CANON Officially sucks

Discussion in 'Canon' started by mindesign, Jun 30, 2006.

  1. mindesign

    Pete D Guest

    Just because he may not have paid duty (which he may not have had to anyway)
    does not mean that the manufacturer does not have a duty to make sure that
    the item is fit for use and if faulty needs to be made good.

    Even if he did ask about warranties it is quite possible that he could have
    been misled or told an untruth. Cerrtainly in some places in the world the
    "International Warranties" are not actually valid away from that country but
    you would have no way of knowing. Pentax and Sigma have a similar problem
    here in Australia, neither company actually have even an office here but
    only have an imported that only deals with items that they have sold so if
    you happen to be overseas and you need an item then you need to know this,
    many consumers would have no idea of this. :-(

    Morally Canon are failing anyway, huge sales right around the world but they
    back their product poorly.
     
    Pete D, Jun 30, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. mindesign

    Prometheus Guest

    I know that a friend's business was purchasing equipment from the well
    known manufacturer at reduced price under the obligation that they would
    fund the warranty support from their 'profits'. Remember, it is the
    retailer who sells to a member of the public who is legally liable for
    warranty support, not the manufacture. Many manufacturers fund the
    support either directly or through their retailers claiming against
    them, others charge the retailer less so that the retailer can have a
    greater differential between purchase and normal selling price in order
    to fund the repairs. Where do you get the idea that this is illegal.
     
    Prometheus, Jun 30, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. mindesign

    RichA Guest

    Buying Canon without a warranty is taking a BIG chance. No other
    company
    has produced as many cameras with as many faults. The cameras work
    great,
    when they work.
    The idea of chaining people to buying from local economies that are
    uneconomical is disgusting and having this kind of warranty restriction
    is garbage and born out of legal fear by Canon.
     
    RichA, Jun 30, 2006
    #23
  4. mindesign

    J. Clarke Guest

    It's not a "two tier end user scheme". In the one case the device is sold
    as an end item, in the other it is sold as a part of an assembly that is
    warrented by the company producing the assembly. You wouldn't expect a
    bolt manufacturer to provide you with an end-user warranty on the bolts in
    your car would you, even if you could buy a box of them in a store with a
    warranty direct to you?
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 1, 2006
    #24
  5. mindesign

    RW+/- Guest

    The real question is...did you see your name attached to any of the above?

    As to the clue? I think I gave one away.

    Did you get it?





    ')
     
    RW+/-, Jul 1, 2006
    #25
  6. mindesign

    Robert Brace Guest

    I don't "get the idea" I KNOW it is illegal. The scheme you have described
    is precisely why it has been so found. In your scenario, the retailer is
    the primary retail interface so the performance of the product you have
    purchased in good faith depends entirely on the "good graces" of the local
    retailer. Too many cases exist where the "good graces" break down and the
    consumer is left with a non-working product and no recourse for its repair.
    Not Acceptable.
    The law I have described puts the onus of support, sale and service on the
    manufacturer of the product regardless as to whether or not the manufacturer
    has corporate representation in the country where the product was being used
    and the end user resided.
    In other words the manufacturer is responsible for making the end user whole
    regardless as to where they each are located.
    I'm still interested in the details surrounding your example.
    Bob
     
    Robert Brace, Jul 1, 2006
    #26
  7. mindesign

    wilt Guest

    Guys, I know it is upsetting but there are legitimate reasons for this
    'bad behavior'. First of all, the distribution for Canon USA is a
    different company than for Canon Australia (or wherever). Different
    legal entities all handling a common brand. Second, the body in one
    country may really be different that the body in a different country,
    because, for example, the electronics have some feature for which Canon
    is not licenses to sell the technology because the patent is owned by
    someone Canon is not willing to pay licensing fees to. So, a company
    like Canon Australia might not want to deal with trying to get the
    parts suitable for a U.S. model camera, and it would be absurd for them
    to stock the parts. I know that most parts are in common, but if they
    had to spend the time to find that the ONE part that was different is
    the problem part, then how would they deal with that?

    --wilt
     
    wilt, Jul 1, 2006
    #27
  8. mindesign

    J. Clarke Guest

    If the manufacturer has no assets in the country in which the law is in
    force then the law is simply shouting defiance at the sky. Fine, it's
    illegal. Whatcha gonna _do_ about it?
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 1, 2006
    #28
  9. mindesign

    Pete D Guest


    What utter twaddle.
     
