Apple admits in open court to reuse old parts from damaged phones, in new ones

[79wjd]

32 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

No, their warranty policy cannot override the act when it comes to the mandatory EU warranty. You edited out part of §1 of the act:

 

Stk. 2 says that various sections of the act (including the ones concerning the mandatory EU warranty) cannot be set aside contractually in consumer purchases (well, they can be set aside in favor of the consumer, but not the other way).

 

And this is not about a single employee making a dumb mistake. This has happened routinely in other cases and thus appears to be a result of company policy. In any case, Apple is still responsible for the mistakes of its employees.

 

A factory new phone is one newly built with new components. Apple's engineer testified that they had a separate facility to assembling the remanufactured phones, such that they are materially different from the actually new phones. It was also revealed that they sell such phones in other countries, at a lower price, and thus Apple knew they were illegally giving people a product worth less than what they were legally entitled to.

I missed that part, either way, new equivalent is still acceptable.

 

But happening multiple times doesn't make it a company policy issue. Like I said, if the average employee heard "new equivalent", then they would probably just assume it means new. 

 

According to who? Factory new just implies it's fresh off the assembly line -- it says nothing about the parts used in the process. Okay, so the replacement phones are worth less than a brand NEW phone (not less than your used phone), because they're constructed using "used" parts, why are you entitled to a brand new phone to replace your USED phone? 

[Sakkura]

29 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I missed that part, either way, new equivalent is still acceptable.

 

But happening multiple times doesn't make it a company policy issue. Like I said, if the average employee heard "new equivalent", then they would probably just assume it means new. 

 

According to who? Factory new just implies it's fresh off the assembly line -- it says nothing about the parts used in the process. Okay, so the replacement phones are worth less than a brand NEW phone (not less than your used phone), because they're constructed using "used" parts, why are you entitled to a brand new phone to replace your USED phone? 

New equivalent is not acceptable, as it's worth less than what was purchased.

 

If a company's employees repeatedly misinform its customers, that's the company's fault one way or the other.

 

And that's according to Apple themselves, during the trial.

 

You are entitled to a brand new phone when they are unable/unwilling to give you a full refund or a repair of the faulty product you bought from them brand new. That's the law. The idea is essentially that it's a do-over from scratch. So they're getting/keeping the same money you originally paid, and in return they deliver an identical item to what you originally bought.

[sgloux3470]

 

 

Apple's already pretty abysmal about component level repair.  Giving them more incentive to toss out whole boards is detrimental to the environment for no good reason when the phone will function exactly the same.

 

On 10/28/2016 at 8:09 AM, Misanthrope said:

Something tells me that they can't do that under Dannish Law though.

 

Let's not forget that just because in America consumer protection laws are fairly crappy that this is or should be the case elsewhere.

 Warranty replacements is where 99% of refurbs go.  Not allowing Apple and others to do this is a huge waste of everyone's time and money. Refurbs are already covered under warranty like a new product and function exactly the same as a brand new product does. 

[79wjd]

10 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

New equivalent is not acceptable, as it's worth less than what was purchased.

 

If a company's employees repeatedly misinform its customers, that's the company's fault one way or the other.

 

And that's according to Apple themselves, during the trial.

 

You are entitled to a brand new phone when they are unable/unwilling to give you a full refund or a repair of the faulty product you bought from them brand new. That's the law. The idea is essentially that it's a do-over from scratch. So they're getting/keeping the same money you originally paid, and in return they deliver an identical item to what you originally bought.

The device you're turning in is also worth less than what was purchased. 

 

"(i) require remedy of the lack of conformity;
(ii) require delivery of substitute goods that are in conformity with the contract;
(iii) require an appropriate reduction of the price; or
(iv) declare the contract avoided unless the lack of conformity is immaterial.
(2) The buyer may not require remedy of the lack of conformity or delivery of substitute goods if
the completion of the remedy is impossible or will cause the seller disproportionate expense.
Regard shall be had to the value of conforming goods, the significance of the lack of conformity
and whether an alternative remedy can be completed without significant inconvenience to the buyer.
(3) If the seller offers to remedy the lack of conformity or to deliver substitute goods, the buyer may
not require an appropriate reduction of the price or declare the contract avoided."

 

As per section 1.ii and section 3, Apple does not need to subsidize the replacement device, they just need to provide a "substitute good that satisfies the contract", which the replacement device does. Even the original article says: "According to Danish consumer rights, dysfunctional and unfixable product should be replaced with a new equivalent product - but that's not Apple's policy. "

 

 

No, it's not. The law is that Apple has to provide a substitue good that satisfies the contract, OR if they don't offer that, then you're entitled to a refund. No where does it say that the replacement device has to be brand new made of only new parts. 

 

[Volbet]

13 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Yes, they are legally binding. You can take the ruling to the bailiff if the company doesn't react, to get some of their assets.

You are referring to §78 stk. 3, but have apparently forgotten to read §78 stk. 2.

Then I have no idea what to say.

