refurbished units for the "new" price, so obviously they are less valuable.
I doubt AppleCare is relevant, the replacement was likely done according to the EU warranty laws and their implementation in Denmark. The proposal you are responding to is very likely not conforming to the EU warranty laws, but there is no need for such a thing.
The EU warranty laws states that defects emerging within 6 months of getting the goods are assumed to be manufacturing defects, but for defects emerging afterwards the seller can contests it and it's up to the consumer to prove it's actually a manufacturing defect and not something else not covered.
Basically in your example, Apple could contest the consumer request and the consumer would be required to prove the device was already defective at the time of it being delivered to him to be entitled a repair or replacement under warranty.
In Denmark we do not have any official Apple Stores, so it's not possible for us to just go to an Apple Store to get our defective products exchanged, even with a refurbished one.
We have 3rd party retailers, yet they do not have responsibility or financial encouragement from Apple to take care of these matters. You can buy the phone directly from Apple, yet must people buy them from carriers.
In all cases where the legal 'warranty' of the phone has to be applied, the phone does not get swapped at the spot. Stores have to send the defective iPhones to Apple certified technicians in order to verify the flaw or defectiveness, EVEN if it is established by the sales personale of the store.
Therefor in many cases of defective iPhones its going to take between 1 and 2 weeks before costumers get a refurbished phone back. Reason: technician has to confirm the defect and a refurb model has to be send from the repair company or Apple. Stores do not have them in stock.
In this case the Apple has been ordered by the court to repay the original cost of the iPhone back to the customer.
We have 3rd party retailers, yet they do not have responsibility or financial encouragement from Apple to take care of these matters. You can buy the phone directly from Apple, yet must people buy them from carriers.
In all cases where the legal 'warranty' of the phone has to be applied, the phone does not get swapped at the spot. Stores have to send the defective iPhones to Apple certified technicians in order to verify the flaw or defectiveness, EVEN if it is established by the sales personale of the store.
Therefor in many cases of defective iPhones its going to take between 1 and 2 weeks before costumers get a refurbished phone back. Reason: technician has to confirm the defect and a refurb model has to be send from the repair company or Apple. Stores do not have them in stock.
In this case the Apple has been ordered by the court to repay the original cost of the iPhone back to the customer.
Right. But a state law trumps warranties companies make up.
Not entirely unreasonable. I've received refurbished units under AppleCare and notice tiny nicks in the glass. Not objectionable unless you're just bought a new phone and it was DOA or soon after getting it and you find it not perfect.
Of course, and Apple and other companies have had to deal with differences in policies dictated by the government. In the US, there are probably fewer laws to protect the consumer.
My point is, many people are arguing on this thread that they should get new replacement products, but it's a moot point because that's not what the fine print says in the warranty contract. At least in my uncivilized country ;-)
[doublepost=1481307914][/doublepost]
Of course, which is why Apple lost in this case. I guess I should specify in that in my posts.
I'm mostly addressing the people in this thread that are arguing the merits of refurbished vs new when it's all a moot point because it's dictated by the warranty contract or whatever consumer laws dictate.
Yes, I'm sorry I can't help you with your consumer protection laws. In Europe, any fine print in the warranty contract that tries to cancel a right you have by legal statute, is considered void. Companies simply cannot restrict warranties granted consumers by law.
Replacing a product having zero previous owners, with one that has had one or more previous owners amounts to replacing the product with a product of lesser value. Apple sells refurbished products for less than new products, so obviously they're of lesser value. You simply cannot do that, and especially not with luxury items like this, where the newness and exclusivity is part of what you are being sold. If you're outside the warranty period, then Apple can give you the option of a refurbished model.
We're talking about a sale in Denmark. The seller can write in the contract whatever terms it wants, but the EU minimum mandatory warranty still applies.
Nice, but according to the EU warranty law:
- The minimum coverage is 2 years from the time of the good being delivered. The seller can offer more, but is required to at least cover 2 years.
- Whether the goods will be repaired or replaced is the buyer's decision, not the seller unless the replacement is impossible or disproportionately expensive for the seller.
Last edited:
With regards to Manufacturers, I still need to send in equipment when I deal with my Sony, Nikon, or Canon equipment. I have only had to send into Canon and Sony (so far), however in both cases they were repaired and sent back, I didn't receive a refurbished replacement, I received my old, used gear, with all of the same blemishes It had when I sent it out.
Minutiae aside, that is besides the point I am attempting to make in regards to Apple (the manufacturer) providing immediate replacements. It sounds like I am in the minority, however I feel that Apple's warranty service is great, with refurbished items being readily available without making the customers wait for repairs or use loaner phones.
It's just my opinion, however consumer expectations are starting to become quite unrealistic in realm of smartphones.
Also a good point about quality. My experience after living in Denmark for a awhile is that electronics are very expensive there, perhaps the cost is driven by these onerous warranty terms.
I agree that Apple's warranty service, and indeed repair service in general, is great. Offering an immediate refurbished replacement is also a great service option, but it is up to the consumer if that is acceptable, not the manufacturer.
I believe the consumer expectations have risen in parallel with smartphone prices ;-) My local apple site can sell me an iPhone7 Plus 256GB for $1300 USD. When spending that kind of money my expectations are pretty high.
