Dutch Court Rules Apple May Not Use 'Remanufactured' iPads for Warranty Replacements

[jlc1978]

The US may be an exception here but warranties are an additional benefit to your statutory rights but cannot diminish nor override them. A right is a right after all.

If applicable consumer laws provide for like-for-like replacement as a remedy then it is a matter of supreme indifference what the manufacturer's warranty allows or whether one exists at all.

Correct. The question is what are those rights? The US has Lemon Laws that deal with cars and gives you certain legal rights if a vehicle proves to be problematic. You are correct that warranties are in addition to any legal rights you may have, but I am not aware of any law that requires like for like replacement of consumer electronics, at least not in the US. YMMV.

 

[charlituna]

The manufacturer's warranty is a discretion and usually does not restart after a repair/replacement but continues until its original expiry date.

but usually you don't have the courts demanding you give customers a clean new item off the shelf. They did in this case and its going to create some potential issues. will it be enough for Apple to have to build a clean unit from the 'new' items production lines but assign the serial to the 'service' stock and swap it out like its any other swap. or will they have to do a retail exchange and sell the customer a new one (which would in effect change the purchase date and all the consumer rights etc)
[doublepost=1493346292][/doublepost]

Correct. The question is what are those rights? The US has Lemon Laws that deal with cars and gives you certain legal rights if a vehicle proves to be problematic. You are correct that warranties are in addition to any legal rights you may have, but I am not aware of any law that requires like for like replacement of consumer electronics, at least not in the US. YMMV.

the catch is 'like for like'. I mean if you bring in a 20 month old iPad or computer or whatever, is it really the same as a brand new one that has never been used. you're handing them a used product that has had who knows what kind of handling. is it fair to demand that you must get a new one.

 

[Kameha]

This robbery is like going to Starbucks for a left over Latte... it is like a car part, original part, aftermarket part, and used part. they are all different price. Imagine you go to a car dealer and pay a full price for for an aftermarket part

 

[weckart]

but usually you don't have the courts demanding you give customers a clean new item off the shelf. They did in this case and its going to create some potential issues. will it be enough for Apple to have to build a clean unit from the 'new' items production lines but assign the serial to the 'service' stock and swap it out like its any other swap. or will they have to do a retail exchange and sell the customer a new one (which would in effect change the purchase date and all the consumer rights etc)

It doesn't. It is just fulfilling the original contract. Stores can reissue a new receipt and restart the clock if they wish. That is called customer relations. My personal experience with Apple is that it does not add any additional time to your Applecare. Ditto with local store exchanges. YMMV.

the catch is 'like for like'. I mean if you bring in a 20 month old iPad or computer or whatever, is it really the same as a brand new one that has never been used. you're handing them a used product that has had who knows what kind of handling. is it fair to demand that you must get a new one.

The key factor for the EU is six months. In effect, the law effectively assumes that up to six months = new, as if bought that day. Again, local laws may build on that but that is the minimum assumption in favour of the purchaser. After twenty months, the law would not expect a brand new replacement unless there has been a lot of hassle suffered by the customer (say a number of poor replacements from the same faulty batch of goods).

 

[jlc1978]

Actually it isn't about getting a new device but about getting a product as agreed upon. That means that it should work as expected and if it doesn't it should be repaired or, if that is impossible, you should get something that is equal.

The US has that as well, it's called an implied warranty and by law an item must perform as designed; or as it is often stated, toaster must toast. Manufacturer's can't declaim an implied warranty as a product must be fit for purpose.

That used to happen but the EU court ruling in the Quelle case states that this is not allowed.

I thought Europe used civil, not common, law so a ruling in one case would not establish any precedent.
[doublepost=1493390400][/doublepost]

This robbery is like going to Starbucks for a left over Latte... it is like a car part, original part, aftermarket part, and used part. they are all different price. Imagine you go to a car dealer and pay a full price for for an aftermarket part

Except in the case of warranty work you are not paying for the part; you are getting a defect repaired. A using a remanufactured part that meets the original specs is a reasonable way to repair an item. You are getting what you paid for - an item that works as designed.

 

[dyn]

I thought Europe used civil, not common, law so a ruling in one case would not establish any precedent.

It's EU, not Europe. When national judges come across EU directives (or its national implementation of one) they may ponder how they should interpret it. In those case the EU court can be asked to make a judgement which they can (and have to use) in their own judgement. This is what happened in the Quelle case (German judge asking EU court for a judgement on the EU directive). Don't forget that EU legislation goes above national legislation in general so you can actually appeal the national judge at the EU court. It doesn't apply to everything though and of course, this is a very simplistic summary.

