[jmg257]

I'm sure it is a very good legal explanation of what a warranty is. But, at least how i see it, is a pile of bullsh**. Legal is getting further from "right" and "moral" each day...

As i see it, you are buying a product that is supposed to work at least few years. If the product fail to perform because of some build weakness, it is only the manufacturer to be blamed. It has no importance who is using the item, original buyer or somebody else.

Manufacturer got payed, and the product should work as advertised. Who is using it has no importance.

Manufacturer got paid....once...so will typically offer to cover factory flaws without issue for the customer they got the money from. They get nothing from the used product buyer, so there should be no problem with them owing him the same. Manufacturers are in business to make money, primarily by selling new product. Of course they can also make money servicing that products for a fee. And if there was money in guaranteeing used gear (sell more new acessories or whatnot) then they would do it.

Want a warranty? Then do the right and rather simple thing and buy new.

[chesebert]

Pentax Lenses carry an express 1 Year Warranty in the United States.

In the United States, the law is derived from four sources. These four sources are constitutional law, statutory law, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law). When applying the common law to a claim of obligation please cite your precendents as they apply to the manufacturer of a consumer item who has no intent to defraud a consumer.

An express (or even an implied) warranty has a cost, a price and a value. Given equivalent capabilities, in a court of American law, a strong case could be made that at their recent prices when compared to equivalent Nikon and Canon lenses, a consumer should have had no expectation of implied warranty beyond the express 1 Year Warranty.

No need to get testy. I never said you were wrong, just not accurate. Warranty = express warranty (1yr for Pentax) + implied warranty of merchantability (# of years reasonable buyer of high-end lens would expect the lens to not fall apart on them – little exaggerated to make a point) + implied warranty of fitness (lens can take picture).

Ok, so, me buying a FA31mm and get 1 year express warranty (contract between Pentax and me @ POS) . . . 1 year + 1 sec later . . . FA31mm falls apart in 2 pieces. Am I screwed legally?? Probably not – a reasonable buyer of lens of this caliber would expect the “best AF lens ever made” to last 4-5 years, at the minimum.

Can I yell at Pentax to get the lens fixed under the express warranty? Nope, they would say, sorry your lens is out of warranty. Can I get the lens fixed under implied warranty of merchantability? Probably yes. But can I really get Pentax to budge? Probably not. What can I do – sue Pentax and Ricoh? Can I make a good argument in a US court? Probably yes. Will I ever bring Ricoh to court over a single FA31mm? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

So at the end, Pentax provides me with a sub-standard warranty that’s far too short of what a reasonable buyer would expect, and gets away with it because no one in the real world would sue Ricoh for breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

Side note, no need to bring Constitution into the discussion, this is a state law question, and has nothing to do with the fed. You can check out your state's commercial code for details as these implied warranty concepts have long been codified.

[monochrome]

Of course an individual won't sue over a single lens. For there to be real liability there would need to be intent to defraud, which would allow for the formation of a Class and resultant actions. Thus any discussion of serviceability and marketability over and above the express warranty is semantics in the case of an FA Limited.

A better example might be the reported problems with the SDM design in early 16~50's and 50~135's. Even there I think it would be a challenge to demonstrate intent, though serviceability of an individual item (and resultant loss of secondary marketability of the entire range of product) due to a design defect might warrant a class settlement.

Frankly, many of us are surprised that Pentax didn't voluntarily offer some sort of accommodation in SDM failure cases. It would have been good business - but Hoya had no vested interest in the long-term reputation of Pentax.

The truly mysterious aspect of the current channel pricing tactics is that MSRP would include an expectation that beyond a year a consumer is on his own. I expect once the acquired stockof inventory is exhausted Ricoh will rework and reissue the entire line with some tweak, call it DAxx/yyII (manufactured using a better-controlled process to reduce potential defects), offer a better warranty and charge the current prices.

In the interim the pricing change is about policing the gray market.

As to the 4 frames of law, I merely wanted to illustrate the place of common law. I am perpetually astonished that an individual can assert a claim of implied anything that was not expressly agreed at the time of purchase. None of this is a right - it is nothing more than the accumulated precedent of case law over time, as adjudicated in the past, under different circumstances.

[ElJamoquio]

Explanation of warranties.... TODAY ON PENTAX COURT!!!!!!

[glanglois]

I don't have my warranty docs (home or business) at hand but I recall that some explicitly deny warranty for merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Now .... the weight of that denial undoubtedly varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I would expect that some states, we'll begin with California, will not uphold those exceptions, even if clearly stated in the warranty contract. That warranty is a contract of adhesion (not negotiable, issued on a take it or leave it basis) and can be more readily set aside, e.g., by statute.

