Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
EU Apple

Belgian Consumer Organization Sues Apple For Not Respecting Warranty Law 168

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the obey-the-speed-limit dept.
New submitter thygate writes with news of more trouble for Apple with its warranty terms complying with E.U. regulations. From the press release: "For many years warranty issues are at the top of the charts of complaints dealt with by consumer organizations. One of the recurring problems are the complaints about Apple. 'Test-Aankoop/Test-Achats' found major problems fixed on the information provided by Apple and its authorized distributors regarding the legal guarantee, the commercial one year warranty, and the warranty extension through the 'AppleCare Protection Plan' of 2 or 3 years. A lawsuit against Apple has been filed (English translation; original)) with the Commercial Court of Brussels. In a precedent in Italy, The commercial practices of Apple were found to be misleading. Apple was sentenced to pay € 900,000 and was obliged to change their contractual legal warranty and guarantees to consumers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Belgian Consumer Organization Sues Apple For Not Respecting Warranty Law

Comments Filter:
  • Precedent? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crankyspice (63953) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @01:08AM (#42588841)

    In Brussels, from an Italian court? I thought the EU countries (except England, which is still Common Law) were civil law jurisdictions, which don't recognize stare decisis (i.e., no "precedent" from prior decisions)...?

    • Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Informative)

      by wvmarle (1070040) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @01:33AM (#42588927)

      Even then, Belgium and Italy are fully independent judiciaries. What is law in Italy is not necessarily law in Belgium. Though of course with the EU slowly but surely laws in the various member countries are getting aligned.

      A much better expression would be "a similar case".

      Nevertheless, court cases are sometimes filed to test or clarify the law in those jurisdictions. If a court rules one way in one case, it will likely rule the same way in a highly similar case.

      • Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Informative)

        by silentcoder (1241496) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @04:55AM (#42589425) Homepage

        There is also the fact that even where precedent does not apply judges do look strongly at what other judges in similar cases elsewhere had found and consider their rulings very highly when making their own determinations.
        It's still quite common for example for Judges in the US to look at rulings under British case-law where similar cases were decided although British courts have no precedent-power over US ones, the findings of those judges are useful. For starters if there are evidentiary differences it may well be useful to ask "why" (particularly when the same companies are involved).

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Luckyo (1726890)

          That would be because US has largely derived its system from British case law.

          Tell that to an Italian who worked in the system, and you'll be laughed out of the room as an "ignorant yankee". And he'll be correct.

          Remember, while Old World's legal system are generally derived from combination of Roman justice system, Catholic courts and to an extent Napoleon Code, they have extreme nationalist pride of thousands of years that they in fact represent justice in their own country, and other country's justice has

          • by rioki (1328185)

            Except that the law that in question is derived from an EU directive. It being a EU directive, meaning that that law should, in theory apply equally for all EU citizens. If the case fails in Brussels, it can be tried in a EU curt, because two countries came to separate conclusions about an EU directive and as a result either the law in Italy or the law in Belgian must be altered. It is true that there is no law that forces a precedent to be taken into account in this case, except that if it is not taken int

            • by Luckyo (1726890)

              Correct. Now ask yourself, what is the directive, and why is it called a "directive" and not a "law"?

              Once you find the answer to that question, you'll understand my statement.

          • by gsnedders (928327)
            The US has largely derived its system from English case law. Scots law is entirely unrelated to US law.
    • by GNious (953874) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @03:10AM (#42589159)

      We have a gay Italian as prime minister in Belgium - might have changed things a bit.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ta_gueule (2795275)
      "stare decisis" is a legal term. "Precedent" is a common term. This article is not written for lawyers like you so you can not sue them over the use of the term. There is indeed a precedent in Italy because it happened before this, and the 3 years legal guarantee is European law. Each state can implement European law the way they want but they both have to implement it.
    • by daem0n1x (748565)
      Jurisprudence is also used in countries that don't have common-law systems (basically most non-Anglo-Saxon countries). It's just that it has a certain weight, and it's not the prevalent mean of decision.
    • There is European regulation about how consumer warranties are supposed to be implemented in member country legistlation. Both Belgium and Italy have this legislation in place. In Italy, Apple already lost a trail on the exact same warranty, so the chance that they'll win the trail in Belgium is negligible. In the Netherlands they changed the warranty before they got sued by a consumer organization. They did however lost several court cases to individuals that sued them on their warranty.
  • Obligated (Score:4, Interesting)

    by holophrastic (221104) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @01:11AM (#42588845)

    I hardly think that Apple was obliged to change anything. Probably obligated, but not obliged.

    • Re:Obligated (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cryacin (657549) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @01:20AM (#42588875)
      Any company that is not obligated to act for it's customers will eventually be obliged to close it's doors.
      • by holophrastic (221104) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @01:38AM (#42588945)

        Still more likely "Any company that is not obliged to act for its customers will eventually be obligated to close its doors."

        • by Cryacin (657549)
          It is a given certainty that when one posts quickly on Slashdot and misplaces an apostrophe shall quickly invoke the ire of the Grammar Nazi's.
          • I was pointing more to the obliged vs obligated word choice. But yes, the posessive apostrophe is one of the dumbest things in the language.

          • Pardon me, but you missed a whole two leter word in that sentence, not merely an apostrophe.
      • by Mitreya (579078)

        Any company that is not obligated to act for it's customers will eventually be obliged to close it's doors.

        Oooh, I think you forgot to add "... in Europe", due to their stronger consumer-protection laws.
        In United States, several larger companies seem to be doing quite well acting for the politicians and sometimes for the shareholders (in that order).

        • I'm sorry, but that's completely clueless.

          The idea that europe has "stronger consumer protection laws" is utterly false in practice.

          While yes, in europe you have some statutary differences compared to the USA - for example, a categorical right to return items purchase by post, what you do NOT have in europe, in general, is the ability to sue companies directly and/or seek punitive damages except in extremely extraordinary cases that require a myriad of hoops to be jumped through. rather, the mechanisms to

          • by Mitreya (579078)

            The idea that europe has "stronger consumer protection laws" is utterly false in practice.

            I will admit that I am not familiar with European laws -- but I refer you to this particular article. Europe apparently has a mandatory 2-year warranty that encapsulates Apple products, yes?

            I do not believe that the 1-year that Apple provides in US is required by law here. I suspect Apple could cut this down to 3 months if they felt like it (the only concern would be consumer backlash)

            Therefore, in this particular case, Europe clearly has stronger consumer protection laws -- but I was wrong to generalize

          • The EU has remedies that protect the majority, the US that protect the minority. Broken almost 2 year old phone? Your better of in the EU where the 2 year BTW is a MINIMUM. For a washing machine, you can expect free repairs for the entire economic life of the device if it is reasonable to expect that it should last longer. Cars for instance have far long warranties mandated by law because a car is expected to last at least 10 years.

            In the US you are better off because you can sue if you sustain serious har

          • I'm sorry, but that's completely clueless.

            The idea that europe has "stronger consumer protection laws" is utterly false in practice.

            While yes, in europe you have some statutary differences compared to the USA - for example, a categorical right to return items purchase by post, what you do NOT have in europe, in general, is the ability to sue companies directly and/or seek punitive damages except in extremely extraordinary cases that require a myriad of hoops to be jumped through.

            So Europeans don't have as much rights because they supposedly can't sue a manufacturer when your dog didn't survive being dried in the microwave oven they made.

        • by Holi (250190)

          >In United States, several larger companies seem to be doing quite well acting for the politicians and sometimes for the shareholders (in that order).

          I thought it was always for the shareholders. I don't see a lot of corps acting for the politicians, it's almost always the other way around.

      • by antdude (79039)

        It's = It is. You're welcome. :P

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Before Apple does what it should have done from the start and changes its warranty document to mention 2 years as required by European law?

      For example, the court in Brussels could reasonably decide that Apple has been made aware of the European warranty requirements after the court decision in Italy and that its more recent neglect in updating its documentation is a willful violation of what it is required to do by law in Europe and thus the penalties will be somewhat more harsh.

  • by rolfwind (528248) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @01:24AM (#42588895)

    for his iPad. Kept it in a heavy duty switcheasy cover and everything. One day, in front of my eyes, he opened the cover, set the iPad sideways down on the inside of the cover's padded surface, and a huge crack occured, running the length of the screen. Luckily it was only on the black bezel, so it didn't impact use at first after putting duct tape over it to protect the fingers.

    The entire machine was mint, no scratches, no dings on the side, since it was in a case in it's entire life, the crack itself was some long weird trench that imploded. It was apparent that it wasn't some outside force, no center impact spot nor spiderwebbing outwards.

    Even with Apple Care, Apple wouldn't replace it other than to say it would cost $250 to replace it with same model. Which is kinda ridiculous. The screen worked, it was just the digitizer that I found out later costs $60 on iFixit.

    Applecare may have been worth it for past notebooks but not anything else. Most other venders extended warranties attempt to provide some value for the money. The current line of notebooks in the office seem solid, back in the mid-00s, it seemed some Powerbook would blow their motherboard every so often, and some 2-3 times in a row.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by ThatsMyNick (2004126)

      Apple Care is extended warranty, and is not insurance. I doubt you would get a replacement for notebook either.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        A warranty covers defects, and Applecare explicitly says that this covers "Defects arising after customer takes delivery [apple.com]" (contrast with statutory warranties which usually only cover inherent defects - not that I'm saying this isn't an inherent defect, my point is that Applecare you shouldn't even have to argue whether or not it's inherent as it should be covered either way).

        Unless you're accusing the grandparent's dad of secretly neglecting his iPad, this is clearly a defect.

      • by stephanruby (542433) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @03:29AM (#42589213)

        Apple Care is extended warranty, and is not insurance.

        That's the entire point of his post.

        It all depends on whether you believe the crack was caused by a manufacturing defect or improper/accidental user behavior. In his case, he clearly believes it was a manufacturing defect. Of course, you can choose not to believe him if you want, that's your call.

        I doubt you would get a replacement for notebook either.

        That's a strawman. He was asking for the device to be fixed, not be replaced (which according to him at least, could have been easily done).

        Besides, an extended warranty doesn't just extend the default limitation of a standard manufacturer warranty, but it's supposed to dictate more advantageous terms than a standard existing warranty (even when a defect is found only within the standard warranty period).

        So if one is to truly believe that this was caused by a manufacturing defect, and not user behavior, it wouldn't be unusual to expect better warranty service when one has purposefully purchased better warranty service in the first place.

    • by mysidia (191772)

      Even with Apple Care, Apple wouldn't replace it other than to say it would cost $250 to replace it with same model. Which is kinda ridiculous. The screen worked, it was just the digitizer that I found out later costs $60 on iFixit.

      Sure sounds like cause for a small claims suit against apple due to failure to provide repair or replacement to address a defect of a product under warranty.

  • Same in Australia (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SirAdelaide (1432553) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @01:42AM (#42588955)
    Apple still tries these tactics in Australia, even two years after being brought to public attention. In Australia, if a product isn't fit for purpose, you can return it to the store it was bought from, regardless of what Apple try to tell you. This is one small part of the reason for the 'Australia Tax', the other parts being inexplicable.

    See http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2011/01/apple-stores-warranty-approach-contradicts-australian-consumer-law/ [lifehacker.com.au] for more detail.

    • by jamesh (87723)

      Apple still tries these tactics in Australia, even two years after being brought to public attention. In Australia, if a product isn't fit for purpose, you can return it to the store it was bought from, regardless of what Apple try to tell you. This is one small part of the reason for the 'Australia Tax', the other parts being inexplicable.

      See
      http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2011/01/apple-stores-warranty-approach-contradicts-australian-consumer-law/ [lifehacker.com.au]
      for more detail.

      Phones are even more of a special case in Australia. For other products the wording of the law is that if you paid a substantial amount of money for something and it breaks before the expected lifespan you can expect replacement from the supplier or manufacturer (can't remember which, the supplier I think). For phones, if you are under contract then the phone is considered under warranty and the phone company is responsible for it.

      I'd hoped this would reduce the amount of crap on the market - a store might

      • by thegarbz (1787294)

        Warranties are handled by the supplier via the Australian distributor. The store has little to do with it. They are in fact in the right not to handle your warranty at all and can simply direct you to the manufacturer. It doesn't cost the store anything (if they are bastards) or very little (if they have good customer service and handle things like warranties) to replace a very cheap TV.

        • by sd4f (1891894)

          But the warranty laws in Australia compel the shop to handle the warranty, you are meant to take it back to the place of purchase. For most electronic goods, the retailer really can't do anything, so that's why they have manufacturers warranty, that's all arranged outside what the law allows, but no one worries, because a defective product gets fixed and the customer should be satisfied. The law also allows some reasonable leniency with entry level gear, as it does examine that in "fit for purpose" you buy

          • by thegarbz (1787294)

            Handle the warranty does not mean pay for the replacement. Again this is a warranty. Warranty is always covered by a the local distributor. The cost to the shop is the cost of shipping if there even is a cost like that. This is the reason why we still have cheap shit products on the market.

            Fit for purpose is exactly why the Xbox360 red ring of death is covered regardless if the warranty is there or not. I fully support this. People buy a console expecting to need to purchase only the one in the console's li

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      In Australia, if a product isn't fit for purpose, you can return it to the store it was bought from, regardless of what Apple try to tell you.

      In California, you can return a defective product to _any outlet which sells it_ any time during the warranty period. Needless to say, some retailers are not too happy about this concept. Some of them cheat brutally to get around it. For example, Sears changes their model numbers every year so that they technically don't have the same product.

  • All Apple has to do is build in the price of AppleCare into every new purchase. That's all. Like everyone else who sells stuff in the EU - the extended warranty price is built into the price EU customers pay. Just like sales taxes and other stuff needed to comply. It just becomes another reason why US prices are "lower" than EU prices.

    Though, there is a *slight* difference between AppleCare and just a bog-standard warranty - since AppleCare offers support as well (you get 90 days of phone support standard,

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They already do this. A USD 2199 macbook is a EUR 2199 macbook. But the question is why Apple should be allowed to sell hightech junk which needs repair within two years. Hardly value for money.

      • by bfandreas (603438)
        The price difference may be due to VAT which tends to be very high in the EU. Around 20%, actually.
        In some countries it may be that iStuff can be sold at reduced VAT but it is highly unlikely.
  • A summary that merely states that Apple has a warranty, and that Apple is misleading customers.

    OK, fine, but... how is Apple misleading customers? Neither the summary, nor the linked article give any clue.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      AFAIK EU and Belgian law already mandate certain warrantees regardless of wether you buy AppleCare or not, and Apple is accused of portraying certain warrantees to only apply if you do buy AppleCare.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Two year warranty presented as an extension. Two year warranty is required by European law. I'm sure that's probably just a start.

      • Two year warranty presented as an extension. Two year warranty is required by European law. I'm sure that's probably just a start.

        And what you say is nonsense. You are confusing warranty and statutory rights. Any _manufacturer_ is free to give you any manufacturer's warranty that they like under any terms they like. Any _seller_ where you buy an item is responsible that the item is of sufficient quality. Calling that 'warranty' is quite misleading.

    • by Psilax (1297141) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @02:20AM (#42589057)
      In Europe there is a consumer law that demands that the sales person of a electronics device is required to give 2 years guarantee for free. So what our consumer-organisation is suing for is that apple only give 1 year and sells the other year for a profit while this should be free. (Or roughly something like that) But off course this will not make a lot of difference since 1million euros is hardly a dent in Apple profits around here since a couple of schools are starting to make iPad a basic necessity for education and others are looking at them as an example instead of going for the open-source android communities.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        In Europe there is a consumer law that demands that the sales person of a electronics device is required to give 2 years guarantee for free.

        Despite what the law may imply, the 2-year guarantee is not free. The company selling the product still has to pay to provide warranty service, and that cost will be included in the price of the product.

        Yet another example of a law taking away your opportunity. Both for the customer and the producer.

        • by turbidostato (878842) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @03:54AM (#42589283)

          espite what the law may imply, the 2-year guarantee is not "free."

          The law doesn't imply 2-year warantee should come for free but that must be included in the front price of the product.