If you want you can read the Quelle ruling in English.

 

[jlc1978]

When national judges come across EU directives (or its national implementation of one) they may ponder how they should interpret it. .

That's the point, right? In civil law the judge determines how to rule based on the law, and precedent need not be taken into count since civil law does not recognize precedent like common law does. Does the EU court use civil or common law?

It's EU, not Europe.

Europe except Ireland and the UK uses civil law. It would seem then EU law would use a civil law system as well but I am not sure if it does.

 

[dyn]

It has nothing to do with precedents whatsoever, this is nothing but a consultation. In The Netherlands it is also common to do that: a judge asks the so called "Hoge Raad" for a ruling if they are unsure or don't know. The "Hoge Raad" is only for Dutch law, if EU law comes into play then they go one level higher which would be the EU court (or Court of Justice as you find it on Wikipedia).

Anyway, Wikipedia should get you started with the EU law system (which is rather complex): European Union law. And of course you also find information at the official EU law page on the EU website itself.

BTW, be careful with the use of "Europe" and "EU" because they are very different things.

 

[jlc1978]

It has nothing to do with precedents whatsoever

That's my point - some posters claimed this would apply to other manufacturers as well, but European law, IFAICR, is civil law and thus precedents are not used in deciding a case, such as in common law; what is important is the codified statutes and not the opinions of courts as to why a decision was reached.

BTW, be careful with the use of "Europe" and "EU" because they are very different things.

I am well aware of the difference. Their legal systems, however, have the same basis in civil, not common, law. The court structure may be different but the concepts are the same.

 

[snipper]

[…]we didn't implement the warranty part. Instead we kept our own because it gives more protection to the consumer and since that is the objective of this directive we are allowed to do so.

To be fair, I think it's would be a much better deal to have just a 2 year-no-questions-asked guarantee/warranty instead of these vague rules. Now there is always a lot of uncertainty – on both sides – about what is 'reasonable'. You have to go to court for small things like a €/$ 80 broken hard disk after 12 months. Nobody does that. Even if you win, it might well take a year.

Therefore, I don's see how this gives more protection to the consumer. Instead, the current rules make it harder to get what your are entitled to. They're more beneficial for the shop, not the consumer, compared to the original EU-directive.

 

[weckart]

To be fair, I think it's would be a much better deal to have just a 2 year-no-questions-asked guarantee/warranty instead of these vague rules. Now there is always a lot of uncertainty – on both sides – about what is 'reasonable'. You have to go to court for small things like a €/$ 80 broken hard disk after 12 months. Nobody does that. Even if you win, it might well take a year.

Therefore, I don's see how this gives more protection to the consumer. Instead, the current rules make it harder to get what your are entitled to. They're more beneficial for the shop, not the consumer, compared to the original EU-directive.

The problem with no-quibble guarantees is that they are bound to be abused as we have seen in these forums: People returning their iPhones etc for the silliest of reasons. That just pushes up the cost of business, which in turn gets passed onto the consumers. Some retailers have ways of dealing with this. Amazon will tolerate so much before it wields the ban hammer without warning or right of appeal.

A consequence of this abuse is that there was a modification to the right of return of goods sold online or indirectly (formerly the Distance Selling Regulations in the UK). What was intended to provide a cooling off period for contracts sold door to door, insurance policies etc became a 'try before you buy' free-for-all, which was never its intended purpose, although the regulations provided for the examination of items, which had otherwise been impossible for stuff bought online.

 

[dyn]

That's my point - some posters claimed this would apply to other manufacturers as well, but European law, IFAICR, is civil law and thus precedents are not used in deciding a case, such as in common law; what is important is the codified statutes and not the opinions of courts as to why a decision was reached.

I know what your point is, I'm pointing out that is wrong. Again, this has got nothing to do with precedence but with how a certain piece of law should be interpreted. This piece of law applies to anybody since nobody is above the law. Those posters are indeed correct that the ruling from the EU court here applies to other manufacturers as well. After all, it is how the law should be interpreted (it wouldn't surprise me if the judge already knew the answer but asked the question anyway due to formalities, jurisdiction, etc.).

The thing you are mixing up is the fact that a (Dutch) judge will look at each case separately. Whether or not that particular piece of law is applicable (and to what extend) in a case is something the (Dutch) judge has to decide.

