WARNING TO RED: your warranty policy may be illegal

[Manfred Lopez]

This is in regards to all the discussion of transfering warranties.

So, if you purchase directly from the original purchaser, RED may not honor the Standard Warranty if the original purchaser does not submit the claim.

Dear Red

I humbly believe that your policy of not transfering your written waranty is unlawful and illegal (but I still love you all :innocent: ... Please don't black list me :innocent: ). Acording to the TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 50 Section § 2304 of the Federal Trade Code, Red must honor a written warranty. Here is why:


SECTION § 2304
[All emphasis and underlining mine]


SUBSECTION (a)

In order for a warrantor warranting a consumer product by means of a written warranty to meet the Federal minimum standards for warranty—
(1) such warrantor must as a minimum remedy such consumer product within a reasonable time and without charge, in the case of a defect, malfunction, or failure to conform with such written warranty;

SUBSECTION (b)

(4) The duties under subsection (a) of this section extend from the warrantor to each person who is a consumer with respect to the consumer product.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 50 > § 2301. DEFINITIONS:

(3) The term “consumer” means a buyer (other than for purposes of resale) of any consumer product, any person to whom such product is transferred during the duration of an implied or written warranty (or service contract) applicable to the product, and any other person who is entitled by the terms of such warranty (or service contract) or under applicable State law to enforce against the warrantor (or service contractor) the obligations of the warranty (or service contract).


F U R T H E R M O R E....


SUBSECTION (b)
Duties and conditions imposed on consumer by warrantor

(1) In fulfilling the duties under subsection (a) of this section respecting a written warranty, the warrantor shall not impose any duty other than notification upon any consumer as a condition of securing remedy of any consumer product which malfunctions, is defective, or does not conform to the written warranty [...]

...

In other words... Red may not impose any 'creative' restrictions on warranty to try to manipulate or control the second-hand market. So maybe it's time for Red to consult lawyers on this.

Anyway, just trying to be helpful while I myself are considering a Red One purchase as a second-hand item.


EDIT:

Citation: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4----000-.html

[Manfred Lopez]

Oh, one more thing...

Red cannot require one to 'Register' the product in order to secure or 'activate' the warranty. The law is very clear on this.

[Darwin]

Warranties are often made nontransferable.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

I think the main thing is that, if you sell your RED, RED needs to know that. The cameras are all linked up to their buyers, and if the owner of RED #42 sells it to someone else, and that someone else tries to get RED #42 serviced, for all they know, that someone else stole RED #42.

As quoted in the laws above:

"any person to whom such product is transferred during the duration of an implied or written warranty"

Emphasis mine. RED is just saying that there is a procedure for said transfer to make sure it's all in order.

At least, that's how I interpret it. I could be way off.

[Manfred Lopez]

Warranties are often made nontransferable.

Just because a bunch of manufacturers try to make it so doesn't mean it is legal. For example, just the other day I bought a new matress and the sales person swore up and down that in order to activate the warranty I had to use a supplied USB key (For a matress???). Anyway, consumer reports very clearly states that you in fact do not have to activate anything. The warranty is in effect the second you buy it.

"any person to whom such product is transferred during the duration of an implied or written warranty"

Emphasis mine. RED is just saying that there is a procedure for said transfer to make sure it's all in order.

At least, that's how I interpret it. I could be way off.

In fact, Red does not need to know and track every single owner. Also, they are not the police and therefore should not be responsible for tracking stolen property. The consumer movement in this country basically guaranteed, among many things, privacy to buyers of products.

Also, regarding the "transfer" of the product, the subsection on Federal minimum standards for warranties specifies that manufacturers may NOT impose duties ($500 asesment fee) or conditions (it has to go through this person just because our web site is set up that way). I mean, the TITLE of the subsection is called Duties and conditions imposed on consumer by warrantor. The law cannot be any more clear than this.

[istvanttt]

TheThe,
usually I'm very paranoid with anybody who tries to “personalize” warranty issues, but in the case of RED they gave us much more then any Government Law did: it protects as the buyer (he can get an up-to-date version of the camera) as the seller (you don’t sell an old camera, even if you have used it for 2-3 years).

Next, look at the price: 500S$?!!! I would be happy even if they would have considered 20% of the purchase price for this service. Usually producers try to sell the newest product and don’t care to protect your earlier investment.

Maybe we should remember that we talk about a Mission Critical product, so the highest possible quality is mandatory and the present solution (if it doesn’t change:) will help us all to keep our investment valid.
Istvan

[Martin Drew]

This legislation appears to relate to consumer products. I presume most purchasers of the RedOne will use it in a professional capacity and as such the legislation would not apply.

Interesting to speculate what the situation would be if a wealthy consumer did purchase the camera just to play with. I presume it is the usage of the product which determines if it is professional or conusmer, not the nature of the product itself. If the consumer came from the EU they may well be entitled to a 2 year warranty.

M

[Gunleik Groven]

Martin

Hardly if he/she bought it from the US

In Norway "Equipment one should expect to have a lifespan of at least 5 years" have such a warranty for consumers. Thus recently cell-phones were granted 5 years under Norwegian Consumer law (to mach griefby the importers) by the High Court.

But, for pro's and companies the warranty is only one year - if you don't buy extra time from the manufacturer.

The warranty would follow the equipment and not the buyer, though.

Main point is:
If you buy something from somewhere else, "somewhere else´s" laws apply.

Gunleik

[number6]

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 50 > § 2301. DEFINITIONS:

(3) The term “consumer” means a buyer (other than for purposes of resale) of any consumer product, any person to whom such product is transferred during the duration of an implied or written warranty (or service contract) applicable to the product, and any other person who is entitled by the terms of such warranty (or service contract) or under applicable State law to enforce against the warrantor (or service contractor) the obligations of the warranty (or service contract).[/COLOR]

...or under applicable State law...

Being "legal-speak" challenged, can anyone tell me if this has any bearing?

[Manfred Lopez]

...or under applicable State law...

Being "legal-speak" challenged, can anyone tell me if this has any bearing?

Not really since California has the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song Beverly) and the California Commercial Code (UCC). Both are state laws regulating this stuff and from what I understand they go even further than the federal minimum requirements. California has some of the most stringent regulations in the US when it comes to business.