Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-23-2016, 07:39 PM   #16
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,924
Why would the Province do anything. These are civil court actions.

It has nothing to do with Ricoh Japan. It has everything to do with Ricoh having a business license registered under Joint Stocks in Nova Scotia and having a civil small claims action against them and consumer protection laws that gives consumers the right to a warranty on any good regardless of whatever language or territoriality Ricoh/Pentax writes on a card and puts in a box.

And if you want tough warranties, try Kansas...

QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Are you telling us that the Province of Nova Scotia is going to strong-arm Ricoh Japan and/or the Japanese seller on warranty issues? Remember that Ricoh already offers warranty to anyone willing to ship the camera across the ocean.

Pipe dreams...I didn't know that stuff was legal up there...


Steve


---------- Post added 06-24-16 at 12:11 AM ----------

Not accurate.

Ricoh Imaging NA is part of the conglomerate (wholly owned in fact) of its Japanese parent. They are Joint Stock registered in probably every Canadian Province with that info (and are here in Nova Scotia...just looked it up).

Ricoh is listed as an extraterritorial (non-Canadian) entity with a gent named KAZUO TOGASHI as the Director of ops from New Jersey, in fact, and a Canadian office in Mississauga. All of which is listed as a subsidiary of Ricoh (Tokyo, Japan) which is stated on the Ontario listing.

So, Ricoh has a domestic presence in the jurisdiction with a direct "controlling mind" (to use the legal term of art) right back to HQ. They are wholly owned. Ricoh International is the sole shareholder. Ricoh International is the sole supplier of their manufactured products. Here is Ricoh Canada's official blurb:
Ricoh Company Ltd., is an international leader in the document management and image communication industry. With a distinguished presence worldwide, our offices weave throughout the globe from Japan to the Americas and from Europe to Africa, the Middle East and Asia, employing 108,000 people in 390 locations.
Hardly "arm's length".

So your claim that Ricoh NA has "no liability" is not true at all. It is not whether they "sell" the item through whatever channels. It is dependent on whether they are part of the same company that manufactured it. Warranty law is primarily a manufacturer liability, not a sales liability. That is because a defect in manufacture can be a tort and not a breach of contract. That is precisely why companies print warranties along with receipts as separate documents, contingent upon the other. They incur different legal remedies based on different common law and regulatory burdens.

A lot of warranty law goes back to safety liability where one cannot simply transfer liability based on chain of distribution. Personal injury liability and torts go straight to the factory floor and ownership there. Witness Takata airbags and Toyota's CEO apologizing to the US Senate about a decade ago (necessarily, it turned out). This applies to everything from tainted blood to Tylenol to Chipotle. You'll see the term "safe use and enjoyment" nowadays. If it breaks imperilling either....well....it broke. I recall a ski binding case from decades ago where the company tried to argue that warranty did not extend to safety. Nope. It broke. Manufacturer defect. The consequences of whether it interrupted enjoyment ("Darn ski binding") versus safety ("It broke. My leg broke") starts with the factory warranting (guaranteeing) a functional, well-made, product.

I should point out that the joint and several liability for warranty between factory and seller is also to protect the sales office. It's a form of safe harbor for them to avoid being the last in the chain when the music stops. Many (many, many, many) times a reseller has sued a manufacturer as a third party to a consumer complaint against a manufacturer, riding the warranty (or negligence...often rolled together) claim. Auto dealers have sued their brands under such provisions because in those cases the relationship is of variable arm's length.

QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
...meaning that the courts can act if they have jurisdiction, which in the case of both the manufacturer and the seller, they don't.

It may not be clear, but Ricoh Imaging NA (both U.S. and Canada) is not an agent of Ricoh Imaging Japan and have no liability for product they did not sell. They are distributors and enjoy an arm's length relationship with the parent company.

That being said, your observation regarding the $50 fee for out of region product as a gesture of goodwill is well-put and accurate and a good example of a more generous approach by Ricoh Imaging NA than in the not so distant past.


Steve

(...check out the strict "no gray market" policy for Ricoh/Pentax Australia if you want to see stern language...https://pentax.com.au/support/parallel-grey-imports)


06-24-2016, 06:05 AM   #17
Pentaxian
dcshooter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Washington DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,673
Ricoh Americas/Ricoh Canada and the parent Ricoh company who do the manufacturing are wholly-owned, independently constituted corporate entities with their own operations and service contracts. The warranty service contracts with Precision/whomever Ricoh Canada uses are negotiated by the subsidiaries themselves and bind only those subsidiaries.