Well, then. That's enough thinking for one day. Pubs are open .....

[glanglois]

Well, that depends on the size of the cat Ricoh have in the game. Some cats, on being released, take one look at the pigeons and race straight back inside the bag, thoroughly intimidated. And pigeons with Nikon five-year warranties are big mofos which hunt in packs. There's not much point in half measures here. I reckon Ricoh should come along with a big bag and let out a lion.

My wife was something of a birder but I don't recall the species "mofo". I'll have to look that up later.

In other and unrelated news, my comment about cats and pigeons was referring to the flurry of posts that I thought monochrome's exposition would generate. I was wrong; it generated a reasonable discussion with none of the recent hysteria and hand wringing about Ned and prices. Nice!

[Blue]

My wife was something of a birder but I don't recall the species "mofo". I'll have to look that up later.

In other and unrelated news, my comment about cats and pigeons was referring to the flurry of posts that I thought monochrome's exposition would generate. I was wrong; it generated a reasonable discussion with none of the recent hysteria and hand wringing about Ned and prices. Nice!

Ned has gone back into hibernation or since its summer, aestivation.

[monochrome]

the flurry of posts that I thought monochrome's exposition would generate. I was wrong; it generated a reasonable discussion with none of the recent hysteria and hand wringing about Ned and prices

Not quite sure what to think about my implied reputation . All I've ever wanted is for people to think rationally about what they ask from from Pentax and what they are willing to pay for those things - and to offer some explanation of what Pentax Ricoh might be doing.

I still beleive the monkeys are on Ned's and John's backs. Execute and they are heroes; else they are goats.

I think six months from April 1st is reasonable, after which time I, too, will lose patience with these prices. Until then let's see what they come up with.

[glanglois]

Monochrome, I was not questioning your motives or your implied reputation. Not a bit.

I was, instead, commenting upon the level of heat (as opposed to light) that sometimes gets generated in this thread, even from well-reasoned posts like yours.

I will now take some sort of vow that I should avoid being obtuse. Unless, of course, it looks as if it would be fun ....

[monochrome]

Monochrome, I was not questioning your motives or your implied reputation. Not a bit.

I was, instead, commenting upon the level of heat (as opposed to light) that sometimes gets generated in this thread, even from well-reasoned posts like yours.

I will now take some sort of vow that I should avoid being obtuse. Unless, of course, it looks as if it would be fun ....

I'll see your obtuse and raise you an obscure

I trust you did see the . Coming from you I wasn't too concerned. Most of the time I try to find a reason to be happy with Pentax or at least make some sort of positive contribution, but I know I can also be an arrogant SOB. And don't let me get started on Ricoh's plan again.

[Aristophanes]

Manufacturer got paid....once...so will typically offer to cover factory flaws without issue for the customer they got the money from. They get nothing from the used product buyer, so there should be no problem with them owing him the same. Manufacturers are in business to make money, primarily by selling new product. Of course they can also make money servicing that products for a fee. And if there was money in guaranteeing used gear (sell more new acessories or whatnot) then they would do it.

Want a warranty? Then do the right and rather simple thing and buy new.

Warranty is a function of both common and state law. It replaces caveat emptor (buyer takes the risk).

Many jurisdictions apply a warranty through the common law on all new products. This is known as an implied warranty where the court can draw on case law to state whether a product should come with a warranty regardless of what the manufacturer states in the sales agreement. This is akin to not being liable for contracting our negligence (you cannot). An express warranty is a separate contract, like the one that comes with most electronics devices. All warranties replacing caveat emptor rely on a corresponding sales agreement.

Warranties are not privy to the original purchaser under most common law jurisidictions (and the US Commercial Code also adds provisions). Some jurisdictions have very strong, mandatory warranty provisions in Sale of Goods Acts or similar, even for used equipment. The most famous statuary warranties are the automobile "lemon laws".

[m8o]

Funny, I thought the definition of the "S" in "MSRP" is something very different than I'm reading in the OP!

[Kunzite]

Rfc 4975?

[glanglois]

In a strange turn of events, I was thinking this week I needed to learn about IM and SMS in session mode in the context of Next Gen 9-1-1 (1-1-2 for you, I think) services that require a session to exist so caller and a specific call taker can "stay connected" over the course of the emergency. Thanks, Kunzite!

[Kunzite]

Any time