![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
BlinkyBill: Some people know, and some people think they know, stuff. A bus ticket is a contract - there are terms and conditions associated with travelling on a public bus and there is legislation involved as well.
But no negotiation is involved in terms of pricing or explanation of the terms and conditions; it is a very famous legal precedent that accepting the ticket implies acceptance of the contract and all of the terms and conditions.
Buying a pair of binoculars is also a contract between the involved parties. In NZ a purchase agreement cannot contract out of the CGA, but it is very clear that a warranty claim subject to the t’s and c’s of the contract is required for relief, as the first course of action. The CGA is a course of action subsequent where the purchase agreement has failed. ‘Purchase agreement’ = ‘contract’.
The OP asked if a foreign contract provision could be used to argue a warranty claim after the warranty has expired - the answer is ‘no’. That is the correct answer to the question. You would be hard-pressed to make a warranty claim 10 years after the warranty has expired; you need to seek relief some other way, of which a CGA claim is one option.
I think when answering questions it is useful to be accurate as far as possible. It is a bit irritating when people respond with assumed knowledge which is a long way from accurate.
BlinkyBill: Since the warranty is 10 years, you wouldn’t be able to submit a warranty claim in 20 years, so there is nothing to argue - the contract you entered into is for 10 years.
If the item failed in the 20 year timeframe and you took an action because you feel it shouldn’t have failed and therefore the manufacturer should repair at their cost, then yes it’s an argument that a lifetime warranty for the same product in a different market has a bearing.
But that argument wouldn’t have much weight in NZ - the contract you agreed to in NZ will have a much higher weighting in terms of the overall argument.
Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.
eracode:BlinkyBill: Since the warranty is 10 years, you wouldn’t be able to submit a warranty claim in 20 years, so there is nothing to argue - the contract you entered into is for 10 years.
If the item failed in the 20 year timeframe and you took an action because you feel it shouldn’t have failed and therefore the manufacturer should repair at their cost, then yes it’s an argument that a lifetime warranty for the same product in a different market has a bearing.
But that argument wouldn’t have much weight in NZ - the contract you agreed to in NZ will have a much higher weighting in terms of the overall argument.
Surely the nub of all this is: Retailers in NZ cannot contract-out of the CGA - so the OP cannot be limited by the manufacturer’s 10-year term.
BlinkyBill:eracode:BlinkyBill: Since the warranty is 10 years, you wouldn’t be able to submit a warranty claim in 20 years, so there is nothing to argue - the contract you entered into is for 10 years.
If the item failed in the 20 year timeframe and you took an action because you feel it shouldn’t have failed and therefore the manufacturer should repair at their cost, then yes it’s an argument that a lifetime warranty for the same product in a different market has a bearing.
But that argument wouldn’t have much weight in NZ - the contract you agreed to in NZ will have a much higher weighting in terms of the overall argument.
Surely the nub of all this is: Retailers in NZ cannot contract-out of the CGA - so the OP cannot be limited by the manufacturer’s 10-year term.
That is correct - but you and some others continue to miss the point that a CGA claim isn’t the same as a warranty claim, especially 10 years after the warranty has ended.
BlinkyBill:eracode:BlinkyBill: Since the warranty is 10 years, you wouldn’t be able to submit a warranty claim in 20 years, so there is nothing to argue - the contract you entered into is for 10 years.
If the item failed in the 20 year timeframe and you took an action because you feel it shouldn’t have failed and therefore the manufacturer should repair at their cost, then yes it’s an argument that a lifetime warranty for the same product in a different market has a bearing.
But that argument wouldn’t have much weight in NZ - the contract you agreed to in NZ will have a much higher weighting in terms of the overall argument.
Surely the nub of all this is: Retailers in NZ cannot contract-out of the CGA - so the OP cannot be limited by the manufacturer’s 10-year term.
That is correct - but you and some others continue to miss the point that a CGA claim isn’t the same as a warranty claim, especially 10 years after the warranty has ended.
Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |