Australian Consumer Law - Warranty on a Warranty?

snuke on 06/03/2017 - 11:51

Googling is getting me nowhere, nor are the official websites and pdfs from the Govt about this. All I can find is info on original purchases, not the warranty replacements.
Does anyone know what the facts are for the following two scenarios? I am simplifying some details to make it clearer.

Purchase good in Aus, for $2,000 3 years ago, let’s say 1/1/2014. It comes with a 2 year warranty, with a further 4 month warranty on any warranty replacement.
1/9/15 it has a fault and gets replaced under warranty, thus manufactures warranty is now covered to 1/2/16.
1/10/16 item has another fault. So out of the manufactures warranty period, but is the Aus Consumer Law’s vague ‘Reasonable Time’ coverage based on the original purchase date, or is it somehow extended to be based form the replacement date of 1/9/15?

Same story as above, however this time, I buy the item in the US, and the warranty replacement is done in Aus.
As it was purchased in the US, I am not entitled to Aus Consumer Law, but does having the item replaced locally under warranty somehow entitle me to it?

General Discussion

Comments

  • SirFlibbled on 06/03/2017 - 12:26

    Good question. I would imagine that if a product is accepted in Australia by the manufacturer for warranty purposes, then the ACL applies including all consumer guarantees.

  • apple2016 on 06/03/2017 - 13:12

    As it was purchased in the US, I am not entitled to Aus Consumer Law, but does having the item replaced locally under warranty somehow entitle me to it?

    No the purchase is not covered under Australian Consumer Law.

    • snuke on 06/03/2017 - 13:28

      Is that clear, as you know from reading something I have missed, personal experience, or just because it is what seems right?

      • apple2016 on 06/03/2017 - 16:12

        The ACL is only applicable to business in Australia. It is not applicable to business in US.
        This link is for VIC

        • snuke on 06/03/2017 - 16:18

          Correct, the complicating issue here is if a warranty replacement is handled by an Aus company.

        • apple2016 on 06/03/2017 - 17:19

          @snuke: It does not matter who handles the warranty. Your initial purchase did not qualify for ACL.

        • snuke on 06/03/2017 - 17:27

          @apple2016:

          This is how I feel too, but I can't read anything to confirm this in the case of a local replacement. A unique case.

        • lolz112 on 06/03/2017 - 19:33

          @snuke: Sorry I'm going to be blunt here. Apple is right, you don't qualify for any ACL Warranty. It's not a unique case because there is no contract. Ie. you have not bought anything from the Australian retailer. Just because their Australian branch has provided a part does not mean they are bounded under ACL. Namely because you have not paid for a new good or service/no contract was exchanged.
          https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees…
          The key wording here is buy.

        • snuke on 06/03/2017 - 21:59

          @lolz112:

          No need to be sorry, I agree. The above are hypertheticals, I have actually done either, nor would I in a million expect any warranty under any circumstances for an item purchased outside Aus, unless the specifically list an item as having a worldwide warranty. Some others however…..

        • SirFlibbled on 07/03/2017 - 07:41

          The consume guarantees of the ACL does apply to businesses overseas who sell to Australians (ie if they dont ship to Australians and you use a reshipper then it wouldn't). Enforcement of those rights is a different issue.

          See s6 of the ACL - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca201026…

        • snuke on 07/03/2017 - 07:48

          @SirFlibbled:

          This is why I couldn't pursue Law. My brain can't read and process information written in such a way. It's not very adaptable to how English can be used. This is equally as bad for my brain as someone who can barely write in English.

        • SirFlibbled on 07/03/2017 - 11:04

          @snuke: While the ACL applies, consumer law in the businesses country certainly does apply. For example, a year ago I flew with Scoot airlines and they removed a class of seats I had paid for (super seats) between booking and flying. They refused to acknowledge they owed me money back claiming I paid a 'seat selection fee' (ignoring I paid a higher seat selection fee than usual due to the class of seat).

          Rather than try to get them through Consumer Affairs in Australia though, I contacted Singapore's consumer affairs and they started action against Scoot on my behalf. Scoot immediately folded and refunded me what I was owed (it was only $160 I wasn't asking for a full refund).

          As I said above, the issue is enforceability against a business not in Australia not Australian consumer law. Where you have an 'in' is the fact that manufacturers do have limited responsibilities under the ACL as well (this part I'm fuzzier on and too lazy to read up on). The fact that the manufacturer has recognised the warranty of a foreign purchased good, in my mind, means they need to have accepted the warranty on the terms of the ACL (to the extend they are required to). This would, at a minimum include consumer guarantees of fit for purpose and major and minor faults as well as the 'reasonable time' in a statutory warranty.

