Wow... you are coming off verypoorly here. First off, here is a link I found for UK Consumer Law. It appearsthat they can refund, replace or repair. Hate to tell you, but a refirb would qualifyas a repair. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but have you ever posted a link to this law you keep quoting?
Secondly, it wouldn't makesense that the brown box units would be a refirb. If they were indeed refurbished,wouldn't they have been tested and the light leak noted? Especially if the unithad been previously returned for that particular reason.
Ok thanks Doug. DL means your iPad was manufactured in China and the fifth letter (M) stands for the week it was manufactured (week 18 for the US / week 19 for china, japan, Europe).
You seem to be lucky with your iPad : I've actually heard about people getting bleeding issues with iPads from that series (I live in France).
"Wow... you are coming off verypoorly here."
I'm sure that would bother me if the opinions of anonymous posters mattered to me.
"it appearsthat they can refund, replace or repair. Hate to tell you, but a refirb would qualifyas a repair"
I hate to tell you, but a refurb would not quality as a repair unless the consumer agreed it would. In the first instance it's for the buyer to decide if they want a replacement, a repair or a refund.
"5. Faulty goods – your customers’ rights
Faulty goods, no acceptance
If the item does not conform to contract (is faulty) for any of the reasons mentioned previously, and the customer has not accepted the goods, the law says the customer is entitled to
- reject the goods and claim a full refund, or
- request a repair or replacement if that is the customer's preferred option.
As the retailer, you can offer a repair, a replacement or a credit note, but you cannot insist on any one of these. It is the customer's right to receive a full refund in these circumstances."
As it says on that page, this applies to items consumers reject on the basis that they are faulty having had a reasonable time to ***** them.
Different rules - as you'll see - apply to goods whcih have been accepted.
Note, 'accepted' in this case doeesn't mean paid for or delivered, it refers to an item a consumer keeps beyond the reasonable time without rejecting it as faulty.
Even in those cases where the item has been 'accepted' and a fault subsequently becomes noticeable "the customer is entitled to claim a repair or replacement of the goods in the first instance." - again, it's the customer who is entitled to decide what they get.
"If they were indeed refurbished,wouldn't they have been tested and the light leak noted? "
Again, I never said they were refurbs. I replied to someone who did. You're too intelligent not to understand the difference between the two so why persist with trying to claim I said something I didn't?
"As theretailer, you can offer a repair, a replacement or a credit note, but youcannot insist on any one of these. It is the customer's right to receive a fullrefund in these circumstances."
Yes Martin, I read this aswell. As a practicing Lawyer in the United States, I will concede that we areworking with different Laws, so there will inherently be differences; thatbeing said, in Law, you must look at specific wording. The term “replacement” toyou may mean new in a sealed box, but it will depend on how the word is interruptedby the court. Replacement could (and usually is) seen as a working, non-damagedunit, which could indeed come from a brown box. You have failed to show where <inyour law> it states you must receive a new, sealed box from Apple and notjust a “replacement”. You certainly do, by your Law have the right to receive arefund as well.
"Again, I neversaid they were refurbs. I replied to someone who did. You're too intelligent notto understand the difference between the two so why persist with trying toclaim I said something I didn't?"
Read my post again my DearMartin... I never stated that you stated they were refurbs... you just assumedI did. I was simply commenting that if they were indeed refurbs, this would bethe case. Thank you for the compliment by the way.
"I will concede that we areworking with different Laws, so there will inherently be differences; thatbeing said, in Law, you must look at specific wording."
Actually, a LOT of UK law is not based on specific wording, merely interpretation! Might as it would make sense to you and I for things to be clearly stated, a lot of laws (insanely IMO) use phrases like 'reasonable period' without ever determining what that period might be!
They then leave it up to the courts to rule in cases which get brought before them. COurts then look at the intent of Parliament at the time. Daft? Odd? Unwise? Yes, I'll agree with you but that's how it often happens.
Here's a case where wording and intent clashed:
"The term “replacement” toyou may mean new in a sealed box, but it will depend on how the word is interruptedby the court. "
Absolutely, any case brought before a court would depend on the court's ruling, not sure anyone could disagree there.
You have failed to show where <inyour law> it states you must receive a new, sealed box from Apple and notjust a “replacement”.
The replacement for a brand new item has to be brand new - the law exists to ensure the consumer isn't any worse off at the end of the resolution than they would have been had the item never been faulty.
If you paid £600 for a brand new item and then got (for the sake of illustration) a refurb with a retail price of £399 you would be worse off i.e. you'd have paid £600 for something you could have paid £399 for.
If the brown box items are brand new - and again, I've never said they weren't - there's no problem. However - and as I said before - the onus is on Apple to convince a consumer requesting a replacement that the brown box items are brand new because it's Apple who are using two different package types.
I really don't see the controversy of saying this!
The problem here - and the only reason so many posts have been made - is that one poster either misread who said what, or set out to claim someone said something they didn't. I'll assume they misread.
Then, for reasons they alone know, they repeatedly failed to understand that
a) I've not claimed the brown boxed items weren't new
b) Apple's policies are nice, but ultimately subservient to local law (you will understand this as a lawyer)
c) made some odd assertions about how Apple are different from every other retailer, apparently without understanding how those retailers operate outside the US (see the weird claims about how Sony centres don't do in-store replacements)
Give it up Martin_UK. You're grasping at straws here, even your Sony Centre reference is way off mark as I have indeed been to and shop at them for a few years now. Once I did have go for a warranty repair and guess what? I had to go through the Sony warranty department and such service is not offered within the store itself (that in and of itself negates your claims of Apple operating like any other retail store). On top of that, you've gone in circles and it's blatantly obvious that you 1) do not understand your own laws and 2) even though your points vary from the actual laws of your country you are still trying to make it appear that you were right. Let's face it, you're still going on and on about this simply so that you can have the satisfaction of being right. I work in a law firm with 500+ attorneys and have been for over 5 years. Your arguments in a court of law will not hold water as you don't have ANYTHING yet where you can make a case out of. Stop trying to give advice in regards to something which you have clearly demonstrated that you have absolutely no expertise in let alone any basic knowledge of. Your response to Haveck after he points out that he was a lawyer shows a lot about you. You took his word on his occupation and thus refrained slightly from your usual aggressive nature. Now, you may think I'm trying to ride his coat tails by saying that I work at a large medium sized firm but the simple truth is due to working in a firm that handles a lot of IP and litigation for many brands and retail, having that background information, allowed me to know just how rubbish your claims have been. It's ridiculous how you are viewing those whom disagree with you as nothing but "fanboys" when in actuality you have been doing nothing more than display your ignorance and your incessant need to feel like you're right.
Needless to say, I have taken my White iPad 2 into Apple due to the light leak issue and they have ordered me another. I actually hope they replace it with a refurbished unit that has been through extra quality checking procedures. I had the 3g iPhone and had several issues; they replaced it twice with a new retail box and both had issues. They then replaced it with a plain white box, which I assumed was a refurb, and it was the best phone I've ever owned.
I personally don't give a painted cow turd if it's new or refurbed, as long as it looks perfect and works as promised. I tell you this, if the replacement they're giving me has the same light leak, I will keep requesting replacement devices until on doesn't have the light leak. I've never been disappointed with Apple's customer service so I should be ok.
Shut your mouth.
I am subscribed to his thread by email, and if I get one more god **** update about your petty arguments with people you will never meet I will have an aneurysm.
And don't act like children (I'm looking at Angelofmusic), there is no better way to make a complaint sound like a non-issue than by displaying the amount of drivel this thread contains.