Thanks for your comment.
Although I think your conclusion is incorrect (because there
is language that provides for consumer entitlement for a refund in this Apple warranty, to which Apple is bound, read its top paragraph!), you have made me realise I might not be able to use the line,
"Apple will ... exchange the Apple Product for a refund of your purchase price" as a justification to have my claim enforced with NSW Fair Trading, because of the slimy words "at [Apple's] option" inside the context of that quote in the warranty.
But the rest of what you've said, I've already checked with ACCC and discussed it earlier in this thread - see
here.
Now, about those quotes from the ACCC, I do suspect that the following one might not apply to my case but is only in the case of statutory warranty:
"If it is considered to be a major failure, then it is up to the consumer to pick [the remedy option]...They should be providing you with the remedy that you request as the consumer, under the law."
Under statutory warranty, it is clearly laid out that only the reseller is obligated to go with the remedy option the consumer picks in the case of a major failure, and that manufacturers are not obligated to issue the refund at all.
(I will however double check on that with ACCC on Monday, because if it turns out the above principle applies even to a voluntary warranty that merely lists the consumer entitlement to a refund, then Apple is 100% PWND.)
But that aside, you need to remember that this is a 'voluntary warranty' that Apple have provided on top of statutory warranty, through which ACL requires them to not be misleading to the consumer, and to which ACL still applies as it relates to dispute resolution and misconduct charges.
As I quoted before, as directly from the ACCC:
"If they do state [your entitlement to a refund] in their [voluntary] warranty, they do need to adhere to the warranty that they've set, because if they don't, or they fail to, it could be misleading within our laws... If they choose not to adhere to the warranty that they've offered, it could be misleading."
And more specifically to my case and Apple's slimy wording:
"Our laws do prevent businesses from being misleading. If they do have the upfront statement that does say something, but the fine print then contradicts that, that could be a misleading statement that they do have in the document, and then that would possibly be in breach of our laws."
And even stronger (and this is what surprised me):
"Generally, if someone is misled by anything, any statement made, for example, they are entitled to a remedy which is to put them back into the situation that they would have been in had they not been misled."
So, it seems clear to me, that my claim for a refund from the manufacturer under their voluntary warranty against defects
can be enforced by Fair Trading because of the clarity of their statement about it at the top of it.
So thanks for your comment, it seems more informed as to ACL than anyone else I've seen in this thread, but it seems that (based on what ACCC have told me) ACL applies to custom warranties in many ways too, such that companies like Apple can't avoid the regulations of consumer law (in the legislation) via any custom or slimy wording or contradictory fine print in their own voluntary warranty itself, and I'm getting the impression that ACCC really do side with the consumer when something like this takes place.
I'd be interested in your reply to this. Maybe you didn't know that ACL applies to voluntary warranties as well?
Yeah. They said to me that all the larger keys probably sound different to the smaller keys. The problem is that some of the larger keys are as quiet as the smaller keys, and some are a lot louder so it would be reasonable to be concerned that this may not be intentional! But he was like duh on the phone!