[doublepost=1481309492][/doublepost]
Norway has even more protective consumer laws (5 year warranty period), and a 25% sales tax, and prices on computer equipment is generally lower than in the US. (They're not selling these things anywhere near cost *wink*).
But that is also the case here. Apple tried to repair it and they couldn't. Had Apple been able to repair it, they would have, and he would have gotten the repaired phone back. However, because they couldn't repair it, he should get it replaced with a phone in the same condition and then one he'd bought, a new phone.
Also, in Denmark, Apple doesn't have readily available refurbished phones, because Apple doesn't have Apple Stores here.
↑
Yup. And then when someone hits my car, I should get a new replacement of same model and year, or better and/or newer.
S
No, but using your warranty example, if Tesla offered you a completely refurbished car with a new body and new battery for your years old warranty
"Apple care is privilege." Wow. OK, the good thing is you don't need to buy it. You don't need to buy an iPhone. But, if you do, in the rare case that you need to get warranty service, you can tell them you don't want a refurbished phone with a new battery, new case and all. You can tell them you want your phone repaired and will wait for it. Then when your phone comes back repaired, you will have all the scratches, used battery and everything that you are used to and you won't have to adjust to a better one.
Yup. And then when someone hits my car, I should get a new replacement of same model and year, or better and/or newer.
S
No, but using your warranty example, if Tesla offered you a completely refurbished car with a new body and new battery for your years old warranty
"Apple care is privilege." Wow. OK, the good thing is you don't need to buy it. You don't need to buy an iPhone. But, if you do, in the rare case that you need to get warranty service, you can tell them you don't want a refurbished phone with a new battery, new case and all. You can tell them you want your phone repaired and will wait for it. Then when your phone comes back repaired, you will have all the scratches, used battery and everything that you are used to and you won't have to adjust to a better one.
The law in question here covers more than electronics, in fact it covers just about everything you can buy, including clothes, shoes, coffee makers, pots and pans and more.
For the interested: the ruling in short,Because people from Denmark are reading Macrumors as well
In assessing whether Apple made a proper replacement, must be given to whether replacement with a remanufactured iPhone using an objective assessment meets the demands brought by the original agreement.
That examination must - in addition to the phone's usability, appearance, durability and technical reliability - also emphasis on the consumer's legitimate expectations to the phone that omleveres with, and there must conclude economic value considerations.
There is no preparatory work for the Sale of Goods Act or otherwise may be reason to include environmental considerations in assessing whether a replacement delivery product qualifies for the Sale of Goods Act § 78 paragraph. 1 pt. 2. The fact that environmental concerns can speak for that recycling of reusable modules and components production in general, has not relevant in determining whether a replacement delivery product complies with the contract.
After an overall assessment, the court finds that David Lysgaard by the exchange had a legitimate expectation of receiving a Brand product equivalent to the original purchase. Since the remanufactured phone that David Lysgaard took delivery could contain recycled modules, the phone can not qualify as a brand new phone. In addition, as stated above, that the fact that the phone was not brand new, have apparently affects the phone's sales value.
Replacement delivery with a remanufactured iPhone therefore voted not match the original purchase agreement, as required under the Sale of Goods Act § 78 paragraph. 1 pt. 2.
David Lysgaard has raised Agreement rightly under the Sale of Goods Act § 78 paragraph. 4. David Lysgaard should be dismissed as indicated below.
He has done nothing more than insist on his statutory rights. Replacements must be like for like. He paid full price for his phone and should not have to accept a lower priced alternative. If Apple's refurbs were that indistinguishable from new, why doesn't Apple charge full price for them? Apple seems to think they are worth less, so why are you arguing otherwise?
That is per the manufacturer's warranty, which is irrelevant in this case. The plaintiff was arguing for his statutory rights, which are covered by the retailer's guarantee. As Apple is often both the retailer and the manufacturer, the plaintiff (assuming he bought his phone from Apple's online store) has both his limited manufacturer's warranty and his statutory guarantee to rely on and he pursued the latter.
Guarantee, not warranty. There is a difference. This gets mistranslated so often, especially from languages where they use one word for both.
You're not in the minority. Apple's support is legendarily good and consistently rated tops. Remember, on MR you get a a disproportionate view because it is mainly people trolling Apple. MacRumors should do a test- run an article "Tim Cook saves handicapped orphan from burning building." I guarantee a large percentage of the comments would have a negative spin, starting with "Why is Cook spending time saving orphans when the MacPro needs to be updated?"
Seems to invite an endless feedback loop: Expectations are higher so the manufacturer increases the price to pay for these expectations. Increased price raises expectations again. Rinse, repeat... [I understand that increased quality is also an option but that supposes that this is easily achievable without raising prices. I suspect Apple and many other companies are creating the highest quality product they can, given price and margin expectations.]
I can appreciate the warranty laws in some European countries, they do seem to focus on customer protection. The US could learn a few things. I do think that our warranty system works reasonably well (albeit, differently). The missing ingredient is transparency. Fortunately, I've been seeing more and more companies simplify their warranty terms in response to market demand for clearer terms. In the end, I'd like to see minimum protections increased in the US (yes, we do have minimum warranty standards in the US that supersede warranty contract terms) while preserving some sense of market dynamics by allowing companies to offer different warranty terms.
Good contributions from a new poster. Perhaps seasoned with a bit too much snark but good nonetheless.