          "Yet another example of a law taking away your opportunity."

          There's a non fair bargaining position on the seller: we knows perfectly what the innards of the product he is selling are, but the seller can't. This way the buyer is protected knowing there's a minimal quality all products needs to abide to. It leverages the playing field for all vendors, hardly a way of taking away oportunities, except for oportunities to abuse the buyer, of course.

          • by houghi (78078)

            The law doesn't imply 2-year warantee should come for free but that must be included in the front price of the product.

            I used to work with a company for consume goods when the period went from 1 year to 2 years. We already sold an extended warranty for 3 years.

            So what they did was just recalculate the price to include the expected loss of extended warranty sales. When I asked the CEO if he thought it was a burden to not be able to sell the amount of warranty he said no. The income would not change as prices

        • the 2-year guarantee is not free. The company selling the product still has to pay to provide warranty service, and that cost will be included in the price of the product

          Certainly true. But Apple may not want to extend much the already high price gap between their products and the competition - especially for tablets and phones. For the record, many electronic shops in France (eg FNAC) do not care at all about this 2-year warranty law when selling less known laptop brands, for instance. And nobody complains (besides me :-)

        • by delt0r (999393)
          You should see what the new eWaste laws are like then!
        • Yet another example of a law taking away your opportunity. Both for the customer and the producer.

          Yep, yet another example of a law taking away a manufacturer's opportunity to sell expensive and badly constructed crap that won't last more than a few months. Honestly, I would be very wary of buying from any manufacturer who has enough concerns about their hardware failing in short-order that they will publically flout the law to avoid having to take on any of the financial risk of it doing so.

        • Despite what the law may imply, the 2-year guarantee is not free. The company selling the product still has to pay to provide warranty service, and that cost will be included in the price of the product.

          Well thanks, roman_mir, for pointing that out.

          There we were, thinking those free peanuts at the bar were dropped from the sky by unicorn-piloted Zeppelins.

      • by GNious (953874) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @03:19AM (#42589183)

        [...] since a couple of schools are starting to make iPad a basic necessity for education and others are looking at them as an example instead of going for the open-source android communities.

        Not to mention the income from fixing 15% of the school iPads every year: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Viden/Teknologi/2013/01/Crashtest_af_ipads_soroe.htm [www.dr.dk] ..or when kids end up spending 2000 euros on stuff "by accident": http://www.dr.dk/P4/Aarhus/Nyheder/Odder/2012/02/02/02134329.htm [www.dr.dk]
          (Danish links - use google trans)

      • It's not about the â900,000. The judgement stated that Apple needs to bring their warranty in line with EU Law. If they fail, I wouldn't be surprised if there are significant repercussions (Import / trade ban until it's sorted, for instance).
        • It's not about the Ã900,000. The judgement stated that Apple needs to bring their warranty in line with EU Law. If they fail, I wouldn't be surprised if there are significant repercussions (Import / trade ban until it's sorted, for instance).

          Apple didn't have to change their manufacturer warranty at all. The consequence of all this is apparently that Apple is going to stop offering Apple Care in Italy. I'll try to explain what _actually_ happened, in case some slashdotters have the brain power to understand it:

          The manufacturer can offer any warranty they like. The seller has to fix faults under certain conditions for a certain amount of time. A manufacturer or a store can also offer to sell an extended warranty. Now when you buy extended war

          • by SvnLyrBrto (62138)

            Thanks for the details that everyone else is ignoring. I gather, from your last paragraph, that you are fluent in both English and Italian. So I find myself wondering then:

            >Note that the only people that Apple has to inform
            >are those buying Apple Care, because when selling
            >Apple Care, Apple has to accurately describe what
            >the customer is getting. In all other cases, the onus
            >is on the customer to inform himself about their laws.

            Does something in the AppleCare documentation get lost in trans

      • In Europe there is a consumer law that demands that the sales person of a electronics device is required to give 2 years guarantee for free.
        So what our consumer-organisation is suing for is that apple only give 1 year and sells the other year for a profit while this should be free.
        (Or roughly something like that)

        Than your consumer-organisation would be a bunch of morons, because Apple will most certainly grant the two year EU Statutory Warranty if they are the seller (and if they aren't, then that's non of their business anyway).

        http://www.apple.com/uk/legal/statutory-warranty/ [apple.com] http://www.apple.com/benl/legal/statutory-warranty/ [apple.com]

      • by jimicus (737525)

        Not entirely true.