  • lolz112 on 06/03/2017 - 13:17

    I don't think the manufacturer has any acl obligations to you. If you purchased the item in the US they don't need to provide you with a warranty under acl. Just because they did (likely out of goodwill) doesn't mean they are subjected to the acl. Should mention that I don't have any qualified opinion expect for studying contract law 101.

    Also I don't think that they have to extend the warranty period for a replacement. I think manufacturers may do this to cover the reasonable period. Ie. There is a known fault for a part they produce and they would would be expected to cover the replacements for a reasonable period (which may be longer than their official warranty period).

    I think your best bet would be to write how the brand is not up to your expectations and that you are disappointed. If they don't offer to replace it there's nothing you can really do.

    • snuke on 06/03/2017 - 13:27

      I agree, I don’t think any Aus company should be under any obligation to provide a warranty in any case when the original purchase was not in Aus, but I am simply struggling to find specific info about how ACL applies to the replacement of a warranty. I am hoping someone happens to know because they have looked into it for whatever reason.
      The warranty extension is simply something that many companies offer. It is usually something like an extra XX days or your original warranty period, whichever is longer.

      • lolz112 on 06/03/2017 - 14:36

        I don't think there is any requirement for a warranty on replacement products. Legally they are only obligated to deal provide repair goods for a reasonable period. So if the courts deem that today is the final day for a reasonable period and you got replacement part yesterday and it breaks tomorrow. They are not under any obligation to repair as you have already gotten use of the original product in a reasonable time period.

        Now why they would offer an extended warranty is to cover them because a reasonable time period is not specific. It isn't easy to say this date is when your statutory guarantee expires and changes case by case. So they could be required to cover it for a longer period. So they usually extend the period for what could be a defective product rather than face lawsuits from the ACCC.

        This is related to your case because I don't think your replacement part would be covered under any warranty because they were not obligated to replace it in the first place (unless there was a corresponding American law/their own company policies). Regardless of the fact that the replacement product came from Australia. If your product was bought in Australia you might be able to argue that your still covered under reasonable time period. So your best cause of action would be trying for their goodwill because they are a large company who wants to keep their reputation in tact.

  • foxmulder on 06/03/2017 - 14:55

    Bought on 1 Jan 2014 warranty expired 1 Jan 2016. Plus 4 months is 1 may 2016. That item was broken on 1 Oct 2016. Warrany surely expired. Am I missing something here?

    • snuke on 06/03/2017 - 14:57

      Yes, Australian Consumer Law and it's bloody stupid wording about Reasonable Time. It negates whatever a manufacturer states, and helps to cause confusion. I can see how it is helpful, but it's also aggravating in its vagueness.

      • inherentchoice on 06/03/2017 - 16:47

        What section of the ACL are you referring to exactly?

      • try2bhelpful on 06/03/2017 - 16:48

        Completely agree with the ACL wording. They should put together concrete time periods for certain devices in certain price ranges. This "Reasonable time" rubbish just confuses everyone.

        Personally I don't see why a replacement for a faulty device should have the warranty extend beyond the original device's date - unless it is taken in close to the warranty expiry date.

        • SirFlibbled on 07/03/2017 - 07:47

          You can't have a specified time in the legislation because you can't take into account every product and every quality type. So instead it relies on a reasonable time period based on the product.

          If you buy a $10 toaster you wouldn't expect it to last as long as a $100 toaster would you?

          Same as how people used to spend half their mobile contract with a phone out of warranty, after the ACL came in you basically got an extra year warranty because the expectation was the phone should be free of defects for the time period of the contract.

        • try2bhelpful on 07/03/2017 - 08:21

          @SirFlibbled: That is whay I mentioned type and price range in my original post. You could set a general product type and price range, even for examples. The current system is so vague it leads to more arguments than results. You could say any "mobile phone over $500 has a two year warranty" - or something of that nature.

        • SirFlibbled on 07/03/2017 - 09:11

          @try2bhelpful: Then you need to factor in changes in technology, inflation, currency fluctuations etc.

          You're right it can end in arguments but the consumer wins most of the time. I've won every argument I've had with a retailer over the ACL (it helps being a lawyer I guess).

        • try2bhelpful on 07/03/2017 - 09:16

          @SirFlibbled: Hmmm, I think your comment is a bit general. Not sure the consumer does win most of the time; it would depend on how ammendable the person you are buying from is and how bolshie the person buying the product is. Most people are reluctant to make a fuss, particularly if they aren't sure what ground they stand on. Yup, it probably does help being a lawyer; but for the average person it is just a pain. If I knew that a general device, with a particular value, was covered for a particular time I would be much more likely to go into bat for getting my rights - if I'm not sure then it is harder to backup an argument if there is any pushback.

      • foxmulder on 06/03/2017 - 17:03

        If I'm in your position to get extra 9 months on top of the 2 year product is expected to work, I don't bother to check around on what is reasonable meant. Just buy another product and move on.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join