andynormancx;431382 Wrote:
Sure you do and you also appear to have federal regulations on how
bicycles should be put together:
http://tinyurl.com/koqrfz
Handbrakes shall be tested at least ten times by applying a force
sufficient to cause the handlever to contact the handlebar, or a
Many of you have very strong opinions, and yet don't seem (from your
comments) to understand these issues very well.
andynormancx;431381 Wrote:
Am I right in saying that in the US, under the law, that the consumer
bears pretty much all of the risk of faulty products (excluding any
extra
andynormancx;431381 Wrote:
Am I right in saying that in the US, under the law, that the consumer
bears pretty much all of the risk of faulty products (excluding any
extra cover that some manufacturers may choose to give) ?
Yup. Sounds harsh compared to the EU consumer warranty /
Goodsounds;431415 Wrote:
Many of you have very strong opinions, and yet don't seem (from your
comments) to understand these issues very well.
In practice, I would say that this comment is mostly not correct. One
can get stung with a problem just after a warranty period ends, but
usually
andynormancx;431578 Wrote:
I didn't ask what happens in practice. I very clear ask who bears the
risk under the law in the US. As far as I am aware the retailer and
manufacturer has very little responsibilities to replace/repair faulty
goods. Am I mistaken ?
Your question is really not
Interesting now - DABS have responded with:
Under the sales of goods act, the onus is on the customer to prove
that the item is faulty. This called 'reversal of burden of proof'.
Under this law, you would need to provide sufficient evidence in terms
of an inherent fault report, either from the
the EU is nuts, this is the kind of thing you get when you centralize
and socialize gov't and invest power in it rather than individuals. i
heard the EU has rules and regs for evey possible thing under the sun.
the example that struck me was specs for brake pad thickness or
something like that
Gooner;431149 Wrote:
Interesting now - DABS have responded with:
Under the sales of goods act, the onus is on the customer to prove
that the item is faulty. This called 'reversal of burden of proof'.
Under this law, you would need to provide sufficient evidence in terms
of an inherent
MrSinatra;431160 Wrote:
the EU is nuts, this is the kind of thing you get when you centralize
and socialize gov't and invest power in it rather than individuals. i
heard the EU has rules and regs for evey possible thing under the sun.
the example that struck me was specs for brake pad
To my knowledge the EU regulation states a minimum of 2 years to make a
claim. An error the first 6 months after delivery is assumed to have
been present at the time of delivery unless the seller can prove that it
was not the case - so this is like a warranty. After the 6 months the
burdon of
If this thread can help you make your case, then here is some data from
an owner of 6 SB systems over a period of 7 years. I have a SliMP3, a
SB1G, three SB3s, and a Duet system. All of them work flawlessly, and
the only problem I ever had was that 2 months after I bought the SB1G,
the display
Gooner;429473 Wrote:
My issue here is not that I need to replace this particular SB3 as I
already have. It actually failed around the 2 year mark and that means
basic cost of ownership was around £100 per annum.
I expected it to last longer.
Now, the law (which I didn't define) states
Letten;431208 Wrote:
Sure they can, but most of this kind of regulation is actually driven by
the wish to create the single market (like the US). I havn't heard about
breaking pads, but as it is a safety item I wouldn't be surprised if it
was true that they need to meet certain
Is the EU just becoming a Federal Government? Possibly an equivalent to
the USA but with only 24 states so far?
The United States of Europe!
Hmmm
--
bobertuk
1 x Duet - SC 7.3.3 - SSOTS v3.17
Lavry DA-10 DAC
QNAP TS-509 3.1.0 b529T
Starfish Pre-amp : Based on NAIM
Heavily modified NAIM
iPhone;431266 Wrote:
This does nothing to sort out bad products, all it does is put the
person with the consumer's best interest at heart in an unattainable
position. Another moronic law! The manufactur should be the one named in
this law. That way they bear the cost, can either offer a
MrSinatra;431299 Wrote:
btw, we also ride bicycles.
Sure you do and you also appear to have federal regulations on how
bicycles should be put together:
http://tinyurl.com/koqrfz
Handbrakes shall be tested at least ten times by applying a force
sufficient to cause the handlever to contact
peterw;429300 Wrote:
MP3 sampling artifacts pumped straight in the neurons would be so LAME.
Maybe I've certifiably lost it...but I thought this was
hysterical...like snorting+laughing hystericalLOL
Nice one!!
--
Keymaster
andynormancx;431381 Wrote:
And there lays the heart of the problem with making a law to force the
manufacturer to cover a long statuary warranty period. How on earth does
the consumer get some random manufacturer in China pay up when something
fails 6 months after purchase ?
In fact for
andynormancx;431382 Wrote:
Sure you do and you also appear to have federal regulations on how
bicycles should be put together:
http://tinyurl.com/koqrfz
Handbrakes shall be tested at least ten times by applying a force
sufficient to cause the handlever to contact the handlebar, or a
iPhone;429434 Wrote:
Europe wants it all. The lowest price and if it fails after the warranty
but before I think it should I want a free one. At the most if the law
even made a little sense you should only receive fair market value for a
3 year old used SB3. Did I mention it's electronics.
From what I understand about this process, it is not enough to show that
many SB3s are still running after 3 years. A retailer has no
responsibility to replace a product that has simply reached the end of
its life, even if the life of your particular SB3 is shorter than
average. You would need to
seanadams;429442 Wrote:
So I hardly see how it's fair that a retailer, who if they're doing well
has collected perhaps 20-30% on the whole deal, should be liable for the
full value of the product ages after they've sold it.
I'm not defending this law, but playing devil's advocate for a
jo-wie;429466 Wrote:
The point is, in the first 6 month it is supposed that the fault do
already exist when the unit was delivered and the reseller has to prove
if not. That's easy for the customer. But for the rest of the time the
customer has to prove that the fault do already exist during
My issue here is not that I need to replace this particular SB3 as I
already have. It actually failed around the 2 year mark and that means
basic cost of ownership was around £100 per annum.
I expected it to last longer.
Now, the law (which I didn't define) states that the supplier, not
seanadams;429442 Wrote:
If the UK really wants this kind of coverage built in to every product
that is sold there, then people are effectively saying they want to be
forcibly charged for an extended warranty with every purchase -
because that's the only way that this policy could be
I bought my original SB2 back in 2005 and it worked flawlessly until Nov
last year when it just died one evening.
Fortunately it was only the power supply - so a £5 replacement original
supply from Patrick at At-tunes got me up and running again.
My Duet, Receivers and Boom are less than a year
andynormancx;429498 Wrote:
In the UK you can take a small claims court action just by filling in
forms online and paying as little as £25. People rarely do though. Most
of the people I do know who have taken an action against a large company
won, simply because the company didn't bother to
nwplace;429538 Wrote:
You should bear in mind that if the other party does bother to turn and
wins the case then you may be liable to some or all of their costs at
the discretion of the court.
Which is why having such vague terms and ambiguity is just plain silly!
:)
--
toby10
seanadams;429442 Wrote:
So I hardly see how it's fair that a retailer, who if they're doing
well has collected perhaps 20-30% on the whole deal, should be liable
for the full value of the product ages after they've sold it.
They're not liable for the full value. The law is vague but it
andynormancx wrote:
toby10;429283 Wrote:
Maybe some details on your situation would result in some more
insightful responses.
I think the SB3's have a 2 yr mfr warranty. I'm guessing DABS is a
reseller of SB players? Not sure why they would be involved past a
possible 30 day return
peter;429580 Wrote:
andynormancx wrote:
toby10;429283 Wrote:
Maybe some details on your situation would result in some more
insightful responses.
I think the SB3's have a 2 yr mfr warranty. I'm guessing DABS is a
reseller of SB players? Not sure why they would be involved past
Hello everyone.
I'm interested in views as to how many years I could expect a
Squeezebox to function fault free.
If you own one of these, could you let me know how long you've had it
and whether it continues to work :)
This is in relation to a dispute I'm having with DABS.COM
All input
My oldest is an original Squeezebox dating back to 2003. It works just
fine and has never had a problem. I also have Squeezebox 2 from 2005 and
Duet I purchased sometime in 2008. I have had no problems with any of
them.
--
stevek1006
-Steve
--
Steven Kramer
How long is a piece of string? Don't forget, we're talking about a
computer product so I certainly wouldn't expect 20++ years like other
appliances. My SB3 is three years old and no problems yet. I don't have
any reason not to see why it wouldn't double that easily and possibly
make 10 years
I have an SB2 purchased when it was released in 05 which continues to
work well and my better half is still running his original SB purchased
in 03/04.
As already noted, there are people still running the SLIMP3 (first
released in 2001) quite happily.
SB products do fail (wireless card issues,
I'm interested in views as to how many years I could expect a
Squeezebox to function fault free.
I'm still using my SliMP3 from 2003.
--
Michael
___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
Thanks for your feedback so far. This all sounds positive and helps my
case. If anyone else has a squeezebox classic, please let me know how
long you've had it and if it continues to function.
Thanks
Simon
--
Gooner
2 Classics, 2 years old each, and my brother has a pair as well, maybe a
year older.
No issues at all. Nothing but goodness =).
Best of luck!
--
Keymaster
Keymaster's Profile:
Electronic devices that have no moving parts and generate no (or very
little) heat can last almost forever. I have had a classic for 5 years
with no problems.
--
agillis
rip, tag, get cover art
All you do is insert the CD!
http://vortexbox.org
agillis
Lead Developer VortexBox
Gooner;429235 Wrote:
Thanks for your feedback so far. This all sounds positive and helps my
case. If anyone else has a squeezebox classic, please let me know how
long you've had it and if it continues to function.
Thanks
Simon
Also have 2 Classics (what I would call the SB3). Both
3 Classics, all purchased before the Logitech takeover, all running
fine. No display burn in or any other issues.
--
sc53
sc53's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8690
View this thread:
Both my SB3's (now the classic) were bought in early 2006, both going
scrong.
My SB2, SB and SliMP3 all still work too.
--
funkstar
my collection:
*1*x boom
*2*x controller, *1*x receiver
*2*x sb3 (sliver/black, *1*x sb2 wired (silver), *1*x sb (black)
*1*x slimp3 (with rear shield)
I bought all my squeezeboxen shortly after they were released. I've had
some problems with the original squeezebox (not Classic) but not with
other models.
2 SLIMP3s - no problems since original purchase
3 Squeezebox 1s - 1 VFD display died about 1.5 years after purchase,
replacement part
Gooner;429226 Wrote:
If you own one of these, could you let me know how long you've had it
and whether it continues to work :)
This is in relation to a dispute I'm having with DABS.COM
I have an SB2 bought in April 2005 which has never missed a beat.
What's the problem you're having with
Gooner;429235 Wrote:
Thanks for your feedback so far. This all sounds positive and helps my
case. If anyone else has a squeezebox classic, please let me know how
long you've had it and if it continues to function.
All my SBs are fine. The only hardware problems I have had have been
with
Gooner;429226 Wrote:
Hello everyone.
I'm interested in views as to how many years I could expect a
Squeezebox to function fault free.
If you own one of these, could you let me know how long you've had it
and whether it continues to work :)
This is in relation to a dispute I'm having
Like most solid state products, Squeezebox products have a bathtub
curve reliability characteristic. This means if you're going to have a
failure it is most likely to occur out-of-the-box (shipping trauma) or
within the first few weeks of ownership (faulty component). After that,
it should last
seanadams;429297 Wrote:
After that, it should last until the DCI (direct cranial implant) MP3
players become available.
MP3? I figured the DCI gear would at least be Red Book PCM quality. MP3
sampling artifacts pumped straight in the neurons would be so LAME.
--
peterw
Gooner wrote:
I'm interested in views as to how many years I could expect a
Squeezebox to function fault free.
I've got three SB-1 from ~2003 that work fine. Plus a Duet, Boom, and
Transporter. I've never had a failure. I've got 25 or more Slim Years of
experience.
--
Pat Farrell
Gooner;429226 Wrote:
Hello everyone.
I'm interested in views as to how many years I could expect a
Squeezebox to function fault free.
If you own one of these, could you let me know how long you've had it
and whether it continues to work :)
This is in relation to a dispute I'm having
Gooner wrote:
Hello everyone.
I'm interested in views as to how many years I could expect a
Squeezebox to function fault free.
If you own one of these, could you let me know how long you've had it
and whether it continues to work :)
This is in relation to a dispute I'm having with
toby10;429283 Wrote:
Maybe some details on your situation would result in some more
insightful responses.
I think the SB3's have a 2 yr mfr warranty. I'm guessing DABS is a
reseller of SB players? Not sure why they would be involved past a
possible 30 day return policy.
Looks like you
Robin Bowes;429316 Wrote:
Simon,
As you're talking about dabs.com and your handle is gooner (Arsenal
fan?) I am assuming you're in the UK?
You might find this interesting:
http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html
R.
Out of curiosity I scanned the
cliveb;429279 Wrote:
What's the problem you're having with DABS? I've done a lot of business
with them and they always seemed pretty reputable to me. I have had
cause to return a couple of items and they never made a fuss.
If you've got a SB that's gone faulty within a year, then they are
Gooner;429326 Wrote:
the scenario is that I bought my SB3 in April 2006, it recently died
i.e. no activity when plugged into the mains.
I since became aware that under uk law, the Sales and Supply of Goods
Act 1994 stipulates that the supplier (not manufacturer) is liable to
either
Goodsounds;429322 Wrote:
Out of curiosity I scanned the linked material - Very interesting.
I'm not a retailer, but I don't think a rule like that would work very
well in the US. I'd be interested to know more about how it works in the
UK.
This would seem to really put sellers in a
cliveb;429331 Wrote:
The problem is that the law is phrased in very vague terms, using
next-to-meaningless terms such as reasonable period. Who gets to
decide what that is? The way I read it, if something goes wrong after 3
years, it's up to the buyer to prove that it hasn't lasted for a
Is it just me or does it seem unreasonable for a government to force a
retailer to guarantee a product for longer than the manufacturer
guarantees it?
--
nolesrule
nolesrule's Profile:
nolesrule;429347 Wrote:
Is it just me or does it seem unreasonable for a government to force a
retailer to guarantee a product for longer than the manufacturer
guarantees it?
For this purpose, no of course I don't!! :)
--
Gooner
nolesrule;429347 Wrote:
Is it just me or does it seem unreasonable for a government to force a
retailer to guarantee a product for longer than the manufacturer
guarantees it?
The law is whatever is enacted. We have a lot of laws that are puzzling
to some people too. How about the remnants of
Gooner wrote:
Hello everyone.
I'm interested in views as to how many years I could expect a
Squeezebox to function fault free.
If you own one of these, could you let me know how long you've had it
and whether it continues to work :)
This is in relation to a dispute I'm having with
Goodsounds;429351 Wrote:
The law is whatever is enacted. We have a lot of laws that are puzzling
to some people too. How about the remnants of prohibition and the blue
laws that still exist in the US? Complete nonsense.
American civil law tends to be a bit more hands-off and what may be
cliveb;429331 Wrote:
The problem is that the law is phrased in very vague terms, using
next-to-meaningless terms such as reasonable period. Who gets to
decide what that is? The way I read it, if something goes wrong after 3
years, it's up to the buyer to prove that it hasn't lasted for a
Goodsounds;429322 Wrote:
Out of curiosity I scanned the linked material - Very interesting.
I'm not a retailer, but I don't think a rule like that would work very
well in the US. I'd be interested to know more about how it works in the
UK.
This would seem to really put sellers in a
i think i got my SB2 in oct 05. so far still works.
--
MrSinatra
www.lion-radio.org
using:
sb2 sbc (my home) / sbr (parent's home) - w/sc 7.3.3b - win xp pro
sp3 ie8 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram - 1tb wd usb2 raid1 - d-link dir-655
Gooner;429335 Wrote:
Totally agree with you except I'd hope it would be reasonably cheap to
go to the small claims court without a lawyer... I'll have to look into
that.
Given that pretty much everyone here, who owns the product, agrees that
the unit should last more than 3 years, I have
This whole thing makes no sense to me. A sane law might say that the
dealer should expected to cover the product during the period where it
is likely to fail. But what we're all telling you is that after a year
or so it is very UNlikely to fail.
So I hardly see how it's fair that a retailer,
67 matches
Mail list logo