        The product has to last a "reasonable time". What's reasonable depends on the product - nobody expects a bunch of bananas to last two years, for example.

        In any event, "reasonable time" is there to cover defects present at time of purchase. Certainly in the UK (don't know about elsewhere) the rule is: under 6 months old, it's assumed that the product was faulty from the day it was sold and the burden of proof is on the retailer to show it wasn't. Over 6 months, the burden of proof is on the

    • by Animats (122034) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @03:07AM (#42589153) Homepage

      how is Apple misleading customers?

      Probably the same way they were in the UK [wired.co.uk] and Italy. [bbc.co.uk] Apple was using false and misleading advertising to sell unnecessary "AppleCare" coverage when EU law required a 2-year warranty built into the price of the product.

      • by mosb1000 (710161)

        Apple Care isn't just an extended warranty. It includes tech support.

  • by CodeheadUK (2717911) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @06:13AM (#42589707) Homepage

    Apple fans always bang on about how Apple stores go the extra mile to fix problems and replace broken products. Customer care is always pushed as a big plus and one of the justifications for the 'premium' cost of the products.

    Are they lying? Or have the courts got it wrong?

  • This article is not based on any court papers that this Belgian consumer organization filed, but just on a press release! Since it is just a press release, they can add all the fluffy bits, like confusing "warranty" and "statutory rights", calling a case in Italy "precedent" when it is no such thing, and so on.

    And of course there will be tons of complaints about Apple's handling of warranties, because any bloody idiot dropping his iPhone into the toilet wants a free replacement from Apple and complains w
  • by CuteSteveJobs (1343851) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @08:28AM (#42590147)
    In some countries (your mileage may vary) there is an implied statutory warranty that the product will operate properly for the reasonable lifetime of the product. This is ADDITIONAL TO the express manufacturer's warranty. It doesn't cover wear and tear and obviously doesn't cover abuse either, but does mean the product must function properly and do what it is supposed to do. If it doesn't, you are entitled to a remedy: a refund, replacement, etc., to be mutually agreed between you and the seller.

    Most consumers are ignorant of their statutory warranty rights, so when a manufacturer provides a 12 month warranty consumers think if it breaks a day after that they aren't covered. Not true, though they may have to approach the manufacturer directly instead of the retailer. Another is that when a manufacturer advertises "a lifetime warranty" you already have one by law anyway, so they are only telling you what they have to give you anyway. And finally it means that Extended Warranties are usually a complete waste of money: They are getting you to pay for a right you already have by law anyway.

    Again, your mileage may vary. Talk to your local consumer affairs bureau to find your local rules. Be warned that retailers can be real pricks about warranties , and sometimes consumer affairs will need to come in with a baseball bat and remind them if your statutory rights. Manufacturers would prefer it if you didn't know any of this. Also sometimes a manufacturer will insist you pay for return shipping or drop off at your own expense. Check your local laws: they might be obliged to pick up the cost or do this for you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code [wikipedia.org] Implied Warranties US
    http://www.apple.com/au/legal/statutory-warranty/ [apple.com] Statutory Warranties AU
    http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?showtopic=84941 [dtvforum.info] Statutory Warranties AU
    http://www.consumerlaw.gov.au/content/the_acl/downloads/consumer_guarantees_guide.pdf [consumerlaw.gov.au] Most Recent Laws AU
    http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/consumer/article/-/9803967/worthless-warranties/ [yahoo.com] Extended Warranty


    One bonus tip for reading this far: Merchants often trick people into accepting warranties with clauses waiving your statutory rights, no returns signs and the like. It often works by dissuading from trying, but if it goes to a small claims court the judge will draw a big line through them.
  • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @09:00AM (#42590311)

    Apples commercial practices are misleading?!?! Next you'll be telling me they didn't invent the MP3 player, my mind is blown!

...when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. - Fred Brooks, Jr.

Working...