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, 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. In other words, this is an unreasonable law if it's really as you're interpreting it. And I have no skin in the game here, just saying. 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 sustained. -- seanadams ------------------------------------------------------------------------ seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=64114 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