To be fair, I think it's would be a much better deal to have just a 2 year-no-questions-asked guarantee/warranty instead of these vague rules.

Except that there is no such thing as that. There will always be disputes which is why we have judges.

Therefore, I don's see how this gives more protection to the consumer. Instead, the current rules make it harder to get what your are entitled to. They're more beneficial for the shop, not the consumer, compared to the original EU-directive.

Until you go to court because shops almost never win those cases. The rules are biased towards consumers which means that a shop has to do more to convince the judge that they are not to blame. Besides that we have consumer programmes on tv as well as various websites where you can post your experience with a shop. The public naming and shaming seems to be very effective. Even so that some shops are now seeing that by extending their service beyond what the law requires even lures customers. The return policy that has been included in the EU directive was already in use by many shops before it was included.
There is even a Dutch site from the government where you can download letters telling the shop that they have to abide by the law (basically a cease-and-desist a la RIAA).

 

[jlc1978]

The thing you are mixing up is the fact that a (Dutch) judge will look at each case separately. Whether or not that particular piece of law is applicable (and to what extend) in a case is something the (Dutch) judge has to decide.

Exactly, since it is a civil law system. If precedent was important, as in a common law system, attorneys would cite similar cases to support a ruling in their favor. A judge could very well decide the law applies to another manufacturer in another case, but that would be because the judge decided the law as written in applicable; not because other courts applied it that way and the judges wrote opinions on how they applied the law. So , while I agree with you judges may decide other cases similarly, it is not because the Apple case set a precedent.

In the end we are saying the same thing just in different way, because what you pointed out:

Again, this has got nothing to do with precedence

is what I am saying; and thus a judge is not bound to ruling a certain way but to apply the law as written and can decide quite differently even if other judges ruled the same way as in the Apple case.

 

[dyn]

We do not have common law at all since we are not part of the Anglo-Saxon world unlike the countries such as England, Australia and the USA. Ours come from the Romans and Napoleon. These are quite different systems with (sometimes) differing terminology which might explain a few things.

Our system only uses precedents and jurisprudence when the law isn't clear about something. The law is something that applies to everyone because nobody is above it. In this case it was a Dutch law that was the basis of the judgement, not a similar case or something else. A judge has some room to make up his own decision about the case but he still has to follow the law. Any case that is very similar will then also get a very similar judgement.

Btw, it is any attorneys job to explain the entire case from his clients point of view to the judge and try to support a ruling in their favor. Citing similar cases and rulings are part of that. Both in USA and in The Netherlands. In this case it was in fact Apple's attorney who pointed out the similar case and the Quelle case to the judge who then weighs each piece of evidence (TL;DR: Apple: they were wrong about it in that case! Judge: nope, they were right.).

 

[jlc1978]

We do not have common law at all since we are not part of the Anglo-Saxon world unlike the countries such as England, Australia and the USA. Ours come from the Romans and Napoleon. These are quite different systems with (sometimes) differing terminology which might explain a few things.

Correct. You have a civil law system, the US (except Louisiana) is all common law based.

Our system only uses precedents and jurisprudence when the law isn't clear about something. The law is something that applies to everyone because nobody is above it. In this case it was a Dutch law that was the basis of the judgement, not a similar case or something else. A judge has some room to make up his own decision about the case but he still has to follow the law. Any case that is very similar will then also get a very similar judgement.

Right, and the judge follows the law as written vs looking to precedent to see how to apply the law in a given situation. They are certainly free to use precedents to help guide a decision but are not bound by them whereas common law places great importance on using precedents to guide the application of laws to a case, and stare decisis drives subsequent decisions.

Any case that is very similar will then also get a very similar judgement.

As it should, but not because other cases were decided that way but because that is how the judge decided the law applies.

Btw, it is any attorneys job to explain the entire case from his clients point of view to the judge and try to support a ruling in their favor. Citing similar cases and rulings are part of that. Both in USA and in The Netherlands. In this case it was in fact Apple's attorney who pointed out the similar case and the Quelle case to the judge who then weighs each piece of evidence (TL;DR: Apple: they were wrong about it in that case! Judge: nope, they were right.).

Yes, there is overlap. The main difference is in the nature of precedents in forming case law. In common law, they set out how to apply the law and result in acting as the means for determining how to rule. So case law acts with statutes to determine how to rule; whereas in civil law they do not have the same legal impact.