Have your say & ask the experts

Hi

I recently bought from a friend a 3 month old Cyrus CD8 SE. The player is in mint condition, technically and cosmetically, and came with the original packaging materials, manuals, etc. Since Cyrus Audio gives a 2 years manufacturer's warranty on its products, I contacted them about registering the CD player in my name. They answered that '...the warranty is valid only for the original purchase of the unit and is not transferrable to a second owner.'

Being the first time that I get such an answer from a manufacturer I am posting this subject trying to find out if any other forum member has had the same problem. 

Thanks for your help

as far as I know this is standard practice with most consumer electronics.

Very few manufacturers allow a transferable warranty.

I would suggest that if you bought it from a friend and you have any issues with it then let him sort it out for you. (As it is in their name and as long as they don't mind of course...)

 

It would be interesting to know if it is legal for a manufacturer/retailer to jettison their responsibilities for producing/selling sound goods, which are fit for purpose, simply because an item has changed hands.

Under EU legislation, electrical goods are required to be free from defect for a minimum of two years, and, in fact, UK legislation allows for warranty claims for up to 6 years in certain circumstances.

Even if it is technically legal to give a consumer the brush off using a change of hands as a reason,  I think a manufacturer/retailer should be ashamed if they do. They have still made their profit from the original sale, it is the same item in question. If there is no misuse or abuse involved then the product would still have failed if it had been sat in the home of the original purchaser as it had for the subsequent owner.

Given that nowadays everyone has an internet connection, and access to forums, consumer websites and search engines, I think it'd be very short sighted of a manufacturer such as Cyrus to effectively give the finger to a consumer with a genuinely defective Cyrus product, regardless of who originally paid for it. As soon as a consumer reports that kind of shabby treatment in a single forum, it is likely to be commented on and digested by many more people. It will also be archived forever by google et al, and endlessly served up in future searches by future potential customers. It doesn't take many of this kind of report for a company image to be badly tarnished.

Who would think it fair or reasonable if, for example, an 8 month old amplifier broke down and the manufacturer refused to offer support on the basis that the person presenting it for service wasn't the person who originally bought it from the shop. What about gifts, are all warranties on items given as presents immediately worthless?

 

 

Lot of emotive language in that post, gruff. Such non-transferable warranties are pretty standard and AFAIK there is now requirement for warranties to be transferrable.

Hmm, emotive, you think? Well, maybe. It was certainly my aim to express how dim a view I personally take of consumers not being given fair and reasonable support.

Not that this has been an issue in this case, really. The original poster hasn't had (hopefully won't)  a problem with his CD player, so no harm done.

I do think it's a legitimate question to ask though. Just because something is standard practice , doesn't necessarily mean it is best practice.

My main thrust was that, if an expensive and apparently high quality product fails within a year or two, then wouldn't a decent, responsible manufacturer aim to resolve that issue? They aren't providing anything above or beyond the commitment ordinarily expected of them at the outset. The identity of the guy holding the goods at the time of failure doesn't materially affect the manufacturers liability for their own product, nor introduce any additional costs or burdens for them. I'd expect a "good egg" manufacturer to stand by their product and do (what in my opinion is) the right thing.

Andrew Everard:

Lot of emotive language in that post, gruff. Such non-transferable warranties are pretty standard and AFAIK there is now requirement for warranties to be transferrable.

Gruff's got a point though, especially when it comes to gifts. Also, why do other industries allow it...how many people have bought a year old car with the remainder of the 3 year manufacturer's warranty. Imagine how many "Delivery Mileage" cars would be sold if they had zero warranty because the garage had pre-registered it?

By the sounds of it, it's not just a Cyrus thing though. I suppose it's a conflict between warranty terms and consumer law...what does the law allow for (I am not an expert, so can't make any expert comment.) As a consumer, my view would be if goods are genuinely faulty then the title of the goods shouldn't really make any difference to faults introduced at manufacture or even design stage.

What would happen in the case where there was a mass recall relating to a component which was discovered to be potentially dangerous? Laptop batteries recently spring to mind. For example, it may be discovered that a capacitor may melt down and set fire to your CD player after a certain length of time. This fault affects a whole batch of players...does the manufacturer have no liability in that instance if the CD player has changed hands...or is it only the ones which haven't been sold on which are dangerous?

I reserve the right to be wrong here, but as I understand it.

The Sale of Goods Act is what warrantees fall under, as goods have to be fit for purpose. Under the Sale of Goods Act, any contract is with the Retailer, not the Manufacturer. Thus anything goes wrong the retailer should deal with it, any manufacturer offered warrantee is over and above the Sale of Goods Act, hence so many statements about "Statutory rghts not being affected".

If you chose to not buy from a retailer then you have no fall back as I understand it, I went through this with a D-link router I bought through a shop on eBay, was Dead on Arrival, D-link refused to honour the warrantee as it was "not bought from an approved retailer".

Sale of Goods Act also applies to the sale of used goods, but your rights to remedies are far more restricted, e.g. if you buy an amplifier and it goes up in a cloud of smoke the first time you use it, you are entitled to a refund of what you paid for it.  On the other hand, if it lasts a few months you have no redress.

FWIW your rights under the Sale of Goods Act are restricted to a full refund of the purchase price, including both used and brand new stuff.  The retailer CANNOT force you to take an exchange item.  On the other hand, it is YOUR CHOICE to spend the refund money on an identical replacement.  Also the item does not have to be in the original packaging - you bought the amplifier and not the box it came in, for example.

With respect to the Cyrus amp, I would have got your buddy to send it back on your behalf and/or check whether or not he bought it from a pukka BADA member retailer.  If the latter, BADA should cover the repair regardless (unless someone's given the amp a gin'n'tonic or something stupid).