Buying a good from a different independent subsidiary gives you no privity or right of action against your home market subsidiary, nor does it oblige the subsidiary with whom you have no business relationship to accept a return or provide warranty service under their service contract. Even under strong provincial consumer guarantees existing beyond the terms of the written warranty, the buyer's rights vis a vis a products liability case would exist against the parent manufacturer, not the independent local subsidiary with whom the buyer did not do business, and Ricoh (the parent manufacturer) would completely fulfill its obligations under both the sales contract warranty and the law by simply saying "for warranty service, return the item to the authorized repair center for the region in which the camera was purchased as indicated in the warranty," i.e. Japan. Which is exactly what they do in situations like this and what the OP is trying to do an end run around.

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Why would the Province do anything. These are civil court actions.

It has nothing to do with Ricoh Japan. It has everything to do with Ricoh having a business license registered under Joint Stocks in Nova Scotia and having a civil small claims action against them and consumer protection laws that gives consumers the right to a warranty on any good regardless of whatever language or territoriality Ricoh/Pentax writes on a card and puts in a box.

And if you want tough warranties, try Kansas...



---------- Post added 06-24-16 at 12:11 AM ----------

Not accurate.

Ricoh Imaging NA is part of the conglomerate (wholly owned in fact) of its Japanese parent. They are Joint Stock registered in probably every Canadian Province with that info (and are here in Nova Scotia...just looked it up).

Ricoh is listed as an extraterritorial (non-Canadian) entity with a gent named KAZUO TOGASHI as the Director of ops from New Jersey, in fact, and a Canadian office in Mississauga. All of which is listed as a subsidiary of Ricoh (Tokyo, Japan) which is stated on the Ontario listing.

So, Ricoh has a domestic presence in the jurisdiction with a direct "controlling mind" (to use the legal term of art) right back to HQ. They are wholly owned. Ricoh International is the sole shareholder. Ricoh International is the sole supplier of their manufactured products. Here is Ricoh Canada's official blurb:
Ricoh Company Ltd., is an international leader in the document management and image communication industry. With a distinguished presence worldwide, our offices weave throughout the globe from Japan to the Americas and from Europe to Africa, the Middle East and Asia, employing 108,000 people in 390 locations.
Hardly "arm's length".

So your claim that Ricoh NA has "no liability" is not true at all. It is not whether they "sell" the item through whatever channels. It is dependent on whether they are part of the same company that manufactured it. Warranty law is primarily a manufacturer liability, not a sales liability. That is because a defect in manufacture can be a tort and not a breach of contract. That is precisely why companies print warranties along with receipts as separate documents, contingent upon the other. They incur different legal remedies based on different common law and regulatory burdens.

A lot of warranty law goes back to safety liability where one cannot simply transfer liability based on chain of distribution. Personal injury liability and torts go straight to the factory floor and ownership there. Witness Takata airbags and Toyota's CEO apologizing to the US Senate about a decade ago (necessarily, it turned out). This applies to everything from tainted blood to Tylenol to Chipotle. You'll see the term "safe use and enjoyment" nowadays. If it breaks imperilling either....well....it broke. I recall a ski binding case from decades ago where the company tried to argue that warranty did not extend to safety. Nope. It broke. Manufacturer defect. The consequences of whether it interrupted enjoyment ("Darn ski binding") versus safety ("It broke. My leg broke") starts with the factory warranting (guaranteeing) a functional, well-made, product.

I should point out that the joint and several liability for warranty between factory and seller is also to protect the sales office. It's a form of safe harbor for them to avoid being the last in the chain when the music stops. Many (many, many, many) times a reseller has sued a manufacturer as a third party to a consumer complaint against a manufacturer, riding the warranty (or negligence...often rolled together) claim. Auto dealers have sued their brands under such provisions because in those cases the relationship is of variable arm's length.

Last edited by dcshooter; 06-24-2016 at 06:10 AM.
06-24-2016, 10:33 AM   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,924
Almost all (I think Louisiana is excepted) warranty legislation under consumer protection laws requires no privity of contract. It is a manufacturer's liability. An implied warranty for a consumer good generally disregards the distribution chain and contract.

