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...
Originally posted by stevebrot 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.
Originally posted by stevebrot ...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)