CaptainGazzz

If the wifi breaks on a 4 month old device, it was a defect in manufacturing. Apple failed to deliver a proper product and should give the product that they promised.

If the wifi breaks on a 4 month old device, it was a defect in manufacturing. Apple failed to deliver a proper product and should give the product that they promised.

No, you paid full price for a new product. If you wanted to get a refurbished model you would have bought a refurbished model.

If the wifi breaks on a 4 month old device, it was a defect in manufacturing. Apple failed to deliver a proper product and should give the product that they promised.

If the wifi breaks on a 4 month old device, it was a defect in manufacturing. Apple failed to deliver a proper product and should give the product that they promised.

No, you paid full price for a new product. If you wanted to get a refurbished model you would have bought a refurbished model.

If the wifi breaks on a 4 month old device, it was a defect in manufacturing. Apple failed to deliver a proper product and should give the product that they promised.

According to an article on Tweakers, Apple tried to prevent the judge from giving a verdict by arguing that the woman in question was already offered everything that she demanded by Apple, but the objection was rejected by the judge. This verdict could be used for other lawsuits or even a class action lawsuit.
 
I believe Apple should have provided the woman with a brand new product or a repair. A refurbished or remanufactured product isn't new, it could contain parts that are very worn-out. If a manufacturer can't repair your product, you should always get a brand new one, otherwise you could get a worse product.
 
What do you think?
 
Source

No, you paid full price for a new product. If you wanted to get a refurbished model you would have bought a refurbished model.

According to an article on Tweakers, Apple tried to prevent the judge from giving a verdict by arguing that the woman in question was already offered everything that she demanded by Apple, but the objection was rejected by the judge. This verdict could be used for other lawsuits or even a class action lawsuit.
 
I believe Apple should have provided the woman with a brand new product or a repair. A refurbished or remanufactured product isn't new, it could contain parts that are very worn-out. If a manufacturer can't repair your product, you should always get a brand new one, otherwise you could get a worse product.
 
What do you think?
 
Source

The transaction is void because the device was faulty on day one. You could argue that it broke because of heavy use. Because Apple didn't keep their part of the agreement they should give a refund.

Careful how you phrase this, because it's not entirely true.  Different industries have different standards and definitions for this.  Non-certified, third party, aftermarket repair shops have tarnished the meaning in IT manufacturing.  True ISO standard items include a standard warranty from time of receipt of refurbished/remanufactured item (not time of original purchase of defective item).  They are inspected and certified as if brand new to the standards and specifications of a new manufactured item.  Visually worn and used parts must be replaced.  If any seal has been breached to replace another part, those seals must be replaced with factory replacement seals.  Chassis damage is not necessarily considered as part of the inspection and certification process, unless it interferes with or compromises the function and use of the unit and/or the seals.  "Used" identifies that the unit is post original manufacturing and has not been certified by the original manufacturer to function 'like new'.  "Certified Used" means that an item has been inspected by a 3rd party to the standards of a manufacturer that it functions as intended, but not necessarily operates or functions as if it were new (very common with motor vehicles).
 
Refurbished units could be items manufactured in the factory and sent out to a customer, but the unit is returned unopened; Trial use devices from a focus group center;  Leased units that were returned at close of contractual term; etc.  Companies often offer a "similar or better" device as some repairs might not be easily obvious as to what problem a specific devices has, or the repair is extensive enough to where a replacement unit is more cost effective.  If the manufacturers did not do this type of practices it would be both ecologically and economically damaging and expensive.

I do agree, that since the unit was 4 months old, and that stores would most likely have new ones on their shelves, that they should have replaced the iPad with a new one.  However,  if the unit is outside of a standard warranty period and if someone purchased the extended warranty, then they are subject to a refurbished or remanufactured item.  Most companies actually disclose this in their warranty clauses.  The difference in this instance is that the Dutch court agreed that since there are new on the shelf units available that are the exact same as the unit that the customer had purchased, they should be giving the customer a brand new unit.  

Dbrand should really be praised for first testing their skins extensively before releasing them, it could have been an easy cash grab for them, but they didn't do it.

Dbrand should really be praised for first testing their skins extensively before releasing them, it could have been an easy cash grab for them, but they didn't do it.

Dbrand should really be praised for first testing their skins extensively before releasing them, it could have been an easy cash grab for them, but they didn't do it.

Dbrand should really be praised for first testing their skins extensively before releasing them, it could have been an easy cash grab for them, but they didn't do it.

Dbrand should really be praised for first testing their skins extensively before releasing them, it could have been an easy cash grab for them, but they didn't do it.

Dbrand should really be praised for first testing their skins extensively before releasing them, it could have been an easy cash grab for them, but they didn't do it.

Dbrand should really be praised for first testing their skins extensively before releasing them, it could have been an easy cash grab for them, but they didn't do it.

Dbrand should really be praised for first testing their skins extensively before releasing them, it could have been an easy cash grab for them, but they didn't do it.

Dbrand should really be praised for first testing their skins extensively before releasing them, it could have been an easy cash grab for them, but they didn't do it.

Dbrand should really be praised for first testing their skins extensively before releasing them, it could have been an easy cash grab for them, but they didn't do it.

Dbrand should really be praised for first testing their skins extensively before releasing them, it could have been an easy cash grab for them, but they didn't do it.

Where's the "I have an account but it's not been hacked"?

I agree, I don't think it was a hack to get some cash, if it was a way to incite terror, they would just dump the data on the internet. Instead they sold it.