The inter- or intra-business or internal organization policies, arrangements, or contracts are irrelevant to the common and statutory rights on consumer under such legislation. The remedy is effectively joint and several.

The US Magnuson-Moss Act is explicit, for example, on who a supplier is, and the chain is always to the original manufacturer.

The Trane case I mentioned earlier had a part sourced from a non-authorized reseller. Didn't matter to the judge. Trane was liable regardless of their "independent" relationship. So their Canadian arm got stuck with the bill for a part manufactured by Trane but distributed outside their private chain. Too bad, so sad. Privity was no defence nor could it have been. Implied warranty and product liability do NOT require privity of contract. US Federal law (Moss) focusses on the "supplier" but not state nor provincial law. They go after both, and most Canadian Federal common law does as well (and Quebec).

As I've been trying to explain, product liability warranties under regulatory regimes are not contractually dependent. An implied warranty is a creation of statute and requires no privity of contract. Another way of putting it is it is not up to the consumer to verify warranty based on a supply chain they are unaware of. We know this because the warranties are buried in small print in the box, available ONLY after transaction and possession. All that "binding" you speak of below is not material to the consumer because they were not aware of it prior to opening the box after the sale is complete. Hence implied warranties being written into legislation and broadly, locally interpreted by the courts. In general the courts are very sympathetic to a local purchaser who can find a local target representing the original manufacturer. There's some interesting case law on the validity of whether those express, written warranties are even enforceable under many implied warranty statutes. A lot of them contain unenforceable and nonsensical puffery language.


QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
Ricoh Americas/Ricoh Canada and the parent Ricoh company who do the manufacturing are wholly-owned, independently constituted corporate entities with their own operations and service contracts. The warranty service contracts with Precision/whomever Ricoh Canada uses are negotiated by the subsidiaries themselves and bind only those subsidiaries.

Buying a good from a different independent subsidiary gives you no privity or right of action against your home market subsidiary, nor does it oblige the subsidiary with whom you have no business relationship to accept a return or provide warranty service under their service contract. Even under strong provincial consumer guarantees existing beyond the terms of the written warranty, the buyer's rights vis a vis a products liability case would exist against the parent manufacturer, not the independent local subsidiary with whom the buyer did not do business, and Ricoh (the parent manufacturer) would completely fulfill its obligations under both the sales contract warranty and the law by simply saying "for warranty service, return the item to the authorized repair center for the region in which the camera was purchased as indicated in the warranty," i.e. Japan. Which is exactly what they do in situations like this and what the OP is trying to do an end run around.
06-24-2016, 10:52 AM   #19
Pentaxian
pete-tarmigan's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Conception Bay South, New-fun-land
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,019
I have the impression that the manufacturers' practise of telling the consumer that a product bought in another jurisdiction has to be shipped back to the retailer or service centre in that jurisdiction was to discourage the grey market and discourage consumers from shopping abroad. This seems to be intended to protect authorized retailers and distributors from being undercut by unauthorized ones. It's understandable that the manufacturers want to protect their authorized retailers and distributors, otherwise those retailers and distributors would soon refuse to sell the manufacturers' products. If the manufacturers' liability is implied, what protection do the authorized distributors and retailers have from being undercut, and what protection do the manufacturers have from losing their networks of authorized distributors and retailers?

---------- Post added 24th Jun 2016 at 15:55 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
A lot of them contain unenforceable and nonsensical puffery language.
I had to check the dictionary to see whether puffery is a real word.

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, camera from japnaese, company, dslr, ebay, factory, japan, law, manufacturer, manufacturers, pentax, pentax camera, photography, protection, province, retailers, ricoh, safety, warranty
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ebay: New DA 20-40mm limited for $650, seller: prodigital2000 seventysixersfan Pentax Price Watch 6 08-03-2015 11:50 AM
$2,500 U.S Ebay authorized seller: Pentax HD PENTAX D FA 150-450mm f/4.5-5.6 DC AW Stavri Pentax Price Watch 7 05-13-2015 06:33 AM
Handling a seller on eBay -- jadedrakerider Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 12 08-28-2014 01:26 PM
eBay seller prodigital2000 rparmar General Talk 44 09-01-2011 08:33 PM
123easyship eBay Seller omega leader Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 06-03-2010 12:30 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:09 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top