0

I purchased an mp3 player that promises a 3 year extended warranty/free returns upon registration.

A year in, the product failed. After some hassle, they offered a replacement product that is not equivalent (missing an feature important to me) or a 50% refund because of time used, as per the CRA of 2015.

Does the refund reduction part of the Act apply to an explicit warranty. And can 50% be considered a fair reduction for a year usage of a product warrantied for 3 years?

3
  • 2
    You should read the terms of the extended warranty, which can be a type of insurance. Given that retailers might make more money on an extended warranty than on the product itself, they should honour its terms. Commented Feb 24 at 18:07
  • The extended warranty was free. I'm don't see any 'legalese' terms available: the only thing I've found is majority.co.uk/returns-warranty. Commented Feb 24 at 19:32
  • 1
    Nothing is free. If it doesn't have an explicit charge it's built into the price, as with motor cars. Commented Feb 24 at 19:33

1 Answer 1

1

If a product is supposed to last for three years, then getting half the price for one year of usage couldn’t be considered fair.

Three years warranty doesn’t mean “it will break down after three years and one day”. It means “if it breaks within three years, that’s so rare, we will help you out”. You expect this product to last four to six years at least. Maybe with some reduction in functionality, but I’d expect it to work. So 25% penalty for one year use is already a lot.

For the extended warranty, that covers exactly what the text of the warranty says. No more, no less.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .