Originally posted by thoughton That's a pretty silly attitude. We're talking about real life here, not some legal TV show. By your logic they could send back a non-functioning camera with 1 shutter actuation, and that would discharge their obligations under the warranty agreement. Is that what you're saying?
Actually, that is the exact opposite of what I am saying.
Is English your first language.
Here. I'll spell it out in small words for you, on the offchance your first language is Martian.
He sent in a camera that was (apparently) broken.
He got back a camera that was working.
What part of this are you not getting?
In your canard, he sent in a camera that was broken and got back a camera that was broken.
How do you come even close to equating that to what I said?
Originally posted by thoughton The OP hasnt specified exactly what they said when replacing it, but if they've agreed to replace it they must accept that there is something wrong with the camera.
They are, at least, accepting that the OP has found something wrong with the camera, even if they are unable to find the same problem. They could have just sent the original camera back, on the theory that since they couldn't replicate the problem, the problem doesn't exist.
I'm sure this would have made the OP even happier.