Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/04

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Here is what it says....Part deux
From: Andrew Schroter <schroter@optonline.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 18:04:49 -0800
References: <3.0.6.32.20020304164508.00a23760@POP6.sympatico.ca> <3.0.2.32.20020304174312.0076cf8c@roanoke.infi.net>

The warranty is a Leica AG warranty, not an agency warranty.  If a dealer
didn't sell it to you as the original purchaser they're not required to
repair it as the warranty terminates when the equipment is resold, say by a
Grey market dealer to you.
The words on my Passport Protection Plan for my R100 F2.8:  "The Leica
Product you have just registered with Leica Camera Inc. is now covered under
Leica's unique non transferable Passport Protection Plan."  Note the phrase
"non transferable".  When the Grey market dealer buys the gear from an
authorized dealer, the warranty is assigned to the Grey Market dealer and
not to any subsequent purchaser.
AGS


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc James Small" <msmall@infi.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 2:43 PM
Subject: RE: [Leica] Here is what it says....Part deux


> At 04:43 PM 3/4/02 -0500, B. D. Colen wrote:
> >Is all the nonsense about who stamped what when legally binding? OR when
> >push comes to shove, if you have proof of purchase in the form of a
check,
> >credit card receipt, etc., is a manufacturer required to stand behind its
> >product from that date until the normal expiration of the warranty. Just
> >curious.
>
> BD
>
> Under US law, an item is warranted automatically under the UCC and various
> other legislation, though is is a pretty minimal warranty.  As to Leica's
> own warranty, it is the law in many, if not most, states that no special
> registration can be required to enforce a warranty, and I would suspect
> that proof that you purchased the item new and that Leica refused to honor
> their warranty would be sufficient to allow judgement in a small-claims
> court as Austin proposed, though the limits on this might be rather low in
> some states.
>
> This would not apply to EU or other foreign law, of course.
>
> Marc
>
> msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +276/343-7315
> Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir!
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from Dan Cardish <dcardish@sympatico.ca> (RE: [Leica] Here is what it says....Part deux)
Message from Marc James Small <msmall@infi.net> (RE: [Leica] Here is what it says....Part deux)