I linked to the council's own website where they state that their rulings aren't legally binding to the parties. 

The baliff can't do jack without a court ruling. 

 

§ 78 stk. 2 sure protects both the buyer and the seller, but I have haven't been able to find any practice that relates to repairs and repair attempts.

The ruling practice revolves mostly around returns. 

 

13 hours ago, Sakkura said:

You didn't provide the law. And the case number you provided pointed to a ruling that disagrees with your claims.

I did provide the law in several posts. Look at the second post in this very thread.

 

14 hours ago, Sakkura said:

No, 7 attempts were never accepted in the ruling. The case was a high court ruling overturning a city court ruling and giving the customer a refund. The city court had ruled in favor of the seller on the basis of there allegedly only having been 2 repair attempts within a short time frame, and on an intermittent flaw that was difficult to replicate.

Where in the ruling does it say that?

Becuase the one I have, the high court very much accepted the 7 attempts, since all of them had taken place within 3 months. 

[Sakkura]

11 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

The device you're turning in is also worth less than what was purchased. 

 

 

As per section 1.ii and section 3, Apple does not need to subsidize the replacement device, they just need to provide a "substitute good that satisfies the contract", which the replacement device does. Even the original article says: "According to Danish consumer rights, dysfunctional and unfixable product should be replaced with a new equivalent product - but that's not Apple's policy. "

 

 

No, it's not. The law is that Apple has to provide a substitue good that satisfies the contract, OR if they don't offer that, then you're entitled to a refund. No where does it say that the replacement device has to be brand new made of only new parts. 

 

The value at the time you turn in the faulty product is not relevant. What's relevant is what the value (and functionality etc.) of the product was at the moment you bought it. That's why I said it's essentially a do-over.

 

And as the law specifies, the replacement item must match what the original agreement concerned - in this case, a factory-new phone.

3 hours ago, Volbet said:

Then I have no idea what to say.

I linked to the council's own website where they state that their rulings aren't legally binding to the parties. 

The baliff can't do jack without a court ruling. 

 

§ 78 stk. 2 sure protects both the buyer and the seller, but I have haven't been able to find any practice that relates to repairs and repair attempts.

The ruling practice revolves mostly around returns. 

 

I did provide the law in several posts. Look at the second post in this very thread.

 

Where in the ruling does it say that?

Becuase the one I have, the high court very much accepted the 7 attempts, since all of them had taken place within 3 months. 

Well you can admit that you're wrong, because the law disagrees with you. As do the relevant authorities. Here are the details about enforcement of rulings. Tvangsfuldbyrdelse - that means you can go to the bailiff and have the assets of a non-complying company seized, without going to court.

 

You didn't provide the law, come on. You referred to it, and with erroneous interpretations.

 

And you're badly wrong again about the high court ruling, which overturned the city court ruling. They did not accept a damn thing, they ruled for a full refund.

[Sakkura]

This almost deserves its own thread, but I figured it was of some relevance here, regarding Apple's stance on refunds etc.

 

Apple refuses to give customer refund unless he proves he is not Saddam Hussein

 

Quote

Apple has apologised to a customer they refused to give a refund to unless he could prove he was not Saddam Hussein. 

 

Sharakat Hussain, a 26-year-old from Birmingham, bought a £799 iPhone 7 for his sister but decided to return it a month later. 

 

He was told he’d receive a refund but, instead, a few weeks later he recieved an email asking him to prove he was not the deceased Iraqi dictator.  

Nevermind Saddam Hussein was executed 10 years ago, you fucking better not give him that iPhone refund!!

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/apple-refuse-refund-saddam-hussein-iphone-a7387761.html

[Sakkura]

Aaaaand surprise, surprise, Apple lost the case. Google translated article here.

[suicidalfranco]

2 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Aaaaand surprise, surprise, Apple lost the case. Google translated article here.

inb4 Denmark court is a Apple hater and Apple has done no wrong

[79wjd]

26 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

inb4 Denmark court is a Apple hater and Apple has done no wrong

Inb4 Denmark-ians are fucking obnoxious. 

[CtrlAltELITE]

I never understand this;

New or of equal value, you send apple a USED phone for repair, they repair it using USED parts, where is the the value unequal?

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, CtrlAltELITE said:

I never understand this;

New or of equal value, you send apple a USED phone for repair, they repair it using USED parts, where the the value unequal?

*cough* entitlement *cough*

[Sakkura]

3 minutes ago, CtrlAltELITE said:

I never understand this;

New or of equal value, you send apple a USED phone for repair, they repair it using USED parts, where is the the value unequal?

This isn't about a repair. This is about a replacement.

 

Apple could have repaired the phone and that would have been just fine. They chose to re-deliver a new device... except they secretly gave a remanufactured phone instead.

 

The law requires the redelivery to fulfill the original purchase agreement. You paid X amount of money for Y item. If what they give you is worth less, as a remanufactured phone is, then they are violating the law. That simple. They could have compensated for that in other ways, but chose not to.