The funny thing is that the warranty contract (what counts in court) details the faults covered, the remedies, and the limits under which it will be offered. (The word "warrant", after all, simply means an official statement promising action.) Where statute applies (assuming statutes exist) is when the warranty contract was offered in bad faith or where there is statute with provision for reasonable service life for expected purpose. Bad faith is difficult to assign unless there is evidence that the conditions of the contract make it difficult if not impossible to pursue remedy or if the nature of the fault itself creates an "out" for the manufacturer. Failure of weather seals may fall into that latter category.

Breach of warranty is when the seller does not honor the warranty contract (i.e. does not provide remedy for fault as defined in the contract). As you noted, the statute of limitations does not extend the contract, but does determine the period of time within which a complaint may be made. Problems that occur outside the provisions of the warranty contract might still be remedied by the manufacturer, but as a matter of good will outside of contractual obligation.

Implied warranty is the notion of reasonable service life and suitability for purpose. A good example might be that a boat should float and should be reasonably durable to that task over time. If the boat fails as a snow sled or sinks after being crushed under a breaching whale, no reasonable person would assume bad faith on the part of the maker. However, if the hull materials have been shown to dissolve slowly when exposed to water resulting in physical harm to passengers, that would be another matter.

As for the reported secondary mirror issues, an implied warranty might be applicable unless the camera is close to or beyond a reasonable service life. For sake of argument, that might be considered as three or five years of professional use in much the same sense as a computer of copy machine for business.


Steve

SteveBrot:

That's the error I was referring to - people thinking that the Magnussen-Moss Warranty Enforcement Act covers the field and rewrites state law governing warranties - it does not, which is why the implied warranty (which is not a contractual term, by the way, it's only enforceable against the mfgr.) will always state that you may have other rights which vary from state to state. At least where I am, in Virginia, the common law has only been modified by those provisions of the UCC which have been enacted in Va. (And, by the way, in law school I did a lot of advanced study in commercial paper, and litigated such issues for the past thirty years, so I flatter myself that I have more than a clue about this stuff.)

[bwDraco]

Okay guys, sorry for the late reply... The camera came back with the mirror cleaned. Precision said that they did not find any delamination.

However, I am seeing faint bubbles of the same kind appear again gradually upon close inspection. The pattern of bubbles is the same as before, which would indicate delamination.

Any ideas?

Draco

[labidas]

It just shows how "seriously" some people take the issue - "if it's gone after wiping, it haz to be dust yo"
I hope they didn't charge you money for the "repair".

I think we'll just have to accept the fact we have to swipe our submirrors every month until we get a new camera. (...any year now Ricoh.)
On the other hand, these bubbles don't seem to interfere with the focusing that much. I didn't notice any benefit to my focusing after swiping. (or swiping the bubbles away doesn't help - the damage is done and here to stay, idk)
Just have to live with it.

[stevebrot]

Any ideas?

Tell them that the cleaning did not work and that the spots are coming back. Question...Is the area around the edges improved as well?


Steve

[bwDraco]

The edges did improve.

Sadly, I am past the 90-day repair warranty period. I may have to pay for a second repair. I'll see what I can do about this.

Draco

[twilhelm]

The edges did improve.

Sadly, I am past the 90-day repair warranty period. I may have to pay for a second repair. I'll see what I can do about this.

Draco

Since they didn’t “repair” anything, I would at minimum open a claim with them. You requested a repair, they decided a repair wasn’t necessary, and the problem has returned.

Good luck