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: Marc James Small <msmall@infi.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 17:43:12 -0500
References: <3.0.6.32.20020304164508.00a23760@POP6.sympatico.ca>

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

Replies: Reply from Andrew Schroter <schroter@optonline.net> (Re: [Leica] Here is what it says....Part deux)
In reply to: Message from Dan Cardish <dcardish@sympatico.ca> (RE: [Leica] Here is what it says....Part deux)