Hi,
I'm curious if anyone else has run into this:
Two years ago I had a spill on my MBP - the machine has run fine since then, but recently it started acting up and I put it in for service. Of course, they found evidence of the spill. I can't prove it wasn't the source of the problem, and they can't prove that it was - but regardless, I admit there was a spill so I can't really whine too much.
Here's the issue, however - the problem I'm having is described *exactly* in the nVidia 8600M recall: either a blank screen when the machine is running, or distorted graphics (TS2377). The recall notice says "If the NVIDIA graphics processor in your MBP has failed, or fails within three years of the original date of purchase, a repair will be done free of change, even if your MBP is out of warranty." (my emphasis)
Apple says that the liquid damage voids the warranty - I agree, that's clearly stated in the terms. But, their recall pretty clearly says that the warranty doesn't matter in this case. And I argued that a recall indicates Apple admits responsibility for a defective part, so anything I did should be irrelevant.
Has anyone had success arguing a similar situation? Does this my logic seem reasonable (or unreasonable) to anyone?
Jeff
I'm curious if anyone else has run into this:
Two years ago I had a spill on my MBP - the machine has run fine since then, but recently it started acting up and I put it in for service. Of course, they found evidence of the spill. I can't prove it wasn't the source of the problem, and they can't prove that it was - but regardless, I admit there was a spill so I can't really whine too much.
Here's the issue, however - the problem I'm having is described *exactly* in the nVidia 8600M recall: either a blank screen when the machine is running, or distorted graphics (TS2377). The recall notice says "If the NVIDIA graphics processor in your MBP has failed, or fails within three years of the original date of purchase, a repair will be done free of change, even if your MBP is out of warranty." (my emphasis)
Apple says that the liquid damage voids the warranty - I agree, that's clearly stated in the terms. But, their recall pretty clearly says that the warranty doesn't matter in this case. And I argued that a recall indicates Apple admits responsibility for a defective part, so anything I did should be irrelevant.
Has anyone had success arguing a similar situation? Does this my logic seem reasonable (or unreasonable) to anyone?
Jeff