    Pete D, Jul 1, 2006
    #29
  10. mindesign

    DFS Guest

    I don't "get the idea" I KNOW it is illegal. The scheme you have
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here in the states, reputable online photo retailers like B&H offer the same
    camera to the consumer with the choice of a manufacturer's USA warranty, or
    what I assume to be an "in house" warranty, underwritten by the retailer.
    The gray market item is usually a fair bit cheaper. Costco, the warehouse
    retail chain often sells items on which no manufacturer's warranty applies
    since they are not an authorized retailer for the item, having purchased
    outside of the normal chain of distribution. You'll see signs on these
    items in the stores, and on items listed for sale at Costco.com.

    It would seem that in these cases, the manufacturer clearly disclaims any
    warranty responsibility, and is getting away with it. Are you stating that
    Canon USA, as a wholly owned subsidiary of the parent company in Japan is
    required to offer warranty support for cameras sold in the USA, but not
    delivered to dealers in the USA by the parent company? Is Sennheiser
    required to fix the headphones purchased at Costco even though they weren't
    delivered to Costco by Sennheiser?

    It may make sense that "there ought to be a law," but there doesn't appear
    to be one.

    DS
     
    DFS, Jul 1, 2006
    #30
  11. mindesign

    Robert Brace Guest

    Of course he has described a two-tier end user scheme in dealing with a
    functional part (not components of the completed item). One source gets you
    a warranty and the other doesn't. What would you call it?
    As to your example of bolts vs. the vehicle, look up some of the case law to
    realize how often component manufacturers are enjoined in such suits.
    Simple "suitability for purpose" should make that point clearly for you.
    To answer your other post as well: "What would you do about it?" It would
    depend upon the level of damage I had to incur to make my case. At first
    look, I would sat the camera example would be a natural Small Claims Court
    action wherein I would recover not only the cost of getting the item
    repaired but the cost of the action as well (usually about $25.00 to $50.00
    depending upon jurisdiction).
    Bob
     
    Robert Brace, Jul 1, 2006
    #31
  12. mindesign

    zog Guest

    well I don't know the laws in where you live but in Australia it is
    consumer law, you buy anything new in a shop here the store is liable
    for the repair/replacement of the item should it be faulty
     
    zog, Jul 1, 2006
    #32
  13. mindesign

    J. Clarke Guest

    Might be what he described but it's not the way that the manufacturers do
    business. What does happen is that a component will be sold to an OEM who
    then in violation of his contract with the manufacturer turns around and
    sells directly to an end-user.
    Suits? I'm sorry, but you are confusing product liability with warranty
    service.
    In the case of a bolt, the manufacturer of the car decided "suitability for
    purpose"--that's what they pay engineers for.
    And what, exactly, is a small claims court going to do to a manufacturer
    which has no assets within its jurisdiction?
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 1, 2006
    #33
  14. mindesign

    J. Clarke Guest

    Yes, the reseller, not the manufacturer.
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 1, 2006
    #34
  15. mindesign

    Pete D Guest

    Actually the shop/seller is responsible to get it back to the manufacturer
    for repair, it means you do not have to deal with the manufacturer, they do,
    thats all. If there is a problem dealing with the shop you have recourse to
    deal directly with the manufacturer/supplier.
     
    Pete D, Jul 2, 2006
    #35
  16. mindesign

    J. Clarke Guest

    So make up your mind, first you say that the shop is liable and then you say
    the manufacturer. Which is it?
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 2, 2006
    #36
  17. mindesign

    Prometheus Guest

    How exactly do you think your local national law gives you recourse
    against a manufacturer in another country? It can not, which is why
    consumer protection places the responsibility of warranty on the
    retailer. See: <http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/Fact
    Sheets/page24700.html> for a statement of UK law.


    With my friends concern some brands were returned to the manufacturer or
    their agents, some the manufacturer gave them the parts, and some they
    had to purchase parts from the manufacturer.
     
    Prometheus, Jul 2, 2006
    #37
  18. mindesign

    Pete D Guest

    Both, read what I said.
     
    Pete D, Jul 2, 2006
    #38
  19. mindesign

    J. Clarke Guest

    I read what you wrote. If what you wrote is something other than what you
    meant then you need to work on that.
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 2, 2006
    #39
  20. Why don't you do a little research and you must not own a Canon DSLR
    since all Canon USA products include a Canada/USA warranty, because
    Canon Canada is a subsidiary of Canon USA..

    Take a look at your warranty card if you have one.

    Or
    http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...ct&keycode=2113&fcategoryid=226&modelid=10464


    --

    "One, two, and the Depot RAR-O, I will buy you a sweet Banana.
    One, two, and the Depot RAR-O, I will buy you a sweet Banana.
    Banana, banana, banana I will buy you a sweet banana.
    Shield, spear and knobkerrie, soldiers in war and peace,
    In war she fights with bravery, I will buy you a sweet banana.

    "Sweet Banana"
    Battle hymm of the Rhodesian African Rifles
     
    John A. Stovall, Jul 2, 2006
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.