The meaning of reasonableness is different depending on whether you are looking from the consumer or the suppliers point of view. That’s probably my point in a nutshell, I believe the legislation is written from the point of view of what a typical consumer would think is reasonable.
As a consumer if I have a product which has failed in an unreasonably short timeframe then I wouldn’t think it reasonable for the supplier to want to charge me to find out what went wrong with their faulty product. From the link it appears the supplier can get away with charging for inspecting the product but only if they notified you this was their policy when you bought the product. Not sure how many suppliers do this, guess it might count if it is in the fineprint. Think I might do some work now ;-) David. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jolyon Smith Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2012 2:51 p.m. To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List Subject: Re: [DUG] [Off Topic]Warranty expired I had the same thought about it not being Friday myself! LOL I'm pretty sure I've seen it before when looking into this stuff, but upon looking for it all I found was this: http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/for-consumers/goods/warranties It does seem perfectly reasonable (there's that word again) that if someone is going to claim that something has gone wrong in a way that it shouldn't have, that they establish that this is in fact the case.
_______________________________________________ NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list Post: [email protected] Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi Unsubscribe: send an email to [email protected] with Subject: unsubscribe
